4 Ob 77/23m: what the Austrian Supreme Court decided in 2023

What was the case against incaseof.law about?

The claimant was the Austrian Lawyers’ Association (Österreichischer Rechtsanwaltsverein), an association whose members are lawyers and law firms. It based its action on the Austrian Unfair Competition Act (UWG) and asked the court to prohibit incaseof.law GmbH and its managing director from seven specific practices. In the judgment, these claims are numbered A.1 to A.7.

The case concerned the platform model as it existed at the time. Businesses uploaded unpaid invoices, and software extracted the data and initiated the reminder steps. If these were unsuccessful, the customer could have a connected partner lawyer suggested. There was also a service for legal questions of all kinds. A partner agreement set out the terms for the partner lawyers. It provided for a fixed percentage of the lawyer’s fee as remuneration for incaseof.law.

One standard of review matters for understanding the results. Where a claim is based on the breach of other rules, such as the professional rules for lawyers, the Supreme Court only examines whether the defendant’s legal view is reasonably arguable. If it is, the claim is dismissed without the court deciding definitively how the rule is to be interpreted. In addition, the court only examined the rules the claimant had specifically relied on.

The operative part at a glance: A.1 to A.7

The claimant sought seven injunctions. The overview shows what each claim concerned and how it ended after the Supreme Court’s decision. Two claims were granted, the Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of three after examining them on the merits, and the further appeal on two was inadmissible.

Summary based on the operative part and reasoning of Austrian Supreme Court decision 4 Ob 77/23m of 27 June 2023. Wording of the claims abridged and translated. No legal advice in individual cases.

The operative part also covers publication and costs. The claimant was authorised to publish the part of the judgment granting the claims in the Österreichisches Anwaltsblatt and on its website. incaseof.law had to publish it on its own website for one month. The Supreme Court left the decision on the costs of the proceedings to the court of first instance.

What was prohibited: A.2 and A.5

Two arrangements were prohibited, both concerning the relationship with the connected lawyers: remuneration as a percentage of the lawyer’s fee, and billing lawyers’ fees through incaseof.law with the commission deducted.

A.2: a percentage of the lawyer’s fee

Under § 47(3)(6) of the Austrian Guidelines for the Practice of the Legal Profession (RL-BA 2015), lawyers may not offer or grant benefits for being referred clients. The Supreme Court upheld the prohibition ordered by the Higher Regional Court: in their specific design, the platform’s services went beyond merely providing a platform, and the remuneration was calculated as a flat share of the lawyer’s fee. As these professional rules apply only to lawyers, incaseof.law was liable as a participant in the lawyers’ breach of professional rules.

[T]he remuneration to be paid by the lawyer to the first defendant is moreover not based on the specific services of the first defendant and the expenses it incurred; instead, a fixed percentage of the lawyer’s fee would have to be handed over across the board.

Austrian Supreme Court, 4 Ob 77/23m, para 59 (our translation)

A.5: fee billing with commission deducted

An earlier version of the partner agreement, published online, provided for lawyers’ fees to be paid to incaseof.law first and passed on to the lawyers after deduction of its remuneration. According to the findings, this billing method was never applied in practice and was changed after an intervention by the Upper Austrian Bar Association. The lower courts therefore found no risk of repetition. The Supreme Court disagreed because no enforceable undertaking to cease had been offered and the claim had initially been contested. On the substance, it assessed the billing clause in the same way as the remuneration agreement it was linked to, and prohibited it.

What was dismissed: A.1, A.3 and A.4

For three claims, the Supreme Court upheld the dismissal after examining them on the merits. For A.3 and A.4, it applied the standard of a reasonably arguable legal view.

A.1: the company name

The claimant argued that the company name and the web and email addresses containing “law” were misleading. The Supreme Court found no risk of confusion with a law firm. In the understanding of the businesses addressed, a “legal department on demand” is not a law firm either.

Even in the specific design of the company name or in combination with the trade mark, “law” does not suggest a law firm.

Austrian Supreme Court, 4 Ob 77/23m, para 91 (our translation)

A.3: recommendations to lawyers

The claimant sought to prohibit giving lawyers recommendations for action in the manner of legal advice, or having them generated by machine. According to the Supreme Court, nothing in the model indicated that lawyers were bound by the platform’s considerations, research results or recommendations. It was at least arguable to regard the preparation of research for lawyers as compatible with professional rules.

