The "Melango" rip-off on the net continues

This article was first published at pr itk and has been viewed around 15,000 times.

---

Reading time: 34 minutes

An article by Patrick Ruppelt, Managing Director of pr itk solutions GmbH

Now the time has come, I've fallen for an internet rip-off myself... how nice that it still exists: Registration pages and general terms and conditions change. The provider doesn't even have a telephone or fax number, let alone an e-mail address in the legal notice that you could contact.

Instead, reminders, threatening letters, letters from lawyers and debt collection letters are sent out and the company even sues its own customers for fraud.

Update 23.01.2014: I was "urgently requested" to delete this blog article on behalf of the managing director of B2B Technologies Chemnitz GmbH. The managing director has commissioned a web reputation service company to represent his interests against me. Of course I will not delete the article. However, I will make the name of the managing director unrecognisable, as it is in the imprint of all the pages mentioned anyway.

Upade 18.10.2023: I hear from the media that witnesses are being questioned again. I am astonished. After all, the case in question happened twelve years ago. I assumed that the guy had long since ended up in prison. For at least five to six years plus the time he's serving to pay off his debts. Two to three life sentences, so to speak. But seriously, the topic is more topical than ever. That's why I republished this article here. It's about time that these scumbags really got their faces kicked in. Because only if no victim gives in will the scam become uninteresting for fraudsters. Sooner or later they will run out of money for Ferraris and luxury watches. And then the scam ends all by itself. I clearly see this as educational work. So please, Mr Siewissenschon, sic your lawyers on me again. I wouldn't run away even if I could.

The content published here has been extremely carefully researched and I continue to stand by my opinion: The businesses mentioned here by Mr ❚❚❚❚❚❚❚ are illegal and many thousands of people feel like victims of this gentleman's rip-off webshops. Public prosecutors and consumer protection organisations have been investigating B2B Technologies Chemnitz GmbH (or its predecessor companies) for years. The most recent court judgements that I have read have all gone against B2B.

And last but not least: the huge amount of encouragement I have received about this article - via PM, Facebook, email, ... - has encouraged me immensely. I wanted to warn people with facts not to fall into the same trap that happened to me. This has worked so far and this article will of course remain online so that this is still possible.

Instead of abusing reputable web reputation services to have warnings like mine removed, B2B Technologies Chemnitz GmbH should reply to my registered letters after five weeks. I really don't see why I should damage the reputation and good name of Mr ❚❚❚❚❚❚❚ - he did it himself with flying colours.

All cases have been won in court and the company has created its own website for this purpose. To back it up, so to speak, to show that they are not afraid of anything and will not shy away from even the smallest lawsuit. And in my opinion, this is precisely the crux of the matter as to why - even though the representations of Mr ❚❚❚❚❚❚❚, the managing director of a very dubious Internet company, are very exaggerated and one-sided - one or two judgements have nevertheless gone in favour of B2B Technologies Chemnitz GmbH (formerly: melango.de GmbH).

To summarise briefly: After registering in the company's webshop, you realise that everything is a lie. There is no webshop, instead you are asked to post goods for sale yourself. Okay, I think to myself, never mind, it was worth giving it a try. But a few days later I receive a request for payment in my letterbox: I'm supposed to pay 240 euros, even though I haven't even confirmed my e-mail address.

Still going?

So let's continue with the text... 240 euros value in dispute makes a total cost risk of 173.74 euros according to RVG. Who seriously believes that a lawyer would even begin to deal with the case. Of course, no one will do that, which is why a whole series of judgements in the past have come to nothing or, to put it more accurately, have resulted in formal errors, the cancellation of deadlines and unobjective or inadequate argumentation.

So what to do? I am not a lawyer and cannot and will not give any legal advice here. That is expressly emphasised. However, I have not paid but, on the contrary, dispute all claims and any contracts. I am happy to share my last letter to this dubious company, because I am sure that one or the other will be pleased about it.

You are welcome to use the text for your own rebuttal by those also affected. I would appreciate a small thank you as a comment on the article, because google also recognises comments in blogs like this one as an indication of popular articles. I would like to see as many bruised customers as possible fighting back. I don't know whether it will work, but it simply cannot and must not be the case that even at the end of 2013, German lawmakers still don't see themselves in a position to put a stop to fraudsters and rip-off artists. The public prosecutor's office has probably been investigating Mr ❚❚❚❚❚❚❚ for years, but so far I have not been able to find out anything at all about any progress in the proceedings.

