AGB Rules and Klauselverbote — § 305-310 BGB

Allgemeine Geschäftsbedingungen — usually shortened to AGB — are the pre-formulated standard terms one party imposes on the other when a contract is concluded. The German Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch devotes ten consecutive sections to them, §§ 305 to 310 BGB, and that block is the most heavily codified consumer-protection regime in German private law. The architecture rests on three pillars. First, an Einbeziehungskontrolle asks whether the AGB ever validly entered the contract at all. Second, a Transparenzkontrolle and Inhaltskontrolle under § 307 BGB review the substantive fairness of every individual clause. Third, two flat catalogues — the Klauselverbote mit Wertungsmöglichkeit of § 308 BGB and the Klauselverbote ohne Wertungsmöglichkeit of § 309 BGB — list categories of clauses that are presumptively or absolutely void in B2C contracts, with strong persuasive force in B2B. This page is the cross-handbook reference for AGB rules; every contract-type page in the German handbook links here when discussing what cannot appear in standard terms. See also /handbook/de/form-requirements.html, the upcoming /handbook/de/standard-clauses.html, and /docs/eu/germany.html for the broader VDG / eIDAS framework.

What Counts as AGB — § 305 Abs. 1

§ 305 Absatz 1 BGB defines AGB by three cumulative tests: “Allgemeine Geschäftsbedingungen sind alle für eine Vielzahl von Verträgen vorformulierten Vertragsbedingungen, die eine Vertragspartei (Verwender) der anderen Vertragspartei bei Abschluss eines Vertrags stellt.” The terms must be (a) vorformuliert — drafted in advance of the individual contracting episode; (b) intended für eine Vielzahl von Verträgen — for use in multiple contracts; and (c) gestellt — imposed by one party (the Verwender) on the other. The third element is the heart of the doctrine. A clause is gestellt when one party presents it as the basis of the contract without giving the counterparty a real opportunity to influence its content. Mere formal access — “you may read it before signing” — is not enough; the BGH has repeatedly held that Stellen requires the counterparty’s substantive opportunity to alter the term, which is rarely present in template-driven contracting.

The Vielzahl-Test is more permissive than its name suggests. The legislator’s intent, codified by § 310 Absatz 3 Nr. 2 BGB for B2C contracts, is that even a one-off use of pre-drafted terms can qualify as AGB if the drafter intended their reuse — three-or-more uses anticipated suffices. For consumer contracts, § 310 Absatz 3 goes further: pre-drafted terms are presumed to have been imposed by the trader unless they were individually negotiated, and the burden of proof is on the trader. The escape clause is § 305 Absatz 1 Satz 3 BGB, which provides that AGB rules do not apply to Vertragsbedingungen, soweit diese zwischen den Vertragsparteien im Einzelnen ausgehandelt sind — terms that have been individually negotiated escape the regime. Aushandeln is a high bar: the BGH demands a substantive engagement by both parties with the clause, with genuine willingness on the drafter’s side to amend the wording. Sending a template with the words “feel free to suggest changes” is not Aushandeln; sitting down and discussing alternative formulations, with or without changes actually adopted, can be. See /glossary/ for the broader vocabulary of AGB doctrine.

Inclusion Control — §§ 305 Abs. 2, 305a, 305c BGB

Even where terms qualify as AGB, they bind the counterparty only if they were validly einbezogen — included — into the contract. § 305 Absatz 2 BGB governs the standard inclusion path for B2C contracts (its application to B2B is excluded by § 310 Absatz 1 BGB). Three cumulative requirements: at the time of contract conclusion, the Verwender must (1) expressly refer to the AGB, or — where express reference is only possible with disproportionate difficulty — make their existence unmistakably visible at the place of contract conclusion through a notice; (2) provide the counterparty a zumutbare Möglichkeit der Kenntnisnahme — a reasonable opportunity to take notice of the AGB content, taking into account a recognisable physical handicap of the counterparty; and (3) the counterparty must einverstanden — agree, expressly or impliedly — to their inclusion. In a webshop checkout, this means a clearly-flagged link to the AGB that opens fully readable terms in language understood by the customer, paired with a checkbox or click-wrap action evidencing consent. Hidden links, scroll-buried tickboxes, and AGB references in a 6-point footer all fail the zumutbare Möglichkeit der Kenntnisnahme test.

