# CJEU on Mandatory Information in Food Supplement Advertising > The CJEU rules that mandatory information need not be repeated in print ads if it already appears on the food supplement’s label. Source: https://www.mtrlegal.com/en/cjeu-mandatory-information-food-supplement-advertising/ · Language: en · Updated: 2026-11-02 --- The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has clarified the information requirements for health claims relating to food supplements ([EuGH, judgment](https://infocuria.curia.europa.eu/tabs/document/C/2024/C-0657-24-00000000RP-01-P-01/ARRET/326735-DE-1-html) of 17 September 2026 – C-657/24). According to the judgment, a written advertisement does not constitute “labelling” within the meaning of Article 10(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 (EU Health Claims Regulation). If the labelling of the food supplement already contains the prescribed information, that information does not also have to appear in a written advertisement. ## Dispute over health claims in a print advertisement K.-GmbH distributes a food supplement in capsule form that contains glucomannan, among other ingredients. The packaging includes a statement on the importance of a varied and balanced diet and a healthy lifestyle. In 2020, the company arranged for an advertisement for the product to be published in the print media. Among other things, it used the claims “Lose weight healthily” and “Glucomannan contributes to weight loss in the context of an energy-restricted diet.” It was undisputed that the advertisement did not contain the statement concerning a balanced diet and healthy lifestyle printed on the packaging. A consumer protection association took the view that the information required under Article 10(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 should also have accompanied the health claims in the print advertisement. It therefore brought an action for injunctive relief before the Landgericht München I (Munich Regional Court I). ### Course of the German proceedings The Landgericht München I upheld the action by judgment of 19 January 2022; this judgment and the subsequent decision of the lower appellate court are not final because an appeal on points of law is pending before the Bundesgerichtshof (BGH, Federal Court of Justice), and the outcome of the proceedings remains open. The Oberlandesgericht München (Munich Higher Regional Court) dismissed K.-GmbH’s appeal on 20 July 2023. The company subsequently lodged an appeal on points of law with the Bundesgerichtshof. In those proceedings, the company was the defendant and appellant on points of law, while the consumer protection association participated as the claimant and respondent. For the Bundesgerichtshof, the decision depended on whether the information on the product packaging was sufficient to comply with Article 10(2)(a) of the Regulation or whether it also had to be included in the print advertisement. It referred two questions to the CJEU: - The first question concerned whether written food advertising should be classified as “labelling” within the meaning of Article 10(2) of the Regulation. - The second question sought to clarify whether the mandatory information must also be included in written advertising if it already appears on the labelling of the food. ## Legal framework for health claims Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 applies to nutrition and [health claim](https://www.mtrlegal.com/wiki/gesundheitsbezogene-angaben-in-lebensmitteln/)s made in commercial communications concerning foods intended for supply to final consumers. This also includes food supplements within the meaning of Directive 2002/46/EC (EU Food Supplements Directive). Under Article 2(2)(5) of the Regulation, a health claim exists where a statement or representation states, suggests or implies that a relationship exists between a food category, a food or one of its constituents and health. Such claims may be used in the labelling, presentation or advertising of food only if the requirements of the Regulation are met. ### Mandatory information under Article 10(2) Article 10(2) of the Regulation requires certain accompanying information where health claims are made. This includes: - A statement indicating the importance of a varied and balanced diet and a healthy lifestyle. - Information on the quantity of the food and pattern of consumption required to obtain the claimed beneficial effect. - Where appropriate, a statement addressed to persons who should avoid using the food. - An appropriate warning if excessive consumption of the product is likely to present a health risk. According to the wording of the provision, this information must appear in the labelling or, if no such labelling exists, in the presentation and advertising of the food. ## Written advertising does not constitute labelling The CJEU first rejected the view that a written advertisement for a food supplement falls within the concept of “labelling.” In its interpretation, it considered the wording of the relevant provisions, their legislative context and the objectives of the Regulation. ### Broad understanding of labelling with clear limits Under Article 2(2)(j) of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 (EU Food Information to Consumers Regulation), the concept of labelling includes any words, particulars, trademarks, brand names, pictorial matter or symbols relating to a food and placed on any packaging, document, notice, label, ring or collar accompanying or referring to that food. Although this definition is