Telemedicine and access to medical cannabis via online platforms have become a central issue in Germany’s cannabis sector, drawing scrutiny from policymakers and healthcare professionals.
As medical cannabis imports have risen sharply, critics argue that recreational users may be exploiting online prescription services intended for patients. Although the increase in imports does not directly prove misuse, it has prompted Health Minister Nina Warken to introduce a draft bill ahead of the scheduled evaluation of the Cannabis Act (CanG) in 2025–26. The proposal seeks to limit online prescriptions of cannabis and prohibit the shipment of cannabis flowers.
The plan has sparked strong opposition from patients, healthcare professionals and industry groups, who argue it would restrict access to treatment. Legal experts also warn that the measures may conflict with European law, which protects both patients’ rights and doctors’ freedom to practise. Lawyers note that restricting online medical consultations could infringe on the professional freedom of doctors in Germany.
Constitutional and European Law Concerns
According to Franziska Katterbach, partner at law firm Oppenhoff, the proposal could significantly curtail the professional autonomy of doctors. The bill would require patients to attend in-person consultations every quarter and collect cannabis flowers directly from pharmacies.
This could create a competitive imbalance across Europe: while German doctors would face tighter restrictions, doctors in neighbouring EU states could still issue prescriptions via telemedicine.
German patients could legally use such prescriptions at domestic pharmacies, giving foreign providers an advantage.
This, Katterbach argues in LTO.de, would contravene the principles of the EU single market and the freedom to provide services under Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Such restrictions would only be lawful if justified by overriding public interest.
Questionable Justification
The Ministry has argued that the Cannabis Act’s scheduled evaluation relates only to recreational use, necessitating earlier action on medical cannabis.
However, the CDU-SPD coalition agreement already mandates an initial evidence-based review later this year. Critics suggest the draft law represents an attempt by the minister to impose stricter rules in advance, aligned with the CDU’s political stance.
From a legal standpoint, questions remain over whether a blanket ban on telemedicine and mail-order prescriptions is proportionate, especially when based solely on rising import volumes.
The Ministry’s position implies a general suspicion of prescribing doctors, despite their already stringent legal and professional obligations.
Legislative Change Seen as Unnecessary
Katterbach contends that current law already prohibits automated prescription systems without physician involvement, minimising abuse risks.
She argues that further restrictions would unduly harm immobile patients and undermine doctors’ professional freedom under Article 12 of Germany’s Basic Law.
Instead of a blanket ban, more targeted safeguards—such as stricter documentation requirements, greater oversight by statutory health insurance associations or random audits—could better address concerns.
Ultimately, she argues, telemedicine should be promoted as a modern model of care, not restricted.
Building Trust in the Sector
To strengthen confidence, Katterbach recommends that industry players establish a voluntary code of conduct, similar to the pharmaceutical industry’s self-regulation framework.
Such standards, exceeding legal minimums, would demonstrate responsibility, improve quality and ensure transparency. She emphasises that policymakers should give the sector time to implement such measures, rather than imposing abrupt restrictions.
Next Steps
The draft bill, initially scheduled for cabinet discussion on 10 September, was postponed and withdrawn. It is now expected to be reconsidered at the cabinet meeting on 8 October 2025.
Coalition partner SPD has reiterated its commitment to ‘reliable, local and barrier-free care’ for patients, while signalling openness to balanced regulation that addresses both patient access and potential misuse.