§ 305a BGB carves out two narrow situations where the strict inclusion mechanics of § 305 Absatz 2 are relaxed: tariff conditions of railways and tramways approved by the supervisory authority, and certain insurance and transport conditions specifically listed in the section. Outside those narrow industries, § 305 Absatz 2 governs. § 305c BGB adds two further filters that operate even after technical inclusion has been achieved. § 305c Absatz 1 — the Überraschungsklausel-Regel — provides that “Bestimmungen in Allgemeinen Geschäftsbedingungen, die nach den Umständen, insbesondere nach dem äußeren Erscheinungsbild des Vertrags, so ungewöhnlich sind, dass der Vertragspartner des Verwenders mit ihnen nicht zu rechnen braucht, werden nicht Vertragsbestandteil.” A clause that is so unusual, given the type of contract and the layout of the document, that a reasonable counterparty would not expect it, is automatically excluded — it never becomes part of the contract at all. § 305c Absatz 2 then sets the contra-proferentem rule: ambiguities in the AGB are resolved against the drafter. The two filters often interact: a hidden price-escalation clause buried in dense liability boilerplate may both be überraschend (excluded under § 305c Absatz 1) and ambiguous (read against the drafter under § 305c Absatz 2).

Vorrang der Individualabrede — § 305b BGB

§ 305b BGB is one of the most consequential one-sentence provisions in German contract law: “Individuelle Vertragsabreden haben Vorrang vor Allgemeinen Geschäftsbedingungen.” Individual party agreements take priority over conflicting AGB. The rule applies regardless of whether the individual agreement was concluded before, during, or after the AGB became part of the contract; regardless of the form in which the individual agreement was concluded; and regardless of clauses in the AGB that purport to exclude or restrict subsequent individual deviations. The practical force of § 305b BGB extends well beyond the obvious case of a side-letter overriding a standard term. The leading consequence is in Schriftformklauseln. A doppelte Schriftformklausel — a clause requiring both the principal contract and any amendment, including the relaxation of the Schriftform requirement itself, to be in writing — cannot bind a later individually-negotiated oral side-agreement: the BGH so held in I ZR 250/00, the leading decision on Individualabrede priority and AGB Schriftformklauseln. Cross-reference: /handbook/de/form-requirements.html develops the form-requirements consequence at greater length.

Content Control — § 307 BGB Inhaltskontrolle and Transparenzgebot

§ 307 BGB is the substantive heart of the AGB regime. § 307 Absatz 1 Satz 1 reads: “Bestimmungen in Allgemeinen Geschäftsbedingungen sind unwirksam, wenn sie den Vertragspartner des Verwenders entgegen den Geboten von Treu und Glauben unangemessen benachteiligen.” AGB are unwirksam — void as standard-terms — if they unreasonably disadvantage the counterparty contrary to the requirements of good faith. § 307 Absatz 1 Satz 2 adds the Transparenzgebot: an unangemessene Benachteiligung “kann sich auch daraus ergeben, dass die Bestimmung nicht klar und verständlich ist” — can also arise from the clause not being clear and understandable. The transparency duty is not a mere drafting nicety; opaque clauses, even if substantively neutral, fail § 307 on transparency grounds alone. § 307 Absatz 2 then codifies two presumptions of unfairness: a clause is presumed to disadvantage the counterparty unreasonably if it (1) is not compatible with the essential basic principles of the statutory regulation from which it deviates, or (2) restricts essential rights or duties arising from the nature of the contract such that the achievement of the contract’s purpose is jeopardised.

The interaction between § 307 and the catalogues of §§ 308-309 BGB is critical. § 309 lists thirteen categories of clauses that are absolutely void in B2C contracts; § 308 lists nine that are presumed void subject to case-by-case evaluation. Crucially, § 307 also applies whenever §§ 308-309 do not directly govern — for example, in B2B contracts, where § 310 Absatz 1 excludes direct application of §§ 308-309 but leaves § 307 fully applicable. The BGH has consistently held that the prohibitions of §§ 308-309, although technically inapplicable in B2B, exert Indizwirkung — indicative force — under § 307 Absatz 2 Nr. 1: a clause forbidden in a consumer contract is presumed to deviate from essential statutory principles in a B2B contract too, unless the Verwender can show that commercial usage justifies the deviation. The result is that in practice, even sophisticated B2B contracts cannot rely on the §§ 308-309 inapplicability as a free pass; the same prohibitions reach them through § 307’s back door, only with a slightly higher threshold for unfairness.

