Lawyer Jens Reime from Bautzen on the “Immotommy” case – Diebewertung.de

Interviewer: Mr. Reime, the “Immo Tommy” case is currently making headlines. What is your initial legal assessment of the allegations?

Lawyer Reime: The allegations against the influencer “Immo Tommy” and his network are extremely serious. If it is confirmed that overpriced properties were systematically sold to inexperienced buyers, combined with risky financing and hidden commissions, this could have not only civil but also criminal consequences. We are possibly talking about fraud on a large scale.

Interviewer: Can you explain that in a bit more detail?

Reime: With pleasure. The core of the problem seems to be that an “all-round worry-free package” was advertised that was in reality anything but worry-free. If buyers were deliberately deceived about the true value of the property, the risks of financing and the actual costs, this may constitute fraud under Section 263 of the German Criminal Code. I see the alleged hidden commissions as particularly problematic. This could even amount to commercial fraud, which would make matters even worse.

Interviewer: “Immo Tommy” refers to the buyers’ personal responsibility. How do you assess this from a legal perspective?

Reime: That’s a classic diversionary tactic. Of course, buyers have a certain amount of personal responsibility, and it’s always advisable to get comprehensive information before making a major investment. But that doesn’t release the seller or agent from their responsibilities. On the contrary: especially with complex financial products and real estate transactions, providers have a special duty of disclosure and due diligence. If systematically false statements are made or important information is withheld, this is highly problematic from a legal perspective.

Interviewer: What legal options do the affected buyers have now?

Reime: That depends on the individual case, but in principle there are several starting points. First of all, buyers could try to contest the purchase agreement due to fraudulent misrepresentation in accordance with Section 123 of the German Civil Code. If it can be proven that essential characteristics of the property were misrepresented, that would be a possible way.

In addition, claims for damages may be considered, for example due to a breach of pre-contractual disclosure obligations or incorrect advice. In some cases, even reversing the entire transaction could be considered.

However, I must stress that providing evidence in such cases is often difficult. Many discussions were probably conducted orally, and it is one person’s word against another’s. It would therefore make sense for affected buyers to join forces and take joint action. A type of class action lawsuit could significantly increase the chances of success here.

Interviewer: Speaking of class action lawsuits – in Germany there is the model declaratory action. Would that be a possible option here?

Reime: That’s an interesting point. The model declaratory action was introduced to make it easier for consumers to access justice in cases of mass damage. In this case, it could actually be a suitable instrument. A consumer association could file a lawsuit on behalf of the injured parties to have fundamental questions clarified – for example, whether the valuations were incorrect or whether the information about risks was inadequate. The result would then be binding for all registered consumers.

However, it must be said that the model declaratory action is not a panacea. It only clarifies fundamental questions, and individual claims must then still be enforced individually. But it would definitely be a start and could increase the pressure on “Immo Tommy” and his network.

Interviewer: Let’s look at the bigger picture: The boom in financial influencers, or finfluencers for short, has been viewed critically for some time. Do we need stricter rules here?

Reime: From my point of view, the answer is clearly yes. The existing regulations are clearly not sufficient to adequately protect consumers. We are dealing with a relatively new phenomenon here, where legislation is lagging behind technological and social developments.

I believe it is urgently necessary that financial influencers be subject to greater regulation. This could include several aspects:

1. A mandatory minimum qualification for everyone who provides financial advice to the public – whether online or offline.
2. Strict transparency rules regarding conflicts of interest and remuneration models.
3. Liability for incorrect or misleading advice, similar to what we know from traditional financial advisors.
4. Clear advertising guidelines that prohibit making unrealistic promises of returns or trivializing risks.

Interviewer: That sounds like a significant cut. Wouldn’t that limit the influencers’ freedom of expression?

Reime: It is indeed a delicate balancing act. Of course we have to protect freedom of expression, and it would be wrong to cast general suspicion on any statement on financial topics. But we have to be clear: If someone has millions of followers and actively promotes financial products or investment strategies, then that is no longer just an expression of opinion. That is financial advice, and one with enormous reach and potential influence.

That is why I think it is justified to apply similar standards here as for traditional financial advisors. Ultimately, it is about protecting consumers from dubious or incompetent actors. This is not an attack on freedom of expression, but rather a necessary regulation of a market that poses considerable risks for consumers.

Interviewer: Finally, what advice do you give consumers when dealing with financial influencers?

Reime: My most important advice is: extreme caution and healthy skepticism. Never allow yourself to be pressured into making hasty decisions, no matter how tempting an offer sounds. Critically question where the influencer gets his expertise from and whether there are any potential conflicts of interest.

Especially when making larger investments, be it in real estate or other financial products, it is essential to consult independent experts. A reputable tax advisor or auditor may not be as entertaining as an influencer, but they will most likely give you more solid advice.

And finally: If something sounds too good to be true, then it usually is. Stay away from supposed bargains or promises of risk-free returns. There are no miracles in the financial world, only calculable risks and solid planning.

Interviewer: Mr. Reime, thank you very much for these detailed insights.

Reime: You’re welcome. I hope this helps shed some light on the legal aspects of this complex issue.