Below is the letter, which we would also be happy to send you in its entirety as a PDF. Due to numerous special formatting features, I recommend that anyone wishing to copy text passages should always use the original (PDF). The attachments can only be found in the PDF, as these are only evidence.

∞

pr itk solutions GmbH | Tumblingerstr. 23 | 80337 Munich

B2B Technologies Chemnitz GmbH
Mr ❚❚❚❚❚❚❚
Neefeldstr. 88
09116 Chemnitz

- Registered mail, due to lack of fax number and e-mail contact address of your company in advance only as letter mail

Our sign Your sign Date
ME-324280 02 AR 23/14 ME-324280 14.12.2013

Dear Mr ❚❚❚❚❚❚❚,

Thank you very much for your letter of 4 December 2013, in which you unfortunately do not respond to our email of 26 November 2013 or to our letter of 21 November 2013. Our renewed email of 6 December 2013 has so far remained completely unanswered, even after a whole week.

Your last letter, in which you tell me that you have "carefully examined" our concerns, looks more like a standard letter that you send to all your supposed customers. It bears neither the name of a contact person nor a signature. Unfortunately, there is no telephone number for your company on your letterhead or on your requests for payment. There is also no telephone number in your legal notice. Quite obviously would like You don't even realise that someone can reach you.

Furthermore, I cannot see that you are even remotely interested in an amicable solution, let alone willing to talk at all.

It is striking that your reply does not address my questions, but that

• you become entangled in statements about allegedly applicable German law in the commercial environment,
• You accuse me of being unserious and present yourself as a serious role model,
• You claim that your conditions are clearly visible on the website (this is absolutely not true, more on this later),
• You claim that it is only possible to process your business economically if you immediately pass on your claim to your debt collection service provider without speaking to the customer at the first moment of uncertainty,
• you threaten me that I would incur further costs simply by continuing to talk to you (although your claim is still disputed and you have not responded to my counterstatement in the slightest to date) and
• They threaten me with a negative Schufa entry and a negative Creditreform entry,
• Nevertheless, you informed me that you might want to report me for attempted fraud and that
• you provide a number of allegedly similar legal cases that have been decided in your favour (see below for more details).

Now I ask you, Mr ❚❚❚❚❚❚❚: Is this the serious approach that you expect from your customers?

In my opinion, it is clear to the neutral observer that you live from "ripping off" your supposed customers and that your sole business purpose is to sue these same supposed customers for payment of the alleged membership fee.

However, I am aware that a court hearing - should you actually intend to take legal action against me - will require more than a subjective account of your very obvious deception. This requires a detailed description of the events and a corresponding chain of evidence that can be used in court, which I will hereby present in full.

I hereby declare that 

1. the cancellation of any declaration of intent I may have made,
2. avoidance due to lack of awareness of the declaration,
3. avoidance on the grounds of mistake as to remuneration,
4. Cancellation due to error regarding performance,
5. rescission due to fraudulent misrepresentation and
6. the cancellation due to initial impossibility of performance by you and
7. as a precautionary measure, the cancellation of the alleged contract.

I would also ask you to stop coercing me with your reminders in future. In a ruling dated 5 September 2013, i.e. a fairly recent procedure, the Federal Court of Justice has already declared the letters from your company null and void.

Firstly, I note that your registration website has changed significantly since we registered.

I became aware of your supposed webshop through a Facebook advert similar to the one in Appendix 1.shop for remaining stock at favourable prices when larger quantities are purchased by traders. As such, this is not unusual and is common practice in many industries.

After clicking on the advertising banner, I was taken directly to your shop page, which today looks the same as in Appendix 2. The website gives the impression that traders can actually buy remaining stock from you at favourable prices.

As noted in the unmistakable headline, I absolutely agree with you that it is made unmistakably clear that the offer is aimed exclusively at traders and therefore - also understandable and common practice - registration as such a trader is necessary.

However, it is in no way apparent that your offer is subject to a charge.

Neither in the adverts nor on the entire shop homepage is there a single reference to the fact that registration involves a paid two-year subscription.

I deny with no knowledge that the button for registration said "Buy now" but rather "Register now" (see Annex 3, which was kindly provided to us by a lawyer representing another injured party against your company). The mere fact that you are now referring to a "Buy now" button, among other things, is absurd and, in my opinion, already justifies cancellation on the grounds of fraudulent misrepresentation on the basis of Section 123 BGB.

It also seems highly implausible that I would have clicked on "Buy now" instead of "Register now" if I had just registered; especially since there is a highlighted menu item "Buy" in your shop, but the registration is explicitly not under the "Buy" menu but under the heading "Register" (see Appendix 3 and also Appendix 4).