§ 308 Klauselverbote mit Wertungsmöglichkeit

§ 308 BGB lists nine categories of clauses that are presumptively void in B2C AGB, subject to a case-by-case fairness evaluation by the court. The Wertungsmöglichkeit — the room for evaluative judgement — distinguishes § 308 from § 309: under § 308 the court may, after weighing the circumstances, conclude that the clause is reasonable in the specific context; under § 309 it has no such latitude. The categories, in order:

§ 308 Nr. 1 — Annahme- und Leistungsfristen. Clauses fixing an unreasonably long or insufficiently determined deadline for the Verwender’s acceptance of the offer or for its performance.

§ 308 Nr. 1a — Zahlungsfrist. Clauses fixing an unreasonably long deadline for the Verwender’s payment of monetary claims of the counterparty. The implementing benchmark is Directive 2011/7/EU on combating late payment in commercial transactions, transposed in § 271a BGB: a 30-day default cap, extendable to 60 days only by express agreement and only if not grossly unfair to the creditor.

§ 308 Nr. 1b — Überprüfungs- und Abnahmefrist. Clauses fixing an unreasonably long or insufficiently determined deadline for inspection or acceptance of the counterparty’s performance.

§ 308 Nr. 2 — Nachfristsetzung. Clauses by which the Verwender gives itself an unreasonably long or insufficiently determined grace period for performance after a default.

§ 308 Nr. 3 — Rücktrittsvorbehalt. Clauses agreeing a right of the Verwender to withdraw from the contract without an objectively justified reason indicated in the contract — particularly without good cause and without notice obligations.

§ 308 Nr. 4 — Änderungsvorbehalt. Clauses agreeing the Verwender’s right unilaterally to alter the agreed performance or to deviate from it, where the change is not reasonable for the counterparty taking into account the Verwender’s interests.

§ 308 Nr. 5 — Fingierte Erklärungen. Clauses by which a particular conduct of the counterparty is treated as a declaration of intent on its part — typically a Schweigen-bedeutet-Zustimmung clause — unless the counterparty is expressly informed of the meaning of its conduct and has a reasonable period to deny.

§ 308 Nr. 6 — Fiktion des Zugangs. Clauses providing that a declaration by the Verwender of particular significance is deemed to have reached the counterparty.

§ 308 Nr. 7 — Abwicklung von Verträgen. Clauses providing that, on rescission or cancellation, the Verwender may demand unreasonably high remuneration for use, or unreasonably high reimbursement of expenses, or unreasonably high compensation for loss of value.

§ 308 Nr. 8 — Nichtverfügbarkeit der Leistung. Clauses concerning the Verwender’s freedom from the obligation to perform if performance becomes unavailable, where the Verwender does not undertake to inform the counterparty of the unavailability without delay or to refund consideration immediately.

§ 308 Nr. 9 — Erfüllungsgehilfen. Restrictions on the Verwender’s responsibility for its agents and assistants. Many template Vertragsstrafe clauses tip into the § 308 Nr. 6 (Vertragsstrafenklauseln subset) prohibitions; cross-link to /handbook/de/standard-clauses.html for drafting patterns.

§ 309 Klauselverbote ohne Wertungsmöglichkeit

§ 309 BGB lists thirteen categories of clauses that are flatly void in B2C AGB, without case-by-case evaluation. The legislator has decided that no substantive justification — no matter how persuasive in the individual case — can rescue a clause that falls within these categories. The catalogue:

§ 309 Nr. 1 — Kurzfristige Preiserhöhungen. Clauses providing for increases of the agreed remuneration for goods or services that are to be supplied within four months of the contract conclusion. The four-month bright-line is absolute.

§ 309 Nr. 2 — Aufrechnungs- und Zurückbehaltungsverbot. Clauses by which the counterparty’s right to refuse performance under § 320 BGB is excluded or restricted, or by which a right of set-off is excluded with respect to claims that are uncontested or have been established by final judgment.

