EWE Go Roaming Ruling: What the Munich Court Decision Means for Charging Card Prices
📅 Published on October 24, 2026
Information as of 24 October 2026. Based on reports by electrive.net, zfk.de, cash-online.de, teltarif.de, dmt-puls.de and elektroauto-news.net (sources at the end). The ruling is not final, and according to zfk.de the written reasons had not yet been published when those reports appeared – some details may still change.
If you charge at another operator's station with a charging card or a charging app, you can end up paying more than someone who uses the operator's own app – at the same charger, for the same electricity. On 6 October 2026 the Munich I Regional Court (Landgericht München I) ruled in a dispute between the roaming provider Digital Charging Solutions (DCS) and the charge point operator EWE Go that such a price gap can violate the EU Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Regulation (AFIR). This article sorts out what is documented, what it means for you as a driver, and what it explicitly does not mean yet.
What happened: the key facts
The Munich I Regional Court, case number 33 O 2062/25, upheld DCS's claim against EWE Go. According to electrive.net, a mobility service provider (MSP – a provider of charging cards and charging apps) sued a charge point operator (CPO). cash-online.de reports that the dispute started in February 2025; electrive.net reports a hearing in February 2026. The judgment was delivered on 6 October 2026. According to zfk.de, DCS named that date and EWE Go confirmed the decision when asked. It is not final – either side can appeal.
The legal basis is Article 5(3) of Regulation (EU) 2023/1804 (AFIR), in force EU-wide since 13 April 2024. According to the reports, it prohibits unjustified price discrimination between end users and mobility service providers. Different prices are not banned outright, but they are only permitted if they are proportionate and objectively justified. For a general introduction to AFIR, see our article on card payment and the price rules under AFIR.
The prices in dispute: one charger, three tariffs
The figures come from the reports and refer to the reference date 1 January 2025 (gross prices per kWh for fast charging at EWE Go chargers):
- Registered EWE Go customers (app contract customers): 52 ct/kWh
- Ad-hoc customers without a contract: 79 ct/kWh
- Mobility service providers such as DCS (the so-called Offer2All price): 83.7 ct/kWh
- Blocking fee: 10 ct per minute (net) – according to the reports, at that time charged only to mobility service providers, not to ad-hoc or app customers
You can check the arithmetic yourself: 83.7 minus 52 is a 31.7 ct/kWh difference between the MSP price and the price for the operator's own contract customers. That is 31.7 / 52 ≈ 61 percent, matching the "around 60 percent" in the reports. Compared with the ad-hoc price the gap is much smaller: 83.7 minus 79 = 4.7 ct/kWh. The blocking fee came on top and, according to dmt-puls.de, cash-online.de and zfk.de, was also covered by the ruling.
One caveat on these prices: they are the terms between EWE Go and DCS on the reference date, not what a driver pays today at any EWE Go charger. The sources give no current end-customer prices, and we do not invent any.
What the court decided – and what it did not
According to electrive.net and zfk.de, EWE Go may not charge DCS, in the challenged form, higher prices than it charges its own contract customers and ad-hoc customers; this includes the blocking fee. Electrive.net reads the decision as treating 52 ct/kWh as the ceiling, while zfk.de words it more cautiously ("no more than ad-hoc and contract customers"). Since the written reasons were not yet available when the reports were published, it is unclear which reading holds. We report both without judging them.
The reports also document these points:
- EWE Go's justifications – higher administrative effort, customer service, business risk and customer-retention models – did not convince the court, according to electrive.net and teltarif.de.
- According to zfk.de, the non-discrimination rule also applies when an operator offers its own contract customers tariffs at its own charge points.
- EWE Go must in principle compensate DCS for damage since 13 April 2024, provide information and accounts, and bear the costs of the proceedings. The amount is open; electrive.net writes it could reach several million euros, but no exact figure exists.
What the ruling does not say: according to the industry association CharGER (quoted by electrive.net and elektroauto-news.net), it does not ban different prices in principle but sets a new standard for how they must be justified. Nor does it set a general end-customer price.
The parties' positions
According to electrive.net, DCS CEO Jörg Reimann calls price differences at the same charger sometimes "drastic" and incomprehensible to consumers, and says effective enforcement of the non-discrimination rule is a precondition for competition. DCS General Counsel Timo Knapheide sees an important clarification of whether the rule also applies when an operator offers its own charging tariffs. To DCS's knowledge, this is the first court decision on price discrimination under Article 5(3) AFIR – that is DCS's own statement, which we cannot independently confirm.
According to zfk.de, EWE Go considers its pricing proportionate and correct, is reviewing the reasons for the judgment and will decide on next steps afterwards. It does not comment on the substance while proceedings are pending. For context: DCS is not a charger operator itself but sells charging access; according to zfk.de it operates in 31 markets and offers access to over 1.2 million charge points. DCS is therefore a party with its own commercial interest, which is worth keeping in mind when weighing its statements.
