The six pillars
Six complexes of fact, each on the plaintiff's submission capable of supporting § 826 BGB liability — on the foundation EVIL.
To the pillarsFoundation
EVIL — the foundation beneath the six pillars.
Six pillars rest on a common foundation. The plaintiff has given it a name: Earnings-oriented Trust-induced Camp-deception [working translation of "Erwerbsgerichtete Vertrauensinduzierte Lagertäuschung"] — in short EVIL. This term appears in the second statement-of-claim extension of 27 April 2026 and describes, on the plaintiff's submission, the structural condition without which the operative pillars would not function. The defendants contest the allegations.
The four letters — what they carry
EVIL is an acronym with four components. Each letter stands for a building block of the architecture which the plaintiff submits:
Earnings-oriented
On the plaintiff's submission the conduct is not random, not advisory, not open-ended — it is oriented toward commission and portfolio income. The economic purpose, the plaintiff submits, takes precedence over the customer's interest, even where the outward staging suggests the opposite.
Vertrauen (Trust)
The basis of the business is, on the plaintiff's submission, not a product comparison but a personal trust relationship built up over years — coach, sparring partner, family advisor. This relationship is, the plaintiff submits, deliberately used as a vehicle for economic access.
Induced
On the plaintiff's submission the trust does not arise of itself. It is generated as a matter of plan through language, training, staging and repeated contact. According to the plaintiff this happens systematically — as a method, not as an individual quirk of particular agents.
Lagertäuschung (Camp-deception)
On the plaintiff's submission the customer believes the advisor is on his side of the table — legally, as a tied agent under § 34d para. 7 GewO [Section 34d para. 7 German Trade Regulation Act], he is on the side of the insurer. Formal disclosure in the small print and counter-running trust communication stand, on the plaintiff's submission, side by side as a matter of plan.
Why EVIL is the foundation — and not just another pillar
The plaintiff submits: without the Lager-deception (camp-deception) as a precondition, the five operative pillars would not function. Whoever perceives the agent as a customer-side advisor examines contract changes less critically (Pillar I), accepts tariff classifications without further question (Pillar II), takes premium adjustments without distrust (Pillar III), declares retentions without armouring (Pillar IV) and assumes postal mishaps instead of interference (Pillar V).
EVIL is therefore in the plaintiff's architecture not an additional allegation but the condition of possibility. The six operative pillars are the complexes of fact, EVIL is the load-bearing surface on which, on the plaintiff's submission, they rest.
The structural question
EVIL raises, on the plaintiff's submission, a question that reaches beyond the individual case: Is a formally correct status statement in the footer enough, when the main communication stages a customer-side fiduciary role? This question has not been conclusively answered at supreme-court level. More on this in Legal framework — Development of the law.
The family-doctor frame and the white coat
On the plaintiff's submission, the idea arose in the board-level communication of Defendant 1 (DVAG) to align the financial advisor in the public's esteem with the family doctor. This is not a neutral image. The family doctor stands for proximity, diagnosis, protection, long-term companionship and trust. A doctor does not stand in the camp of a pharmaceutical manufacturer. Precisely for this reason the doctor analogy, on the plaintiff's submission, is a key to the role-architecture.
The image can, on the plaintiff's submission, be sharpened: EVIL is the white coat of the financial-distribution industry. The product sale alone is not the allegation. The allegation is that the seller appears as a doctor, while economically standing in the camp of the manufacturer. The customer sees care. The structure behind it is sales.
EVIL in one sentence: The customer sees the family doctor. In reality, the pharmaceutical sales representative in a white coat stands before him.
Role-splitting — outside coach, inside the producer's camp
The core of EVIL is, on the plaintiff's submission, the role-splitting. Outwardly: coach, sparring partner, life companion, financial advisor. Inwardly: product-bound distribution, commission, the producer's camp. The customer believes someone stands beside him. On the plaintiff's submission the system actually stands on the other side of the table.
Communication mass beats imprint
The formal note stands in the imprint. But EVIL asks, on the plaintiff's submission, not only: What is somewhere legally correct? EVIL asks: What takes effect in the customer's head? On the plaintiff's submission the tied agent stands below in the mandatory-information area. Above, in the main communication space, stand coach, sparring partner, life companion and "100 % for you".
Three camps — three traffic-light phases
The legal role of your contact person determines whose camp they stand in — and which rights and duties follow. Three camps are possible: red (tied agent in the insurer's camp), yellow (insurance broker as trustee of the customer) and green (fee-based advisor in the customer's camp).
It is not the small print that counts — but what arrives in the customer's head
On the question of camp affiliation, on the plaintiff's submission, the status note in the imprint does not decide. What counts is the role the customer attributes to the public appearance — based on advertising, language and outward communication. When coach-speak, sparring-partner staging and brand ambassadors from sport and entertainment make the customer believe they are dealing with an advisor in their own camp, that perception is highly relevant in law. A small status line in the footer does not cure this, in the plaintiff's view.
Source core
Brief 27.04.2026 2nd statement-of-claim extension, section X (six pillars) and section XI (development of the law) · K1.8 imprint / § 34d para. 7 GewO · K42 / K43 exclusive distribution · K44 / K46 / K47 / K49 economic and personal interlinkages · K58–K63 expert convergence from six disciplines
Explainer video: EVIL — what the foundation carries
The explainer video summarises the EVIL architecture audiovisually. It is part of the explanatory series on the proceedings and follows the same editorial guidelines as this website — see Disclaimer.
Read on
Legal framework
What § 826 BGB requires, what overall assessment under § 286 ZPO means — and why this case can have signal effect.
To the frameworkIf you are affected
What a model declaratory action under § 41 VDuG is, and who, as a small undertaking under § 1 para. 2 VDuG, can register.
To the MFK page