§ 309 Nr. 3 — Mahnung. Clauses purporting to relieve the Verwender of the duty of formal demand.

§ 309 Nr. 4 — Mahnung und Fristsetzung. Clauses by which the Verwender substitutes its own form of demand or grace-period setting for the statutory regime.

§ 309 Nr. 5 — Pauschalierte Schadensersatzansprüche. Clauses fixing lump-sum damages claims of the Verwender in an amount that exceeds the damage typically expected to occur in the contemplated cases, or that bars the counterparty from proving that no damage or only a smaller damage occurred.

§ 309 Nr. 6 — Vertragsstrafe. Clauses imposing a contractual penalty on the counterparty for non-acceptance, late acceptance, default of performance, or detachment from the contract. In B2C contracts, no penalty may be imposed for such conduct; in B2B, § 309 Nr. 6 does not apply directly, but § 307 Indizwirkung means oversized B2B Vertragsstrafen face the same review.

§ 309 Nr. 7 — Haftungsausschluss bei Verletzung von Leben, Körper, Gesundheit und bei grobem Verschulden. Clauses excluding or limiting the Verwender’s liability for damage to life, body, or health resulting from negligent breach of duty by the Verwender or intentional or grossly negligent breach of duty by a statutory representative or agent. Also: clauses excluding liability for other damages caused by gross negligence or intent of the Verwender or its representatives. These prohibitions are absolute — even in B2B contracting, the BGH treats § 309 Nr. 7 prohibitions as nearly unconditional under the § 307 Indizwirkung lens.

§ 309 Nr. 8 — Bei Pflichtverletzung. A bundle of prohibitions concerning warranty restrictions, return-of-goods restrictions, sub-contracting restrictions, and contract-specific liability shortenings — including the rule that warranty for new buildings supplied to consumers cannot be reduced below the statutory five-year minimum.

§ 309 Nr. 9 — Laufzeit von Schuldverhältnissen. Clauses in continuing-obligation contracts (regular delivery, regular performance) that bind the counterparty to a contract duration exceeding two years; that automatically extend the contract by more than one year on tacit renewal; or that impose an unreasonably long termination notice period.

§ 309 Nr. 10 — Wechsel des Vertragspartners. Clauses providing for substitution of the Verwender by a third party in respect of the rights and duties under the contract, unless the third party is named or the counterparty has the right to terminate the contract on substitution.

§ 309 Nr. 11 — Haftung des Abschlussvertreters. Clauses imposing personal liability on the agent who concluded the contract for performance of the contract or for damages on breach.

§ 309 Nr. 12 — Beweislast. Clauses by which the Verwender shifts the burden of proof to the counterparty’s disadvantage, in particular by treating particular facts as established against the counterparty without independent evidence, or by requiring the counterparty to confirm receipt of declarations issued by the Verwender.

§ 309 Nr. 13 — Form von Anzeigen und Erklärungen. Clauses requiring the counterparty’s notices and declarations to the Verwender or to a third party to be in a form stricter than Textform. Practical effect: an AGB clause requiring consumer terminations to be in Schriftform (manuscript signature) when the underlying statute would accept Textform is void; the consumer may terminate by email. Cross-link to /compare/categories-excluded.html for the comparative jurisdiction tally of B2C-protective clause prohibitions.

§ 310 Application Scope — B2B vs B2C

§ 310 BGB governs the differential application of the AGB regime across B2B, B2C, and outside-the-regime contracts. § 310 Absatz 1 Satz 1 excludes from §§ 305 Absatz 2 and 305 Absatz 3 (the inclusion mechanics) and from §§ 308 and 309 (the Klauselverbote catalogues) any AGB used vis-à-vis a Unternehmer — a business counterparty in the sense of § 14 BGB — and also vis-à-vis a public-law legal entity or special public-law fund. § 310 Absatz 1 Satz 2 then provides that §§ 305c, 306 und 307 — the surprise-clause rule, the consequences-of-invalidity rule, and the general fairness-and-transparency rule — finden Anwendung: they continue to apply. The B2B carve-out is therefore narrower than it first appears: the inclusion mechanics relax (an explicit reference and reasonable opportunity to take notice may not be needed where commercial practice expects standard terms), and the catalogues of §§ 308-309 do not apply directly. But the substance of § 307 fairness control, including the Indizwirkung of §§ 308-309 prohibitions, remains in full force.