A.4: communication through the platform

This claim targeted the handling of all correspondence between lawyer and client through the platform unless it was ensured that incaseof.law could not view and analyse it. The Supreme Court considered it at least arguable that a service provider engaged by the lawyer under contract is an assistant who is itself bound by the lawyer’s duty of confidentiality under § 9(2) of the Austrian Lawyers’ Act (RAO). It therefore found no breach of competition law.

A.6 and A.7: no decision on the merits

The Supreme Court did not decide A.6 and A.7 on the merits. Both claims had been dismissed by the Vienna Commercial Court and the Vienna Higher Regional Court. The Supreme Court rejected the claimant’s further appeal against this as inadmissible because the value of each of these claims did not exceed EUR 5,000 (§ 502(2) of the Austrian Code of Civil Procedure, ZPO).

• A.6, information on disciplinary proceedings. The claimant sought to prohibit requiring lawyers to inform incaseof.law of final disciplinary convictions.
• A.7, success rates. The claimant sought to prohibit taking success rates in similar cases into account when selecting lawyers for customers, or advertising that this is done.

The dismissal by the lower courts therefore stands. However, rejecting an appeal as inadmissible is not a decision on the merits: the judgment contains no express statement by the Supreme Court that success rates may be used or advertised when selecting lawyers.

Licence, registration, judgment: three separate questions

The Supreme Court decision is not proof of authorisation. The authority to collect debts in Austria derives from trade law. Work in Germany is based on a separate registration. The decision concerns specific features of the platform model at the time.

In Austria, incaseof.law is registered as a debt collection agency with a trade licence under the Trade Code 1994, in the Gewerbeinformationssystem Austria under GISA number 32140156. incaseof.law GmbH was founded in 2019 and is registered in the commercial register of the Commercial Court of Vienna under FN 505409 z.

In Germany, incaseof.law is registered as a debt collection service provider with the Federal Office of Justice, in the Legal Services Register under number 2024 0000 8388. The same company therefore works in both countries, each on its own regulatory basis. The about us page shows who is behind it.

Gewerbeinformationssystem Austria: GISA 32140156. Commercial register of the Commercial Court of Vienna: FN 505409 z. German Federal Office of Justice, Legal Services Register: 2024 0000 8388. Austrian Supreme Court: decision 4 Ob 77/23m. As of 2026.

What does the decision mean for businesses today?

The decision concerns the platform model as it existed at the time of the proceedings and the seven specific points challenged. It is not a blanket approval of all current services of incaseof.law.

Businesses that hand over a claim today do so under the agreed terms and conditions. The Submit a claim page explains how an invoice is handed over. The guide how collection works in Austria explains the three stages that follow, and the page how digital debt collection works shows the process in detail.

How to check the information yourself

Every statement in this article can be checked in a public database or register. Four reference numbers are needed: the case number of the decision, the GISA number, the German registration number and the commercial register number. The links are in the sources section at the end of the article.

• The decision. Search the judiciary section of the Austrian Legal Information System (RIS) for case number 4 Ob 77/23m. The operative part and reasoning are published there in full.
• The licence in Austria. Enter GISA number 32140156 in the search of the Trade Information System Austria.
• The registration in Germany. Search the Legal Services Register of the Federal Office of Justice for number 2024 0000 8388.
• The company. Look up FN 505409 z in the commercial register of the Commercial Court of Vienna.

What the decision does not cover

Decision 4 Ob 77/23m concerns the seven claims as the claimant worded them and the platform model at the time of the proceedings. It says nothing about how an individual claim will turn out. The existence, amount and enforceability of a specific invoice still depend on the circumstances of the individual case and, where necessary, on the competent court.

The Supreme Court disregarded the claimant’s general assertions that the model breached numerous other, unspecified rules. Nor does the decision replace official authorisation: the trade licence and registration exist independently and are maintained by the competent authorities.

Assessment: a decision on specific points

The Vienna Higher Regional Court allowed a further appeal because there was no case law yet on the extent to which arranging lawyers for a fee via an online platform breaches the professional rules for lawyers. For the design at the time, the Supreme Court prohibited remuneration as a percentage of the lawyer’s fee.

The company name, recommendations and research for lawyers, and communication through the platform were not prohibited. There is no decision on the merits by the Supreme Court on information about disciplinary proceedings or on success rates in lawyer selection. The authoritative text is the decision published in the RIS.

This article summarises a court decision in general and does not replace advice on an individual case.