Incidentally, contrary to your opinion, the reference hidden in the side column is, in my opinion Not clearly recognisable at all and in particular at a point where I am not provided with a price and contract duration. must reckon with. Rather, the sidebar in webshops is usually used as advertising space for similar items, for "customers also bought" notices and other sponsorship.

On my iPad as well as on my only computer, a MacBook Air with a small display (which I used to log in), the sidebar is not visible at allas it disappears from the right-hand side of the screen.

I feel confirmed in my assumption that this is a case of fraudulent misrepresentation to the extent that it is not necessary to expressly confirm your general terms and conditions. Contrary to your statement, there is currently no separate checkbox for confirming the GTC. These are hidden in the same sentence in which I confirm my function as a trader and are also not marked as a link (see Appendices 3 and 4).

In fact, I briefly opened your terms and conditions via the link in the footer of the shop, took a very cursory look at them and considered them "conventional". I deny with no knowledge that a chargeable service was agreed here. At the time of registration, the numerous yellow highlighted passages, which refer everywhere in the text to the conclusion of a contract subject to a fee for any transaction with you, were expressly not present (see Appendix 5). Even taking into account any highlighting in the text, such a clause in general terms and conditions is surprising and so unusual that it is likely to be invalid under Section 305c (1) BGB. In any case, the burden of proof lies with you in accordance with Section 305c (2) BGB.

In any case, these clauses have not become part of the contract in accordance with Section 306 (1) BGB. This has already been established and confirmed by the Dresden District Court in its final judgement of 5 November 2011 against your company (see case no. 104 C 3441/112).

In a fairly recent judgement dated 25 April 2013 under case no. 115 C 26/13, the Bonn District Court again confirmed against your company that your fee clause is surprising and invalid. In particular, the court ruled that the fee clause is also invalid if the user acts as an entrepreneur (i.e. freelance or commercial). In the opinion of the court, your price information is almost hidden and, according to the judgement of the AG Bonn, this is sufficient to render it ineffective.

I entered my business details purely for the purpose of confirming my commercial use, as your advertising and your shop website made it appear coherent. I only found out that the registration was supposed to be a paid service when I received your surprising request for payment on 18 November 2013.

In this respect, you have no claim to payment.

Please compare the relevant judgements of the AG Düsseldorf of 8 May 2012, Ref. 42 C 14743/11, also again against your company; as well as the judgement of the AG Bochum of 16 April 2012 in Ref. 47 C 59/12 against your company and the judgement of the AG Burgwedel with default judgement of 12 January 2012 in Ref. 78 C 97/11 against your company and the judgement of the AG Detmold of 30 March 2012 in Ref. 7 C 565/11) against your company.

It should now be noted that I did not want to register for a fee at all, let alone conclude a fee-based contract. I merely wanted to take a look at your offer, which was only to the - supposedly free - registration is possible.

This is because clicking on an article only ever takes you to the registration page with the title "Registration - Let's get started... The use of the wholesale B2B platform is exclusively intended for companies, tradespeople, craft businesses, associations, public authorities and self-employed freelancers" (emphasis added by the author, see Appendices 3 and 4). This clearly gives the impression that registration is free, quick and uncomplicated, as is the case with countless comparable web shops. You do not mention at all that this involves a two-year subscription subject to a charge, let alone that any costs could arise at all. In my opinion, the user - regardless of whether they are a trader or even a consumer - does not have to expect any costs.

Their payment clauses are in any case to be regarded as absolutely surprising within the meaning of Section 305c BGB due to services typically provided free of charge elsewhere. This also applies to the fact that the fact that mere registration and membership and their duration were not clearly indicated when the contract was concluded (see judgement of Dresden District Court dated 5 October 2011, ref. 104 C 3441/11; incidentally also against your company).

Even under the extremely implausible assumption that a membership fee would have been expected from your customers, I certainly do not expect to be able to cancel my membership for the next two years.

In the case of a telecommunications contract such as for a DSL connection, for example, where the provider has high set-up costs, even has to procure equipment (e.g. Telekom NTBA and Telekom splitter and AVM Fritz!Box DSL modem), where the provider has to send a technician on site who wants to be paid; everywhere I can see that you either pay a set-up fee or that these initial set-up costs have to be allocated to a minimum contract term.