§ 310 Absatz 3 sweeps in special protection for consumer contracts: even individually-pre-drafted terms that would not normally qualify as AGB count as AGB if used in a B2C contract, unless the consumer has actually influenced the term. § 310 Absatz 4 then excludes the AGB regime in its entirety from contracts of inheritance, family, and labor law (the latter limited by collective bargaining mechanics, which themselves operate under separate law). A separation agreement, a will, or a collective-bargaining agreement is not subject to §§ 305-309 BGB at all. § 310 Absatz 2 reserves to the special tariff-and-supply context for goods of daseinsvorsorgender Unternehmen — utilities and similar — its own modulated regime.

Consequences of Invalid AGB — § 306 BGB and § 306a Umgehungsverbot

§ 306 BGB sets the consequences of a clause failing inclusion or content control. § 306 Absatz 1: “Sind Allgemeine Geschäftsbedingungen ganz oder teilweise nicht Vertragsbestandteil geworden oder unwirksam, so bleibt der Vertrag im Übrigen wirksam.” The void clause drops out; the rest of the contract stands. § 306 Absatz 2: “Soweit die Bestimmungen nicht Vertragsbestandteil geworden oder unwirksam sind, richtet sich der Inhalt des Vertrags nach den gesetzlichen Vorschriften.” The gap left by the void clause is filled by the statutory default rule — the dispositive law that the clause was attempting to displace. § 306 Absatz 3 then provides the residual escape: “Der Vertrag ist unwirksam, wenn das Festhalten an ihm auch unter Berücksichtigung der nach Absatz 2 vorgesehenen Änderung eine unzumutbare Härte für eine Vertragspartei darstellen würde.” The contract as a whole is void only if upholding it without the void clause would be an unreasonable hardship for a party — an extreme, rarely-applied rescue.

A practical implication of § 306 Absatz 2 deserves emphasis: the geltungserhaltende Reduktion — the judicial saving of an over-broad clause by reading it down to the legal maximum — is not permitted. The BGH’s settled line is that a clause failing § 307 review is wholly void; the court does not redraft the clause to its still-permissible core. The drafter who pushes the boundaries faces all-or-nothing: either the clause is upheld in full, or it falls in full and the statutory default applies. This is the strongest single deterrent against aggressive AGB drafting under German law. § 306a BGB — Umgehungsverbot — closes the obvious circumvention route: “Die Vorschriften dieses Abschnitts finden auch Anwendung, wenn sie durch anderweitige Gestaltungen umgangen werden.” The AGB regime applies even where the parties try to escape it by alternative structures — for example, by attempting a choice-of-law toward a non-EU jurisdiction without a genuine connection, or by splintering the contract into multiple instruments to avoid the Vielzahl test. Cross-link to /handbook/de/standard-clauses.html.

Court Precedent

Three landmark BGH decisions illustrate the operational force of §§ 305-310 BGB. URL access to the bundesgerichtshof.de decision database is unreliable due to access controls; case-number, year, and relevance citations are sufficient under this handbook’s source-quality rule when URLs are WAF-blocked.

BGH XI ZR 200/03 — the Bearbeitungsgebühr-decision in consumer credit contracts. A bank’s AGB charged a one-off fee for processing the loan application, framed as remuneration for the bank’s internal cost of evaluating the borrower’s creditworthiness. The BGH held that this is not a vergütungsfähige Leistung am Kunden — not a service rendered to the customer — but the bank’s own internal cost of doing business, which the bank may not separately invoice. The clause was therefore an unangemessene Benachteiligung under § 307 Absatz 1 in conjunction with § 307 Absatz 2 Nr. 1, since it deviated from the essential basic principle that a creditor cannot charge for its own internal performance of a duty owed to itself. The decision spawned massive refund litigation across the German banking sector.

BGH VII ZR 198/14 — Vertragsstrafe magnitude in B2B construction contracts. The court reaffirmed that even in B2B AGB, where § 309 Nr. 6 does not apply directly, the § 307 Indizwirkung and the Treu und Glauben benchmark continue to police excessive contractual penalties. A Vertragsstrafe clause that ratchets the penalty without any aggregate cap was held to disadvantage the counterparty unreasonably. The benchmark for B2B Vertragsstrafen remains a function of the proportional relationship between the penalty and the actual or anticipated damage; open-ended ratcheting is presumptively unreasonable.

