Legal explainer · LG Bremen 2026
"Online vehicle expert report" — what is legally permitted and what is not
"Online vehicle expert report in 5 minutes, just upload photos" — such promises are multiplying. But is this legally viable at all? The Landgericht Bremen drew clear limits in January 2026. Here is what is permissible, what is not, and what you as the injured party should watch out for.
Direct Answer · LG Bremen 9 O 1720/24 · 16.01.2026
Why this question became important in 2026
Between 2024 and 2026 several providers entered the market promising to deliver a vehicle expert report without any inspection: upload photos, click through a few questions, receive a report within minutes. For injured parties that sounds convenient. The Wettbewerbszentrale (Germany's competition watchdog) considered this misleading advertising and brought proceedings — the Landgericht Bremen ruled in its favour on 16.01.2026.
For you as the injured party this is more than legal fine print: an expert report that the opposing insurance company does not accept puts enforcement of your claims at risk. Anyone evaluating a "kfz-gutachten foto" offer should therefore know exactly where the legal line is drawn.
The LG Bremen ruling (9 O 1720/24) in detail
Following a complaint by the Wettbewerbszentrale, the Landgericht Bremen prohibited a provider from advertising "online Kfz-Gutachten." The court based its ruling on three core arguments:
"The personal inspection of the damaged vehicle is the most fundamental task of a Kfz-Sachverständiger."
- 1Personal inspection cannot be substituted. A Gutachten based solely on photographs or multiple-choice answers is not reliable, because insurers only recognise expert reports prepared on the basis of a personal assessment.
- 2The injured party is not an "auxiliary person" of the expert. An expert may engage auxiliary persons — but the client themselves, merely supplying photographs, does not substitute for the expert's own assessment.
- 3RDG §§ 2, 3: Anyone who advertises "fast, complete settlement with the insurance" without being registered in the Rechtsdienstleistungs-Register violates the Rechtsdienstleistungsgesetz if the impression is created that legal matters of the injured party are being handled.
What is permitted — and what is not?
The line is not drawn between "digital" and "analogue," but at the point of personal inspection. A Kfz-Gutachten without inspection is the problem — not the digital path to get there.
Permitted & appropriate
- Digital order intake and document submission
- Photo pre-check for expert selection and initial damage assessment
- Digital status updates and communication
- Hybrid model: digital workflow + physical on-site inspection (BGH-compliant standard)
Not permissible
- Complete Gutachten based solely on uploaded photographs, without inspection
- Advertising "5-minute Gutachten" or "a photo is enough"
- Multiple-choice answers as a substitute for the expert's own assessment
- "Complete settlement with the insurance" without RDG registration
What you as the injured party should look out for
How Claimondo handles this
The digital part is our process: order intake, status updates, document upload and communication all run online. What must be physical stays physical — every inspection is carried out on-site by a partner expert (Sachverständiger). A vehicle expert report without an on-site inspection does not exist at Claimondo.
We do not provide legal services ourselves: enforcement of your claims is handled by a registered partner law firm. This keeps the platform's brokerage strictly separate from legal services — exactly the separation required by the RDG. The complete process is explained under "How the Claimondo process works". For a comparison of the different brokerage platforms, see the Brokerage platform comparison.
Related rulings and sources
The Bremen ruling does not stand alone. The LG Frankfurt had already prohibited misleading advertising for remote vehicle expert reports. And the BGH, in several landmark decisions, supports injured parties against blanket claim reductions — we have summarised this line of case law on our benefits page
- Wettbewerbszentrale — Press release on the LG Bremen ruling
- IWW Schadenregulierung — Specialist article on the ruling
- Wettbewerbszentrale — LG Frankfurt on remote expert reports
- autohaus.de — "Online vehicle expert reports do not exist"
- anwalt.de — Online accident expert reports without vehicle inspection
Frequently asked questions
Is an "online vehicle expert report" based on photo uploads even prohibited?
Not every digital element is prohibited — but a complete expert report based solely on uploaded photos without a personal vehicle inspection was prohibited by the LG Bremen on 16.01.2026 (Az. 9 O 1720/24) as misleading advertising. The decisive factor is the personal on-site inspection by the Sachverständiger. A photo pre-check for an initial damage assessment remains permissible; an expert report based solely on that does not.
Do insurance companies accept expert reports without an on-site appointment?
Generally not reliably. Insurers recognise Sachverständigen expert reports when they are based on a personal inspection. A vehicle expert report without an on-site inspection risks being rejected by the opposing insurance as insufficiently substantiated — with corresponding risk to your claim settlement.
What happens to my damage claim if I use an inadmissible online expert report?
In the worst case, you will have no reliable evidence available. If the expert report is challenged, repair costs, diminished value (Wertminderung) and further claim items become harder to enforce. Safer is an expert report with a personal on-site inspection that holds up against the insurer and in court.
What is the difference between a "digital expert report" and an "online expert report"?
A digital expert report refers to a digital workflow — online order, photo upload, digital communication — in which the Sachverständiger still personally inspects the vehicle on-site. An "online expert report" in the prohibited sense means one produced solely from submitted photos without any inspection. The former is permissible and standard practice; the latter was objected to by the LG Bremen.
Is the LG Bremen ruling final and binding?
No. The judgment of 16.01.2026 (9 O 1720/24) is, to our knowledge, not yet final. It nonetheless already sets a clear benchmark that reputable providers should follow.
This article is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Stand: 25.05.2026.
Better an expert report that holds up
Personal on-site inspection, digital handling around it. Report a claim or call — online around the clock, by phone until at least 10 pm.