Landmark Ruling: Munich Court Challenges Discriminatory EV Charging Pricing

A recent decision by the Munich Regional Court (Landgericht München I) could serve as the catalyst for a fundamental restructuring of the public electric vehicle (EV) charging market across Europe. In a high-stakes legal dispute between Digital Charging Solutions (DCS) and charge point operator (CPO) EWE Go, the court has ruled that operators cannot charge third-party mobility service providers (eMSPs) significantly higher prices than their own direct contract customers without robust, objective justification.

If this ruling is upheld in higher instances, it threatens to dismantle the current business model centered on exorbitant roaming surcharges, potentially paving the way for a more transparent, user-friendly, and cost-effective charging landscape for millions of EV drivers.

The Core Conflict: A Question of Fair Access

At the heart of the litigation lies the interpretation of the European Union’s Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Regulation (AFIR). Specifically, Article 5, Paragraph 3 of the AFIR stipulates that operators of publicly accessible charging points must not discriminate in their pricing—neither between different end-customers nor between various mobility service providers.

While the regulation allows for price differentiation, it mandates that such variations must be proportional, transparent, and based on objective criteria. The Munich court found that EWE Go’s pricing structure failed to meet these rigorous standards.

The Disparity in Numbers

According to industry reports, the price gap was stark. As of January 1, 2025, EWE Go charged third-party eMSPs, such as DCS, an "Offer2All" rate of 83.7 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh). In contrast, registered EWE Go customers paid only 52 cents per kWh at the exact same location, while ad-hoc (non-registered) customers were charged 79 cents.

Beyond the roughly 60% price premium imposed on roaming providers, EWE Go levied an additional "blocking fee" of 10 cents per minute that applied exclusively to eMSPs. The court viewed this systematic price gouging as a direct violation of the non-discrimination principle enshrined in the AFIR, arguing that the arguments provided by EWE Go—such as administrative overhead, customer service costs, and entrepreneurial risks—did not justify such a massive disparity.

Chronology of the Dispute

The legal battle between DCS and EWE Go has been brewing for months, reflecting broader tensions within the European charging ecosystem.

• April 13, 2024: The date from which the court has granted DCS the right to seek damages. This marks the initial period identified by the court as having actionable discriminatory pricing.
• January 1, 2025: A key reference date in the case, where the discrepancy between the 83.7-cent roaming rate and the 52-cent internal rate was explicitly highlighted as evidence of market distortion.
• October 2026: The Munich Regional Court (Case Ref: 33 O 2062/25) issues its ruling, siding with DCS. The court concludes that EWE Go’s pricing model lacks the necessary objective justification required under EU law.
• Post-Ruling Phase: The case remains non-final (nicht rechtskräftig). EWE Go has stated it is currently reviewing the judgment, while the industry watches to see if the case will head to an appellate court.

Supporting Data and Economic Mechanics

The current structure of the EV charging market creates a "structural disadvantage" for eMSPs. Typically, an eMSP must purchase energy from a CPO, add its own operational costs, cover transaction fees, and secure a profit margin before presenting a final price to the driver.

When a CPO uses its own proprietary charging network to offer "loss-leader" or subsidized rates to its direct customers while charging external providers significantly more, the eMSP is effectively pushed out of the market. They cannot compete with the CPO’s own retail price because their "wholesale" purchase price is already higher than what the average consumer pays at the pump.

The "Flickenteppich" (Patchwork) Problem

The industry is currently defined by what many call a "patchwork" of apps, proprietary RFID cards, and opaque roaming tariffs. For the average EV driver, this creates a confusing experience: a single charging station might cost 45 cents with one provider’s app and 85 cents with another. By mandating fairer wholesale pricing, the Munich court’s decision could reduce the necessity for drivers to carry a dozen different charging cards, shifting the market toward a more unified and competitive landscape.

Official Responses and Industry Reception

The reaction from the broader industry has been one of cautious observation mixed with significant apprehension.

Digital Charging Solutions (DCS)

Jörg Reimann, CEO of DCS, lauded the decision as a milestone for the European market. He noted that this is the first known court ruling focusing on pricing discrimination under Article 5 of the AFIR. Reimann argued that the existing price gaps are "drastic and incomprehensible" for consumers, emphasizing that a mobility provider cannot offer a competitive service if their primary input cost is intentionally inflated by the infrastructure operator.

EWE Go’s Stance

EWE Go has remained tight-lipped, citing the ongoing nature of the legal proceedings. In a statement to Electrive, the company confirmed it is analyzing the court’s written reasoning before deciding on its next steps, including the possibility of an appeal.

Industry Associations

The Ladeinfrastrukturverband (CharGER) has offered a nuanced perspective. They warn that the ruling should not be interpreted as an outright ban on price differentiation. Rather, it sets a new, stricter benchmark for how those differences must be justified. Industry analysts suggest that operators have two ways to respond: either lower their high roaming prices to meet the new standard or raise their artificially low "in-house" prices to bridge the gap—a move that would be unpopular with their loyal customer bases.

Implications for the European Charging Market

1. A Shift in Roaming and MSP Models

If the Munich ruling holds, the entire ecosystem of "Roaming-Tariffs" will face a forced evolution. CPOs can no longer treat third-party providers as a secondary, captive market to be squeezed for extra revenue. This could lead to a normalization of prices, where the difference between a direct customer and a roaming customer is limited to actual, demonstrable costs—such as technical integration fees or billing overheads—rather than arbitrary surcharges.

2. Legal Precedent Across the EU

While the ruling of a regional court in Munich does not automatically bind all other CPOs across Europe, it establishes a dangerous precedent for operators engaging in similar practices. E-mobility service providers across the continent are expected to begin auditing their own wholesale agreements. If the legal rationale provided by the Munich court is adopted by higher courts or the European Court of Justice, it could trigger a wave of litigation across the EU.

3. The Future of the "Fair Price"

The ultimate impact on the end consumer remains to be seen. While lower wholesale prices for eMSPs could lead to cheaper roaming prices for the public, there is a risk that CPOs will simply hike their internal rates to balance their books. However, in a competitive market, those who offer the most transparent and fair pricing will likely win the favor of the increasing number of EV drivers who are growing tired of the current, fragmented, and opaque pricing landscape.

4. A More Integrated Experience

Perhaps the most significant long-term impact is the potential for simplification. If the barrier to entry for eMSPs to compete on price at any given station is lowered, the incentive for consumers to use a single, preferred mobility app increases. This could effectively end the era of the "app-swarm," where drivers must juggle multiple accounts just to ensure they aren’t being overcharged depending on which charger they encounter on the road.

Conclusion

The ruling by the Landgericht München I is more than just a dispute between two corporate entities; it is a signal that the "Wild West" era of EV charging pricing is under regulatory scrutiny. By leveraging the AFIR to enforce fair play, the court has placed the burden of proof on infrastructure operators. Whether this leads to a market correction or a series of protracted legal battles, the status quo of significantly higher roaming fees is clearly under threat. For the European transition to sustainable transport, this could be the beginning of a much-needed, more equitable, and transparent charging revolution.