Confidentiality · by email
We accept submissions by email at justiz@teslanow.de. Submissions are treated confidentially and are not published without prior consultation.
Report by email →Witnesses · Call to those affected
Experiences with financial coaching, insurance intermediation and tied advice
In connection with the civil proceedings TeslaNow GmbH ./. DVAG / Generali (Landgericht Frankfurt am Main, case number 2-10 O 2/26, oral hearing on 2 December 2026), the Plaintiff is seeking experience reports based on first-hand perception. We address people in Germany who have themselves dealt with financial sales networks, insurance intermediaries, financial coaches or comparable advisory structures — it is not about knowing the specific TeslaNow case. Active and former DVAG agents are expressly invited as well to share, confidentially, what they have witnessed from the inside.
Explainer video · Call for witnesses
Eight subject areas · precise individual experiences · confidential
We are looking for similar factual experiences: in particular cases in which advice, product placement, commission interests, product tying or after-sales support were experienced differently from how they were initially presented.
Please describe only what you yourself experienced, read, heard or documented. Exonerating or divergent experiences are also welcome.
Courage means order
Courage here does not mean volume. Courage means order. Whoever sorts their documents, dates their recollections, secures screenshots, exports emails and describes their experience soberly contributes more to clarification than any polemical assertion.
According to the Plaintiff, the rule of law does not need outrage without evidence. It needs people willing to say precisely what they have experienced.
If you have experienced something that fits into the thematic areas below, come forward not out of anger, but out of a sense of responsibility. Write precisely. Attach evidence where you have any. Redact sensitive data if necessary. And do not expect immediate public impact. Clarification is not a sprint — clarification is careful work.
Are you a former DVAG agent?
A dedicated sub-page with three confidentiality tiers, a Whistleblower Protection Act (HinSchG) note, the BGH line on non-compete clauses and a reference to Whistleblower-Netzwerk e.V.
To the ex-agent page →Prefer a guided form?
Four-step form: role → specifics → confidentiality tier → free text. Generates a ready-made email draft in your mail program — no server storage.
To the staged form →Thematic areas
The following eight topics are a search grid, not a questionnaire. You do not need to address every point — even a single precise observation is helpful.
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's not the fine print that counts — but what arrives in the customer's head
On the question of camp affiliation, according to the Plaintiff, what counts is not the status line in the imprint. What counts is which 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 generate in the customer the impression that they are dealing with an adviser in the customer's camp, that perception is highly relevant in law. A small status line in the footer does not cure this, in the Plaintiff's view.
1. Advice or sales?
Did you have the impression of receiving independent advice, only to realise later that primarily certain products or certain providers were being placed?
Examples: a financial coach, adviser or wealth adviser appeared as a neutral helper · product tying was not clearly explained · it was unclear whether the contact person was a broker, an independent adviser or a tied agent · the advice felt independent, but in fact products of one particular partner were predominantly recommended.
2. Trust through coach or life-companion language
Did terms such as "coach", "financial coach", "sparring partner", "life companion", "by your side" or similar phrases generate trust on your part?
Examples: the personal trust impression was stronger than the information about the actual intermediary role · the contact person felt like an independent representative of your interests · the economic sales role faded into the background.
3. Unclear costs, commissions or sales interests
Were costs, commissions or the intermediary's economic interests not clearly explained?
Examples: advice was presented as free of charge · commissions were not openly discussed · product costs only became understandable later · impression that closing interests played a role.
4. Product tying and limited choice
Were you presented with a broad product selection even though, in fact, only certain providers or partner products were seriously offered?
Examples: many product partners were shown but in practice few providers dominated · alternatives were not seriously examined · a particular insurer or financial partner was regularly favoured · the limited choice was not transparently explained.
5. Contract changes, premium adjustments or after-sales support
Were there subsequent problems with contract changes, premium increases, missing premium reductions, cancellation, switching or after-sales support?
Examples: contract changes were not understandably explained · premiums were raised but not lowered again when conditions improved · documents or information were difficult to obtain · cancellation, switching or premium freezes came with unexpected disadvantages · complaints were not factually addressed.
6. Insurance products did not match actual use
Was an insurance product, in your experience, not properly matched to actual use, risk or business model?
Examples: commercial use was treated like private use · letting, fleet or professional use was not properly taken into account · wrong risk class or wrong tariff · problems in the event of a claim · switching made difficult by inappropriate or missing data.
7. Reminders, debt collection or economic pressure
Did you experience reminders, debt collection, threats of cancellation or other pressure being applied despite an ongoing dispute about claims or contractual issues?
Examples: reminders despite ongoing clarification · debt collection despite a contested claim · cancellation pressure · blocks, disadvantages or negative consequences · payment out of pressure rather than out of conviction.
8. Internal experiences from sales, training or support
Were you, or are you, an agent, employee, training participant or otherwise internally involved?
We are looking for experiences regarding: training on customer approach · use of coach or adviser terminology · commission and target systems · product specifications · handling of complaints · handling of customers who wish to cancel or switch · instructions on how to present one's own role.
How submissions are received
Please do not submit mere opinions or assumptions. Helpful are concrete personal experiences with timeframe, persons involved, documents, emails, conversation notes or other evidence.
Please only forward documents if you are entitled to do so.
No particular statement is expected. Diverging or exonerating submissions are also expressly welcome.
Former DVAG agents — what the Plaintiff is looking for
This section is addressed to people who worked, or still work, for DVAG as wealth advisers, office managers or directorate agents and who would like to share their own perceptions from inside the multi-level sales structure. The Plaintiff is looking for people who can report from their own perception — not second-hand.
Areas in which submissions are particularly valuable:
- Training material from internal DVAG trainings: linguistic and argumentation building blocks used in client conversations.
- Commission and remuneration models: bonus loans, charge-back reserve, target agreements, career-level pressure.
- Practice of churning (replacing existing contracts with new ones): who triggers this, when, with what arguments?
- Coach and sparring-partner language: how was the topic of role, remuneration flow and Generali tying discussed with clients?
- Exit experiences: payout of charge-back reserves, non-compete clauses, clawback of commissions.
Three confidentiality tiers
You decide for each submission how far your identity is carried:
Anonymous
No real name. Content is reviewed; follow-up questions only if you yourself come back.
Confidential
Only the Plaintiff's lawyers know your identity. The submission does not appear in pleadings under your name.
Open
Ready to testify in the proceedings. Every testimony is preceded by a confidential pre-talk — without obligation.
Legal framework — factual
- Whistleblower Protection Act (HinSchG): in force since 2 July 2023, with reversal of the burden of proof in cases of retaliation.
- Non-compete clauses without compensation for restraint are, under settled BGH case-law (e.g. judgment of 22 January 2016), regularly invalid.
- Payout of charge-back reserves: the OLG Karlsruhe has clarified that retained charge-back reserves must be paid out after an agent's exit, where the prerequisites are met.
- Press-law protection of sources under § 53 StPO in the case of journalistic publication.
This page does not provide legal advice. We expressly recommend obtaining independent advice before submitting a tip — for example via Whistleblower-Netzwerk e.V. (initial consultation free of charge) or via the BaFin whistleblower office (for matters of supervisory law).