When a recommendation is sold as an obligation.
A sober briefing on statements circulating in the market — and which do not withstand legal scrutiny.
In the context of trackdays, Touristenfahrten and private track events, statements have been appearing for some time suggesting that taking out a particular motorsport liability policy is required by law. These statements are repeated in newsletters, sales conversations and online posts, without any reliable legal basis.
Anyone selling a product is allowed to advertise. Advertising may position, sharpen and persuade. What it may not do is claim an obligation that does not exist in law. Statements that imply a statutory insurance obligation for drivers or organisers move into territory commonly described as misleading commercial conduct.
The line is not the sharpness of the argument, but the factual accuracy of the central assertion.
Such statements often build on misconceptions about insurance on the racetrack. How liability, comprehensive cover and recourse actually function is set out in the briefing on racetrack insurance.
- —„Motorsport liability insurance has been mandatory since the EU reform."
- —„EU law forces drivers on the racetrack to take out a policy."
- —„Organisers are obliged to provide such an insurance for participants."
- —„Without this insurance you may no longer drive."
- —„§ 5d PflVG makes the policy obligatory."
What these sentences share: they construct an obligation where the legislator imposed none.
A motorsport liability policy can be sensible, even strongly advisable. It is not mandatory.
The decision for or against such a policy is an economic and personal risk assessment — not the discharge of a statutory requirement. Those who present this transparently stand on solid ground. Those who sell it as an obligation do not.
A purchase decision based on a false assumption of obligation is not an informed decision. It distorts the market, distorts the understanding of risk, and shifts attention away from the questions that really matter: what does the policy actually cover? Which exclusions apply? What about recourse?
Anyone who buys on the basis of „obligation" tends to scrutinise the conditions less carefully than they should.
Recommending is permitted.
Claiming an obligation where none exists is not.
The risk becomes particularly tangible in a concrete loss event — for instance in the case of the Nordschleife, as described in the internal briefing of the Scuderia Hanseat.