Telepathic Partner & Contract Law: Düsseldorf Ruling

A current judgment of the Düsseldorf Regional Court of June 6th, 2025 (Az. 9a O 185/24) Removing attention: a self -proclaimed clairvoyant promoted abandoned partners to bring back telepathically – and demanded a price in the desired speed depending on the desired speed five -digit range. The court found this business practice for immoral and thus the contract for void. In the following we summarize the case in an understandable way, explain the legal assessment according to § 138 BGB (Immorality) and provide practical information for providers and consumers.

Facts: Clairvoyant promises partner return for € 13,000

A young mother was left by her partner – the father of her nine -month -old baby – and was in an emotionally desperate situation. In search of help, she came across the website of a clairvoyant on the Internet, who, in addition to classic fortune tellers (hand reading, Tarot, etc.) “Future -shaping” services offered. Among them was in particular the “Telepathic partner return”so the supposed Bring back an ex-partner through energetic-over-the-nature powers. This service was sold in packages-staggered for speed: Whoever the return of the ex-partner within a month wished, should be round 20.000 € pay; at two months became 13.000 € requested, and a waiting time of ten months Was for about 8.000 € on offer.

The woman decided after a short initial consultation (cost point 300 €) for the 2-month package and transferred the requested to the clairvoyant 13.000 €. The provider promised to make a telepathic manner within this period that her ex-partner would knock on her again. But the result failed to materialize: Two months passed without the ex-boyfriend returned-no sign of life, no success. When the customer realized that she obviously led behind the light had become, she turned to the court and asked for her money. Successfully: The Düsseldorf Regional Court made her lawsuit and sentenced the clairvoyant to repay the € 13,000.

Legal assessment by the LG Düsseldorf (§ 138 BGB)

Legally, the case became § 138 BGB measured that moral legal transactions declared void. Improving here means that a business Against the feeling of decency of all cheap and just thinking violated. The LG Düsseldorf classified the contract as such a violation and declared it for immoral and thus ineffective. The clairvoyant Have the vulnerable emotional location the abandoned mother consciously exploitedso the judgesinside. The customer was in a severe life crisis and believed in the promises of the clairvoyant – this made them particularly vulnerable. It is not fundamentally prohibited from purely legally, too objectively “impossible” services contractually agree. But if a party is in such a desperate situation and made emotionally dependent will be, the Standards for immorality* are not set too high.

For underpinning, the LG Düsseldorf referred to the case law of the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) in similar cases. In a case of life advice through card reading, the BGH also accepted an immoral business. He stated that many people who get involved in such services, In a difficult life situation be or gullible, inexperienced or mentally unstableand that in such cases no too high requirements To a violation of the good morals (Section 138 (1) BGB) may. In other words: The threshold of immorality is lower when using emotional emergencies.

Why was the contract considered immoral and void?

Exploitation of an emergency and impossible performance: The court made it clear that the clairvoyant Desperation of the customer shamelessly exploited to his advantage has. The woman was in an emergency and looked for help – the clairvoyant promised her an objectively impossible performance (A return of love brought up a telepathically) and coupled it to an exorbitant high payment. Such a contract violates the good customs because it is on one blatant imbalance based on performance and consideration. In fact, the fee of € 13,000 was in striking mismatch For promised “performance”. The court even noticed that it was hardly possible to set a reasonable price for something that cannot be achieved at all – but With five -digit sums, the limit is clearly exceeded. Here is a close Relatives to usury (Section 138 (2) BGB) before: The desperate location of the customer was exploited to request a completely excessive payment.

Deceptive contract design: The clairvoyant tried to defend himself in court with supposedly Just a general “spiritual life counseling” offered. However, the LG Düsseldorf did not believe him. The customer could crediblethat a partner has been expressly agreed – even the Chat protocol demonstrated the specific package prices from the clairvoyant’s offer. At the hearing, the statements of the participants also confirmed this agreement. The clairvoyant finally claimed that the chat processes were “Manipulated” the court also considered the court to be a absurd protection claim.

Legal consequence – contract void: Since the contract is ineffective due to immorality, exists no obligation to pay. Is already paid without a legal reason and can be reclaimed. That was exactly the case here: In the opinion of the LG Düsseldorf, the contract was void, and the 13.000 € were was paid for no legal reasonso the clairvoyant has to refund you to the customer. It is important: the woman’s claim for recovery was not excluded by legal exceptions. In particular, here § 814 BGB (excludes the recovery if you consciously without fault pays) not: The customer actually believed that the clairvoyant could bring her ex-partner back and therefore thought she was must Pay him for it. So she paid In belief in a valid contract – straight for this reason she was allowed to legally request her money back.

