ASIN Recycling on Amazon: When Old Customer Reviews Lead to a Cease-and-Desist Letter
A bestselling product with 500 reviews, well established for years, four out of five stars. The supplier changes, a key component is replaced, the ASIN stays the same so that ranking and review history are not lost. It is precisely this practice – the continued use of an ASIN – that the Higher Regional Court (OLG) Cologne has now declared contrary to competition law.
Product Changed, ASIN Retained
The OLG Köln had to deal with the question of whether an Amazon seller may continue to use a product’s reviews even where the product itself has since changed (OLG Köln, order of 18 May 2026 – 6 W 30/26). Specifically, two suppliers of balcony solar systems were in dispute in these proceedings. The respondent had initially offered its complete package in a particular version but later replaced a key component. The offer nevertheless remained online under the same ASIN. At the same time, around 500 customer reviews dating from the time of the earlier product version remained visible. On the competitor’s immediate complaint, the OLG Köln issued a preliminary injunction for misleading advertising pursuant to §§ 8 para. 3 no. 1, 5 para. 2 no. 1 UWG.
For the Senate, it was not necessary that all reviews could be attributed to the earlier product version. It was sufficient that as few as twelve of the roughly 500 reviews expressly mentioned the previously installed product part, the previously installed inverter. The court saw this as a sufficient indication that the offer had been changed in the meantime.
Nor could the respondent evade this by pointing out that it had no recollection of the matter. Since the events concerned its own sphere of business, it would instead have had to disclose its records on any changes of supplier or product. A denial on the grounds of lack of knowledge was not an option in this respect under § 138 para. 4 ZPO. Procedurally, too, the hurdle for the applicant was not particularly high: in the expedited proceedings, the presumption of urgency under § 12 para. 1 UWG applied, as long as the respondent did not set out any circumstances rebutting this presumption.
The Consequences for Online Retail
For Amazon sellers, this is more than a footnote. Continuing an established ASIN with a strong review base after product changes is a tactic that has been widespread in practice for years and that Amazon itself is now combating – ranking, bestseller badge and review history are economically valuable, and changing the ASIN effectively means restarting visibility from scratch. With effect from 12 February 2026, Amazon countered this behaviour with a tightened policy on the sharing of reviews between product variants, which expressly targets the “ASIN merges” that have been practised for years to transfer reviews.
Following this decision, precisely this approach becomes an independent risk under competition law, which can be enforced not only by Amazon itself under its platform policies but also by competitors in court. It is not only cases of deliberate manipulation that are affected: even anyone who changes supplier for understandable economic or logistical reasons and in doing so replaces a key component breaches the law as it stands if the ASIN remains unchanged. The bar for competitors to take action is low: a handful of conspicuous old reviews is already enough as a starting point for expedited proceedings.
Competition Law, Reviews and Online Platforms
The decision fits into a line of case law that regards customer reviews on online platforms as an independent marketing instrument protected under competition law. The number and content of reviews are of central importance for the purchase decision, not only on Amazon; they are displayed prominently and influence click behaviour, trust and ultimately the purchase.
That reviews and comparable trust signals may not simply be “taken along” from one offer to another is not an Amazon-specific principle but one that applies across platforms: the Higher Regional Court (OLG) Frankfurt declared the continued use of Facebook reviews and “likes” after a change of franchise concept to be misleading (judgment of 14 June 2018 – 6 U 23/17, WRP 2018, 1107); the 6th Civil Senate of the OLG Köln itself already decided in 2018 that a product test result applies only to the product actually tested, not to differing product variants (judgment of 13 April 2018 – 6 U 166/17). The present decision expressly applies this line to Amazon customer reviews for the first time.
Moreover, the same Senate had already taken a position on the legal classification of Amazon’s platform rules: a breach of the platform’s ASIN policies does not in itself constitute an infringement of competition law but is merely an indication of the expectations of the relevant public; the actual unfairness must arise independently from the UWG, not from the mere “reification” of contractual platform terms (OLG Köln, judgment of 30 August 2024 – 6 U 25/24 – that case concerned the abusive linking of a free-gift item to an ASIN, not reviews). It is precisely this principle that the Senate applies to the review issue in the current decision: the infringement lies independently in the misleading advertising under § 5 UWG, irrespective of whether Amazon’s ASIN policies have been breached at all.
For sellers, this means: pointing out that one complied with a platform rule that was unclear or, in one’s own view, not applicable does not help. All that counts is whether the average consumer is misled about the basis of the reviews. That such a misconception is also commercially relevant is in line with the general UWG doctrine on the presumption of relevance – which is neither Amazon-specific nor review-specific: it always applies, unless only circumstances that are immaterial to market behaviour are concerned (Federal Court of Justice (BGH), judgment of 19 April 2018 – I ZR 244/16 – Namensangabe).
Consequences for Practice
In practice, following the decision of the OLG, it is advisable to consistently link every change to a material product component – core components, material, scope of functions, a change of supplier involving a change of brand – with a new ASIN, even if this costs ranking and visibility in the short term.
Anyone wishing to continue an existing listing with an accumulated review history should carefully document the scope of the planned change in advance and, in case of doubt, have it assessed legally whether the change is still an immaterial variation. Businesses should also establish internal processes that traceably link changes of supplier and product changes to the Amazon listings concerned – in a dispute, “we do not remember” is not sufficient as a defence; the court demands active clarification from one’s own records. Conversely, anyone who is themselves affected by a competitor recycling reviews in this way has an effective tool for expedited proceedings in this decision.
Outlook
The Senate left open the case of a technically identical replacement part: whether a change without any qualitative or functional effect likewise forces the assignment of a new ASIN thus remains one of the next questions that the case law on Amazon offers will have to deal with. Given the market power of large platforms and the growing importance of reviews as a trust signal, it can be assumed that courts will tighten this line further in the coming years.
Do you sell products yourself via Amazon or other online platforms and are unsure whether a planned product change requires a new ASIN – or are you yourself confronted with comparable practices by a competitor? Let us review your offer and your legal options for action!
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Does a new ASIN have to be created for every product change?
Not for every change, but for material changes – for example the replacement of central functional components, changes of material or a new brand name for the supplied component. What matters is whether the change shifts consumers’ expectations of the product. In case of doubt, a legal review before the decision is advisable.
Does this also apply if the new component is objectively better than the old one?
Yes. The OLG Köln expressly makes clear that it is irrelevant whether the product has deteriorated. What is decisive is solely that the existing reviews related to a different product and that the consumer is misled about this.
Is it sufficient as a defence not to be able to remember the product change?
No. In the court’s view, a business cannot defend itself by pleading lack of knowledge where its own business decisions are concerned. It bears a secondary burden of presentation (sekundäre Darlegungslast): anyone who uses the ASIN must present specific facts on suppliers, dates and product changes.
How many “suspicious” reviews does a competitor need in order to take successful action?
In the case decided, twelve out of roughly 500 reviews mentioning the old component were sufficient for the court as an indication of a preponderant probability. Full proof is not required in expedited proceedings.
Does the decision concern only Amazon or other platforms too?
The court’s reasoning is based essentially on the importance of customer reviews for the purchase decision. This principle can be transferred to other platforms with comparable review systems, even though the decision itself was made in relation to an Amazon offer.