However, for the mere fully automated registration in a web shop (or whatever your portal may be), the condition of being charged with a two-year non-cancellable contract for merely "looking in" fulfils, in my opinion, all the elements of usury according to § 291 para. 1 BGB. In particular, a commercial dimension is clearly recognisable, so that I also see the conditions of § 291 Para. 2 BGB fulfilled. For this reason alone, no contract has been effectively concluded and, in the alternative, I am also cancelling any contract due to commercial usury on your part.

If I have therefore unknowingly concluded a declaration of intent to enter into a two-year contract, I hereby expressly revoke this.

I realise:

1. In the absence of sufficient information about the obligation to pay costs, no effective contract has been concluded. At no time did I act with the knowledge and motivation to make a legally binding declaration (see judgement of the Detmold District Court of 30 March 2012, case no. 7 C 565/11). For this reason alone, I will not comply with your request for payment.
2. In addition, I am contesting the possible contract in the alternative and only as a precautionary measure due to error. Due to the design of your webshop, I assumed that by providing my data and clicking on the registration button, I was only participating in a free verification of my status as a trader. In this context, I refer to the decisions of the Mannheim Regional Court of 14 January 2010 (case no. 10 S 53/09) and the Munich Local Court of 16 January 2007 (case no. 161 C 23695/06), according to which no obligation to pay arises in the case of hidden costs in Internet offers.
3. In the alternative, I also declare the cancellation of any declaration of intent I may have submitted, and I have not even confirmed the registration email. I have already informed you in my aforementioned letters that your e-mail appeared highly dubious (missing imprint, missing cover letter, missing possible contract details, no indication of contact addresses, let alone a telephone or fax number) and I have therefore refrained from completing the registration.I have therefore neither completed any registration, nor have I ever logged in to your supposed web shop, nor have I used any service or would or could use it (see below for more details). Making your shop available does not mean that you have already started to provide the service. The provision is a mere preparatory service, which you have not yet fulfilled (see below for more details).

If you do not abandon your claim in the future, I would consider it appropriate to file a negative declaratory action, report you to the consumer advice centres and file a criminal complaint against you for fraud. However, as a brief search on the Internet has already revealed that both the public prosecutor's office and the consumer advice centres have been investigating you in a whole series of cases for years, this has probably become superfluous. Nevertheless, I will of course make this letter available to the investigating authorities and have myself named as a witness and, if necessary, as a joint plaintiff.

Furthermore, my own research has shown that your entire behaviour cannot be a one-off disagreement between you and me as a supposed customer. After just a short search, you will find countless communities of like-minded people on the Internet who have also fallen into your "subscription trap".

In the course of a court hearing, I would be happy to provide not only lists of members who have suffered losses, but also other witnesses against your company who will fully confirm and substantiate my statements. I am currently aware of around 6,276 victims of your company who have all been "ripped off" in the same or a similar way and who will certainly also be happy to share their experiences in court in the form of a written statement.

In this respect, I hereby declare you to be in breach of contract due to fraudulent misrepresentation. Not only do you refer to alleged so-called buttons ("click buttons" on web pages) that were not present at the time of registration and to GTC click boxes that are not present even today. I also object not only to your amended GTC and the entire shop presentation, which is still more than misleading today.

Rather, you clearly lack any business purpose other than the collection of hidden two-year membership fees, which is also recognisable to outsiders.

Even if I were to pay for your offer and actually take advantage of it, you would not be able to fulfil the promise you made in your Facebook ad. Your shop homepage and your Facebook advert also convey a completely different image of your services than what is actually behind them.

You do not provide any of the services that you convey to the supposed customer during registration. On the contrary, you even refer in your own general terms and conditions (at least in those of today) to the fact that although the mere initiation of business with your company is already a chargeable service, in return you only and exclusively offer "research via the interface provided by the provider".

There is no shop. Even as a customer, I cannot buy any goods or services from you.

You claim that you only offer a search engine for third-party advertising.

Even the legally uninformed will realise without a doubt that your offer of a web shop for resellers has absolutely nothing to do with the provision of a search engine, which incidentally cannot find any available items, let alone even come close to fulfilling the advertising promises on your homepage.

There is simply no webshop from you and it was therefore already impossible for you to perform initially. This is what is commonly known as fraud. If we take into account the persistence with which you still send reminders to your supposed customers and accuse them of fraud, we have to speak of fraud on a commercial scale.

Shifting the entire responsibility to your users, who according to you would first have to fill your platform with offers, is absurd. You advertise with a web shop, even explicitly with specific product offers at specific prices. The fact that these are merely possible future offers, which will only be possible future Customers possibly in your portal is not noted anywhere before registration.