Meaning for providers of spiritual and esoteric services

The verdict is a Clear warning signal to providers of clairvoyance, partner returns, miracle healing and similar esoteric services. Basically Is it unobstructedto offer spiritual or supernatural services against payment – the Freedom of contract leaves a lot of scope, even for services whose effect is not scientifically proven. The Federal Court of Justice made it clear in 2011 that also for services on a paranormal basis In principle, a fee can be agreedas long as both sides are aware that the success cannot be explained rationally. But: As soon as a provider recognizes the Gullibility or emergency a customer exploited and concrete, guaranteed successes by oversicause against high advance payment, he leaves the legally permissible framework. Contracts based on such promises will probably not withstand in court.

In practice this means: Provider of esoteric services should pay attention to honesty and reluctance. Who only General life advice Or offers entertainment-such as cards for Lebenshilfe or as a fair show-moves in a legally unproblematic area. Such offers in which No concrete results guaranteed become and often for Moderate Honors are considered admissible services or entertainment. In contrast, it violates the good customs, desperate people against a lot of money unsustainable promise of salvation close. Providers should no guarantees of success Give for supernatural achievements, communicate realistic expectations and above all no exorbitant advance payments demand. Otherwise, you not only risk your reputation, but also that your contracts void are – with the consequence of having to pay back money (as happened in the case).

Notes for consumers: recognize dubious offers

How can consumers such moral offers recognize in advance? Some Warning signals can help dubious esoteric contracts to expose:

• Excessive advance payments: It will high amounts of money in advance demands – often several thousand euros – before an effect occurs. In the present case should be over 000 € be paid even before some success was visible. Such a striking mismatch Price and promised performance is suspicious.
• Unrealistic promise of success: The provider guaranteed supernatural results (z.B. Love spellPartner return, miracle healing) in one specific time frame. Such successes are when considering rational objectively impossible -No third party can break the free will of an ex-partner through magic. Promises that like one “Money-back guarantee” for happiness and love sound, are extremely doubtful.
• Exploitation of emotional emergencies: The provider obviously aims at Desperate or grieving customers For example, he emphasizes that only his method can be in the current Life crisis Help and put customers under pressure. If yours Vulnerability or inexperience is used by the contractual partner as a business basis Alarm bells shrill.
• A lack of transparency: Often missing Clear written contracts Or there are only vague descriptions of the performance. Dubble providers deliberately keep details (for example what is done, what chances exist) in order to be able to talk themselves out later. Always pass on Traceability: If you offer something legitimate, you can also explain this clearly.
• Further demands for failure: At the latest when a promised success absent and the provider then even more money For a “further ritual” or a Additional service demands that consumers should Look. Such a postponement of further costs is a typical pattern for fraudulent “help offers”.

Legal classification: Contracts based on such dubious offers are usually void. Courts have repeatedly decidedthat for objectively impossible services such as love spells or partner returns there is no payment obligation – especially if the success fails to fail. That means: Consumers are not permanently bound by such contracts. Anyone who finds that they have a misleading promise can legally his payments refuse or Request already done. If in doubt, you should not hesitate to obtain expert advice instead of paying further out of shame. The courts are consumer -friendly in such cases: In the Düsseldorf case, the clairvoyant had to repay the complete feebecause there was no valid contract.

What to do if you have already paid? – recommendations for those affected

If you are in a similar location and have already paid money for a supposedly “supernatural” service, you should be active. The following steps are recommended:

• Secure evidence: Collect and Save all documents -Contract texts, receipts, emails, Chat processes – that document the agreed scope of services and the promise of the provider. This evidence is important if you later push through must.
• Make no further payments: Stop all further transfers immediately. Do not let yourself be shot up additional money, even if the provider claims that it is still More rituals Or steps necessary because the first attempt “was not enough”. These demands often only serve to keep to ask for the cash register.
• Request repayment in writing: Contact the provider in writing (by email or letter) and request your money back. Let me know that you are because of the contract Thenwidrigkeit for void hold and therefore one refund Set an appropriate one Frist for repayment. Stay objective, but definitely. (In some cases the matter is already going on at this point – reputable providers will not categorically refuse to process it.)
• Obtain legal council: Do not hesitateto take advantage of professional help, especially if the provider does not react or refuses to repay. Contact one Consumer center or an Lawyer* with experience in contract law. These areas can assess their location and support them in the next steps.
• Check judicial steps: When last remedy Comes one Complaint considering the repayment of the amount paid. Let yourself be advised by a professional – often that is enough Threatening Legal steps to persuade the provider to give in. Falls There is a good thing for the process, experience has shown that the chances are good: As this case shows, the customer was able to successfully enforce the reimbursement of € 13,000 in court. The judgment of the LG Düsseldorf is likely to do other dishes than precedent -like orientation serve to consider comparable contracts as void.

Consumers who fell into questionable esoteric offers are non -powerful. The law – in particular § 138 BGB – protects against contracts that violate good customs. It is important to act quickly: The sooner you react, the greater the chance to get your money back. Don’t be afraid in doubt legal help to take advantage of. The Düsseldorf judgment sends a clear message: Excessive promises against horrendous payment have no inventory in court. In such cases, consumers stand by the right – and unscrupulous providers in the end threaten a bad awakening.