In a decision that could fundamentally reshape the economics of electric vehicle (EV) charging across the European Union, the Munich I Regional Court (Landgericht München I) has delivered a significant verdict regarding the fairness of roaming fees. The ruling, issued on October 6, 2026 (Case No. 33 O 2062/25), strikes a blow against "price discrimination" by charging point operators (CPOs) against third-party mobility service providers (MSPs).
The legal battle, initiated by Digital Charging Solutions (DCS)—a major player in the European roaming space—against the CPO EWE Go, centers on the interpretation of Article 5(3) of the EU’s Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Regulation (AFIR). The court’s verdict mandates that CPOs cannot charge roaming providers substantially higher rates than they charge their own direct contract customers or ad-hoc users.
The Core Conflict: A Three-Tiered Price Structure
The dispute originated from the pricing landscape observed on January 1, 2025. According to court documents, EWE Go operated a complex, multi-tiered pricing model for High Power Charging (HPC) that placed third-party providers at a severe competitive disadvantage.
At the time, the pricing structure was broken down as follows:
- Mobility Service Providers (Roaming): 83.7 cents per kWh (gross).
- Ad-hoc Users: 79 cents per kWh (gross).
- EWE Go App/Contract Customers: 52 cents per kWh (gross).
The disparity is stark. While the difference between the ad-hoc price and the roaming price was roughly 6 percent, the gap between the roaming price and the EWE Go app-based tariff was a staggering 60 percent (31.7 cents per kWh). Furthermore, EWE Go imposed a "blocking fee" of 10 cents per minute on roaming providers that was not applied to its own direct customers.
DCS argued that this structure essentially locked out competition. By forcing third-party providers to pay a premium that their own customers would ultimately have to absorb, EWE Go was effectively creating a "walled garden," forcing drivers to use the operator’s proprietary app to access fair market prices.
Chronology of the Dispute
- April 13, 2024: The EU’s AFIR comes into full force, introducing strict requirements for transparent, non-discriminatory pricing at public charging stations across Europe.
- February 2025: Digital Charging Solutions (DCS), a joint venture of BMW, Mercedes-Benz, and BP, files a lawsuit against EWE Go in the Munich I Regional Court. DCS leverages the AFIR framework and German competition law to challenge the pricing structure.
- October 6, 2026: The 33rd Civil Chamber of the Munich I Regional Court rules in favor of DCS. The court finds that the price discrimination violates the spirit and letter of the AFIR.
- Post-Verdict: The court orders EWE Go to provide full disclosure regarding its pricing metrics, pay damages retroactive to the date of the AFIR’s implementation (April 2024), and cover the legal costs of the proceedings.
The Legal Foundation: AFIR and Non-Discrimination
The Munich court’s decision is being cited as the first major judicial interpretation of Article 5(3) of the AFIR in the European Union. This article requires that prices charged by operators of publicly accessible recharging points be "reasonable, easily and clearly comparable, transparent and non-discriminatory."
EWE Go’s defense centered on the argument that higher fees for roaming providers were justified by the additional administrative burdens, customer support overhead, and business risks associated with managing external partners. However, the court remained unconvinced. The chamber ruled that while cost-based pricing is permissible, the extent of the surcharge—specifically the 31.7-cent gap—could not be objectively justified by administrative costs alone.
"The prohibition of discrimination under the AFIR also applies to the tariffs an operator charges its own contract customers at its own charging points," the court noted in its summary, signaling that CPOs cannot use internal apps as a shield to circumvent market fairness.
Industry Implications and Market Reactions
The decision sends a shockwave through the charging industry, which has long been criticized by entities such as the German Monopolies Commission and the Federal Cartel Office (Bundeskartellamt). These bodies have repeatedly warned that the lack of price transparency and the proliferation of proprietary roaming conditions create "competition-harming structures."
The View from the Industry
Jörg Reimann, CEO of DCS, welcomed the decision as a victory for the consumer: "If a provider pays significantly more in procurement than the operator charges its own customers, it is impossible to create a competitive offer at that charging point."
For the wider market, the ruling does not mean that prices will drop overnight. Roaming providers—who manage IT, billing, customer support, and payment processing—still have to factor in their own operational costs. However, the ruling creates a "price ceiling" of sorts, preventing CPOs from using discriminatory pricing as a weapon to monopolize the customer relationship.
Official Responses
EWE Go has been measured in its response. An official statement indicated that the company is currently reviewing the written judgment and considering its legal options, which include an appeal to a higher court. "This will take some time," a company spokesperson stated, suggesting that this is likely only the first act in a longer legal drama.
The Future for EV Drivers
For the average electric vehicle driver, the immediate impact may be subtle. Most EV drivers have become accustomed to navigating a fragmented landscape of "charging keys" and apps to find the best rate.
While this court ruling forces a more level playing field for roaming providers, it does not mandate that these companies pass those savings on to consumers. However, by removing the artificial price floors created by discriminatory CPO fees, the market is incentivized to become more competitive. If roaming providers can now negotiate better access prices, they gain the "room to maneuver" necessary to offer more attractive, standardized pricing to their subscribers.
Long-term Structural Shifts
The Munich verdict serves as a precedent that could embolden other mobility service providers to challenge predatory pricing across the EU. If the ruling survives the appellate process, it effectively forces CPOs to treat all electricity consumers with parity, regardless of whether they have a direct contract with the station owner or are using a third-party service.
This shift is critical for the "drive for electrification." High and opaque charging costs have been identified as a primary deterrent for potential EV buyers. By standardizing the pricing logic—making it "transparent and non-discriminatory" as the AFIR intended—the EU is attempting to move toward a mature, consumer-centric energy infrastructure.
Conclusion: A Regulatory Turning Point
The Munich I Regional Court has signaled that the "Wild West" era of EV charging pricing is under siege. By applying the principles of the AFIR to the real-world business practices of charging operators, the judiciary is forcing the industry to move away from exclusionary, proprietary pricing models.
As the sector continues to grow, the ability of roaming providers to act as a bridge between various networks is essential. This ruling ensures that they can fulfill that role without being penalized by the very infrastructure they rely upon. While legal appeals may delay the finality of this specific case, the message to the charging industry is clear: the era of discriminatory pricing is coming to an end, and transparency is no longer optional—it is a legal requirement.