In this respect, too, I hereby declare my cancellation of any contract, as you do not and cannot provide the promised service. I do not believe that there is a deadline for rectification in accordance with § 323 BGB, as your business model, as shown below, is not designed to be able to provide a web shop.

Since it cannot be assumed that you will immediately provide a real web shop in which your customers can actually buy goods from you that you also have in stock and that fulfil your promises, it must be assumed that you are definitively refusing to provide the service. According to § 323 Para. 2 Part 1, you are therefore not entitled to set a deadline for rectification. In my opinion, a reasonable assessment of the case only allows your business behaviour to be regarded as a special circumstance (see § 323 Para. 2 Part 3), which justifies immediate withdrawal.

In this respect, I also withdraw from an alleged contract in the alternative in accordance with Section 323 (2) Part 3 due to special circumstances.

Even if it should already be clear to an objective observer that you are fraudulently deceiving your supposed customers, I will nevertheless explain this further.

To prove that you are methodical, planned and well prepared and act with fraudulent intent I took a look at your company history. It is striking that B2B Technologies Chemnitz GmbH is constantly changing its name and headquarters. Because each of your previous company names has made headlines within a very short time. Countless supposed customers in the same situation as me have already been confronted with the fact that they have fallen into your "cost trap".

I do not need to emphasise that your presentation of the court proceedings, which you even repeat in your legal notice, on your website and in every letter to your customers, is more than one-sided. Your insistent references to the supposedly relevant overview web portals on this topic are also completely distasteful. All of the supposedly independent portals you mention (example: www.b2b-urteile.de) on this topic are operated on your own servers and you yourself are personally listed in the imprint. This is ridiculous and I will not comment on it any further at this point.

In any case, you initially named your company

1. "J & P Handelhaus DTL. GmbH" in Chemnitz, which has fallen into disrepute because of "rip-offs" and "subscription traps" (see 4,720 search results on Google for the company name in conjunction with the keyword "fraud"). So the company was renamed
2. "Melango.de GmbH" in Chemnitz, which has fallen into disrepute due to "rip-offs" and "subscription traps" (cf. sensational 4.6 million search results on Google for the company name in conjunction with the keyword "fraud". The relocation to the
3. "Melango.de GmbH" in Grünhain-Beierfeld apparently had no significant effect, so that in short a new name change to the
4. "J & P Handelshaus DTL. GmbH" in Grünhain-Beierfeld. Again, 240,000 search results are soon found on Google for the company name in conjunction with the keyword "fraud". This is followed by the renewed relocation of the registered office and the return to the first company name
5. "JW Handelssysteme GmbH" in Chemnitz, presumably to avoid the many mails from bruised and annoyed alleged customers, whereby you then return to
6. "Melango.de GmbH", based in Chemnitz, then switched back to the
7. "Melango.de GmbH" with headquarters in Grünhain-Beierfeld and your company will then be
8. "J & P Handelshaus DTL. GmbH", also based in Grünhain-Beierfeld. Finally, the company becomes today's
9. "B2B Technologies Chemnitz GmbH" with headquarters in Chemnitz.

It is also interesting to note that Creditreform has since blocked your entire data record and no longer provides information on your company, even on request, due to too many negative features. Quote:

"The company is already entered in the commercial register, but due to the various notifications we refrain from providing information, on the Internet you will find further reports and judgements against this company." (Emphasis added by the author)

Please refer to Appendix 6 for the official Crefo information.

It is also very interesting to note at this point that on 1 February 2011 you registered another company "David Jähn Büroservice" at the same address, which allegedly employs four people and exclusively provides "general secretarial and typing services" (see Annex 7). It would hardly come as a surprise if this company exclusively handles dunning and legal proceedings for your B2B Technologies Chemnitz GmbH.

Similar to the permanent change of your company name and address, the situation is similar with your bank details, as the credit institutions cancel one after the other (example: Sparkasse Zwickau closed your account as early as 30 May 2011 due to numerous complaints and allegations of aiding and abetting commercial fraud).

Without going into further details at this point, you also frequently change your debt collection service providers. However, as reputable debt collection service providers only collect undisputed debts, it is probably only a matter of time before your own service providers no longer want to work with you.