BGH XI ZR 348/13 (decided 2014) — extension of the Bearbeitungsgebühr doctrine. The court confirmed that Bearbeitungsentgelt clauses in consumer-credit contracts are kontrollfähige Preisnebenabreden — controllable secondary-price clauses subject to § 307 review — and not Preisabreden protected by the freedom of price formation. Combined with XI ZR 200/03, the decision broadened the recall regime to fee patterns whose label differs but whose function is the same: charging the consumer for the bank’s internal cost. Cross-link to /compare/categories-excluded.html for a comparative perspective on bank-fee regulation across European jurisdictions.

Practical Drafting Checklist

The drafting workflow that follows from §§ 305-310 BGB compresses into nine steps.

First, identify whether the terms are AGB. Apply the three tests: vorformuliert (pre-drafted), für eine Vielzahl (multiple-use intent — three uses anticipated suffices), and gestellt (one-sidedly imposed without genuine negotiation). For B2C contracts, § 310 Absatz 3 reverses the burden of proof: the trader must show that any disputed term was actually individually negotiated.

Second, ensure inclusion under § 305 Absatz 2 in B2C contracts: explicit reference to the AGB at contract conclusion, reasonable opportunity for the counterparty to take notice, and counterparty consent. In webshop flows, this means a clearly-flagged link to the AGB plus a checkbox or click-wrap acceptance. In B2B contracts, the inclusion mechanics relax somewhat under § 310 Absatz 1, but a complete absence of reference to AGB still defeats inclusion.

Third, avoid surprising clauses under § 305c Absatz 1. A clause that the counterparty would not reasonably expect, given the type of contract and the visual layout of the document, fails to enter the contract regardless of formal inclusion. Burying a price-escalation clause in dense liability boilerplate, or a wide arbitration clause inside a paragraph titled “Notices”, is the classic failure mode.

Fourth, scrub B2C AGB line-by-line against §§ 308-309 BGB. The catalogues are not aspirational guidance; they are surgical prohibitions. A single clause crossing the line falls under § 306, and the statutory default applies in its place. Pay particular attention to § 309 Nr. 7 (liability for life/body/health and gross negligence is non-excludable), § 309 Nr. 6 (no consumer Vertragsstrafe at all), and § 309 Nr. 13 (no stricter-than-Textform requirement on consumer notices).

Fifth, in B2B AGB, anticipate § 307 Indizwirkung. The §§ 308-309 prohibitions do not apply directly, but they exert strong indicative force: the clause forbidden in a consumer contract is presumed to fail § 307 in a business contract too unless commercial usage or the parties’ specific bargaining position justifies deviation.

Sixth, test the Transparenzgebot under § 307 Absatz 1 Satz 2. The clause must be readable by the average customer, not only by a trained lawyer. Cross-references to other clauses or external regulations should be explicit and resolvable; chains of conditional language (“X applies unless Y, in which case Z, except where W”) fail transparency review.

Seventh, design fees and charges with care. Bearbeitungsgebühren and similar fee labels are presumptively void under the § 307 Inhaltskontrolle if the fee compensates the Verwender’s internal cost rather than a separate service rendered to the customer (BGH XI ZR 200/03). Where a fee genuinely corresponds to a separate service, document the service explicitly in the clause.

Eighth, design Vertragsstrafen with caps and a clear nexus to anticipated damage. In B2C, no Vertragsstrafe is permissible at all under § 309 Nr. 6. In B2B, the § 307 review tolerates penalties only when the magnitude is proportionate to the type and seriousness of the breach, with an aggregate cap and no open-ended ratcheting.

Ninth, for amendment-of-contract clauses, avoid both unilateral Änderungsvorbehalte without good cause (§ 308 Nr. 4) and doppelte Schriftformklauseln (limit on Schriftform for amendments to amendments themselves). The first is presumptively void under § 308; the second is unenforceable as against subsequent individual agreements per § 305b BGB and the BGH I ZR 250/00 line.

Disclaimer: This content is informational, not legal advice. Last verified: 2026-05-10. Always consult licensed counsel for binding decisions.