Worked example: what 31.7 ct/kWh means for one session
The following is a thought experiment using the reference-date prices and an assumed 40 kWh session – not a statement about what any driver actually paid:
- 40 kWh × €0.52/kWh = €20.80 (contract customer directly with the operator)
- 40 kWh × €0.79/kWh = €31.60 (ad-hoc)
- 40 kWh × €0.837/kWh = €33.48 (price for mobility service providers)
The difference between the first and third line is €12.68. The blocking fee would come on top: for an assumed 30 minutes of standing time that is 30 × €0.10 = €3.00 net. Important: the price a driver with a charging card pays is not the price between operator and MSP. The provider adds its own fees and margins or, depending on the tariff, may pass on discounts. The €33.48 is therefore a purchase-price example, not a card price.
Will charging get cheaper now? What speaks for and against
The honest answer: probably not in the short term. Elektroauto-news.net, teltarif.de and dmt-puls.de give largely the same reasons:
- The ruling is not final and could be changed on appeal. According to zfk.de, a ruling by a supreme court on the interpretation is still outstanding.
- It initially concerns only the parties. A regional court ruling does not bind other operators. How far it has an effect beyond that is not conclusively addressed in the reports (teltarif.de's source states that it does not say more).
- Operators have two options. They could lower their roaming purchase prices – or raise their cheap own tariffs. Either would close the gap; only the first would benefit drivers.
- Mobility service providers may keep fees and margins. Even with lower purchase prices, drivers do not automatically pay the operator's direct-customer price.
In the longer term it could become simpler for drivers: if roaming purchase prices move closer to the end-customer price, elektroauto-news.net sees room for more attractive roaming tariffs, and the question "which operator app do I need at this charger?" would matter less. According to dmt-puls.de, DCS expects roaming providers to be able to offer better prices in future. That is an expectation, not a commitment.
How this relates to roaming, charging cards and blocking fees
Some background: with roaming, one provider (your card or app) gives access to chargers of many operators and settles with them in the background. How that works and why prices vary by card and charger is explained in EV roaming cards explained; a price comparison of cards is in the charging card comparison. For the blocking fee, which played its own role in the dispute, see blocking fees at charging stations. And which price details are meant to become mandatory is covered in the article on the price display rules.
What you can do as an EV driver now
A few habits follow from the documented facts – they are conclusions, not guarantees:
1. Check the final price before plugging in. Teltarif.de advises checking before each session which price your card or app charges and whether time-based fees apply. The ruling shows that noticeable gaps can arise between an operator's list price and a card price.
2. Compare several routes. At some chargers, ad-hoc, operator app or charging card can come out differently. For orientation, see ad-hoc, charging card or subscription.
3. Look at paid prices, not list prices. What someone was actually billed is closer to practice than a tariff table – more in community prices vs. list prices.
4. Watch developments rather than anticipate them. Whether EWE Go appeals and whether other operators change their roaming terms is open. If you have a charging card, you can ask your provider whether tariffs are changing – we have no commitments on that.
How Elunio can help – and where its limits are
Elunio shows charging stations on a map and in a list, filters by power and price, and displays prices other drivers have reported at a station. When list, ad-hoc and card prices can diverge, a price someone actually paid is a useful additional data point. The limits: community reports are individual cases and not exhaustive, and unless stated they do not say which tariff someone paid through. The best coverage with live data is in Baden-Württemberg (live occupancy via MobiData BW) and the DACH region; elsewhere data is thinner. Elunio does not assess the ruling and does not calculate card prices – it shows what was last reported at the charger.
Frequently asked questions
What was the ruling about?
Whether a charge point operator (EWE Go) may charge a roaming provider (DCS) higher prices and a blocking fee than its own contract customers. On 6 October 2026 the Munich I Regional Court (case 33 O 2062/25) saw a violation of Article 5(3) AFIR.
Is the ruling final?
No. EWE Go is reviewing the reasons and will then decide how to proceed.
Will I pay less now?
That cannot be shown. The ruling concerns the relationship between EWE Go and DCS; operators could also raise their cheap own tariffs, and mobility service providers may charge their own fees.
Are different prices banned now?
No. Differences are permitted if proportionate and objectively justified. What is new is the standard for the justification, according to the industry association CharGER.
How high is the compensation?
Open. The court awards DCS damages in principle since 13 April 2024; the amount has not been determined.
Conclusion
On 6 October 2026 the Munich I Regional Court ruled that an operator may not put a roaming provider at a price disadvantage versus its own customers without objective justification – in the dispute, 83.7 ct/kWh versus 52 ct/kWh, a gap of about 61 percent, plus a blocking fee that applied only to mobility service providers. Because the ruling is not final, binds only the parties and does not order a price cut for drivers, it is a signal, not a price promise. To keep costs under control, compare final prices, watch for time-based fees and look at what other drivers actually paid.
Sources: electrive.net – "Wegweisendes Urteil: EWE Go soll DCS nur die Preise für Vertragskunden berechnen" (06.10.2026) · zfk.de – "Diskriminierung an der Ladesäule: Gericht verurteilt EWE Go" · cash-online.de – "Drei Preise für einen Ladevorgang: Gericht stoppt EWE Go bei Roaming-Tarifen" (case 33 O 2062/25) · teltarif.de – "Hohe Ladepreise für E-Autos: Dieses Urteil macht Hoffnung" · dmt-puls.de – "Nach Urteil: Fallen bald die Roaming-Preise?" · elektroauto-news.net – "Urteil setzt Roaming-Aufschlägen Grenzen: Wird Laden nun günstiger?"