But this list of changes of name, location, bank and debt collection service provider is not enough. You are certainly keen to avert negative public attention. You therefore operate a whole series of portals under the name "B2B Technologies Chemnitz GmbH", all of which follow the same pattern and are constantly changing. I found the following websites straight away, all of which feature hidden cost traps and are all officially registered in your name, and you, Mr ❚❚❚❚❚❚❚, are named as the managing director in the legal notice:

• b2b-shoppen.de
• online-businessportal.com
• mega-einkaufsquellen.de
• platz-fuer-gewerbekunden.de
• overstock-business.com
• gewerbe-einkauf.de
• shopping-marketplace.com
• perfume.women.online-businessportal.com
• procurementplatform24.com
• restposten99.de
• only-for-commercial-customers.com
• gewerblicheinkaufen.de
• gewerbemarktplatz24.de
• b2b-handelsportal.de
• b2b-customer-portal.com
• b2b-purchasing-platform.com
• b2b-48.de
• b2b-einkaufen.de
• justinbusiness24.de
• lagerware2013.de
• lagerware24.de
• onlybusiness48.de
• only-traders.com
• suppliersecret.com
• die-besten-einkaufspreise.de
• der-restpostengigant.de
• tradinggiants.com
• handelsspezialisten.de
• melango.de

In view of this list, you also seem to have specialised in the commercial "rip-off" of business customers in the recent past. This would explain why you keep referring to the fact that I have no right of cancellation in all your letters. It may well be that I am not entitled to a consumer cancellation right. However, I do not make use of this right. I accuse you of wilful fraudulent misrepresentation, in short, of commercial fraud.

Allow me to ask you the following question: Do you also sue paying consumers, as they have wrongly registered as traders? Or do you collect the alleged contract fee here too and leave it at that?

Dear Mr ❚❚❚❚❚❚❚, you insult me as a dubious businessman in view of these irrefutable facts? This is incomprehensible to me.

It is clearly recognisable that your company is constantly changing its name and registered office. Contact details are not given or cannot be reached. The only logical conclusion is, that you do not want potential customers to find out about you or knew from reading an advert that this could be a fraudulent offer. Your actions during the Melango era were even reported in detail in the television media at the time, so understandably you would have had no chance of continuing to do business with this name.

In my opinion, your actions undoubtedly fulfil the elements of fraudulent misrepresentation according to § 123 BGB. Furthermore, for the reasons stated, I can clearly see the clear intention to defraud within the meaning of § 263 StGB.

This is not only unlawful, but even the attempt is punishable.

I am encouraged with every further letter I receive from your company.

Instead of responding to my questions in a meaningful way, you are throwing around false accusations, false claims and untrue legal cases. You threaten with Schufa entries and Creditreform entries. However, a reputable debt collection service provider would never impose a negative entry on the basis of the customer's defence. If you have actually found one, we will of course take legal action against it.

I would also like to point out that your legal notice still does not fulfil the minimum legal requirements. You completely ignore the requirements of § 5 TMBG; according to the information in your legal notice, it is not possible to contact you directly. You do not even provide a telephone or fax number where you could be contacted (see Appendix 5).

Finally, please allow me to quote a report that I found on jurablogs.de:

"OpSec Security GmbH from Munich explains the scam of its black sheep: the platform melango.de offers clothing, office supplies, household goods and food at particularly favourable prices. However, membership is less favourable in order to be able to shop there at all. As affected consumers reported to OpSec, they received a surprise invoice for membership fees totalling several hundred euros shortly after registering, even though they had already cancelled their registration by fax two days later. However, it is not clear on the homepage that any costs are incurred when registering.

According to SAT1, melango.de already has 60,000 members."

(cf. https://www.jurablogs.com/de/melango-de-testurteil-sehr-gut-onlinehaendler-jahres-unternehmerpreis-2010-negativ-preis)

And in the end, I'm not surprised that you "only" charge 240 euros.

The amount in dispute is so small that no lawyer could ever afford to really represent his client and do research to the extent that I have done in the past few days for a RVG fee...

Please understand that I have already invested far more time in this case than can ever be justified. In this respect, I will not respond to your letters any further.

On behalf of your debt collection agency, I would like to add that I will not be making any further comments on this matter.

Personally, I find it sad how people like you put even more strain on our already overburdened courts. However, if you still do not refrain from your claim, a court will unfortunately also have to decide on the validity of any contract concluded in this case.

Because let's be honest: If you actually had a serious offer, then you would have no problem if "one or two" of them jumped ship because of a mistake about the cost of your offer and you wouldn't have to sue your own supposed customers one after the other. But that is precisely what you do, namely suing your own customers, is and remains your sole business purpose.

With kind regards

Patrick Ruppelt (Managing Director)

Attachments

∞