Telephone Scam: How to Fend Off Bills for Unwanted Sweepstakes

Last Updated: June 2026
Reading Time: approx. 5 minutes

Legal Disclaimer: This article provides legal information based on the German Civil Code (BGB) and applicable consumer protection laws. It does not constitute legal advice. In cases of serious fraud, you should inform the police or contact the consumer advice center.

Telephone Scam: Bills for Unwanted Sweepstakes

"You have won!" or "We are calling about your existing sweepstakes subscription" – this is often how telephone calls begin that end up in an expensive cost trap. Telephone scams aim to get consumers to reveal their bank details through pressure or confusion. Shortly afterwards, a bill for a sweepstakes arrives in the mail that was never wanted. But the legal situation is clearer here than the scammers want you to believe. You can find further basic information in our debt collection guide.

1. The Scam: Pressure and Deception

Scammers often use fake identities and claim that you have missed the cancellation period for a (non-existent) subscription.

To reduce costs, a "cheaper" short-term subscription is offered.
Anyone who agrees to this often receives mail from companies they have never heard of.

2. Legal Invalidity of Telephone Contracts

Since 2021, the so-called confirmation solution (Bestätigungslösung) has applied to sweepstakes contracts in Germany:

A contract concluded over the phone for participation in sweepstakes is generally only valid if the consumer subsequently confirms it in text form (e.g. email, letter).
Without this subsequent confirmation, generally no payment-obligatory contract is formed.
Simply saying "yes" on the phone is legally not enough to validly bill you for costs.

3. Content Control and Transparency (Section 307 BGB)

If the senders try to rely on hidden clauses in their confirmation letters, the content control according to Section 307 BGB applies:

Provisions in standard contracts are invalid if they unreasonably disadvantage the contractual partner contrary to the requirements of good faith.
A disadvantage exists in particular if the clause is not clear and understandable (transparency requirement).
As a rule, surprising clauses that suddenly transform a free service into a paid subscription are legally vulnerable.

4. Reacting Correctly: Objection Instead of Payment

Do not let yourself be intimidated by debt collection threats, which are often structured similarly to a subscription trap on the internet.

Do not pay hastily: Anyone who pays may indirectly acknowledge the claim, making it harder to get the money back.
Object in writing: Inform the company that the conclusion of a valid contract is disputed because the required text form confirmation is missing.
Revocation: As a precaution, it is advisable to revoke the contract in case you accidentally clicked on a confirmation.

Smart Preparation through AI Analysis

Seeing through unjustified claims and checking supposed confirmation letters can be a hurdle. Jurivo supports you in your preparation and helps to better classify the text structures:

Form Orientation: The AI helps you check whether the statutory text form requirements have been taken into account in typical contract letters or whether there are noticeable deviations.
Clause Matching: We help you classify whether the providers' provisions show patterns that regularly raise questions regarding their transparency in the sense of Section 307 BGB.
Structured Drafting Aid: Get guidance and text support to systematically counter unjustified claims.

💡 Scan sweepstakes bill for legal bindingness
Test the Jurivo analysis tool to better classify your document.
Check now ← /en/analyse

Status of Legislation: June 2026.