broad, Article 10(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 expressly distinguishes between “labelling,” “presentation” and “advertising.” In the CJEU’s view, each of these terms designates a distinct regulatory category. In this context, the phrase “if no such labelling exists” does not place them on an equal footing but establishes a relationship of subsidiarity. The Regulation also treats labelling and advertising separately in other provisions. If written advertising were classified as labelling solely because it takes textual form, this distinction would lose its independent significance. ### Different functions of labelling and advertising The Court also relied on the different purposes served by the two forms of communication. Labelling is intended to inform final consumers when the food is supplied to them. Advertising, by contrast, is intended to promote sales of the product. This distinction is consistent with Commission Implementing Decision 2013/63/EU (European Commission decision on guidelines for implementing the conditions governing health claims). According to that decision, labelling relates to the supply of food to final consumers, whereas advertising is aimed at promoting sales by the food business operator. The concept of advertising under EU law is likewise broad. In principle, it covers any statement made in connection with a trade, business, craft or profession in order to promote the supply of goods or services. This may also include written statements. According to the judgment, however, the broad scope of this concept does not mean that written advertising must also be treated as labelling. ## No need to repeat mandatory information in print advertising The CJEU also answered the second question in favour of giving priority to the placement of mandatory information on the labelling. If the information prescribed by Article 10(2) of the Regulation is fully included there, it does not have to be repeated in written advertising for the same food supplement. ### Priority of product labelling According to the Court’s interpretation, the mandatory information must generally be placed on the labelling of the product concerned. Only if no such labelling exists must other elements contain the information, in particular the presentation and advertising of the food. In this context, the CJEU limited its assessment to the written advertising relevant to the main proceedings. The dispute concerned an advertisement published in a magazine. Findings on other forms of advertising were not necessary in order to answer the questions referred. ### Differences between language versions do not alter the outcome The Court also considered differences between the language versions of Article 10(2). While some versions use the conjunction “and” between presentation and advertising, the French version uses “or” at this point. According to the CJEU’s case law, a single language version may neither serve as the sole basis for interpretation nor take precedence over the other language versions. Provisions of EU law must be interpreted uniformly by reference to all language versions and with due regard to their context and regulatory purpose. In any event, this linguistic discrepancy was not decisive in the specific case. It concerns situations in which labelling containing the mandatory information is absent. In the main proceedings, the product labelling contained the information required by Article 10(2)(a). ## Balancing consumer protection and the internal market Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 pursues several interrelated objectives. It is intended to ensure a high level of consumer protection, strengthen protection against misleading claims and, at the same time, ensure the proper functioning of the internal market. The protection of health is also among its key objectives. The relevant benchmark is the average consumer who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, taking into account social, cultural and linguistic factors. Such consumers should have access to the information they need to make an informed purchasing decision. Under Article 12 of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011, mandatory food information must be available and easily accessible. For prepacked food, it must appear directly on the packaging or on a label attached to it. If the labelling contains the required particulars, they are available to consumers when making their purchasing decisions. The CJEU stated that the EU legislature could expressly have imposed an additional obligation to repeat the information in written advertising. Although a general extension of labelling requirements to print advertising could enhance consumer protection, it would undermine the balance with the functioning internal market sought by the EU legislature. ## Significance of the CJEU’s decision The Court provided binding clarification on two points concerning Article 10(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006: First, written advertising for a food supplement does not fall within the concept of labelling. Second, the mandatory information specified in that provision does not have to be repeated in a written advertisement if the labelling of the advertised food supplement itself contains that information. The decision on costs for the parties to the main proceedings is a matter for the German court because the proceedings before the CJEU form part of the dispute pending before that court. Costs incurred by other parties in submitting observations to the Court are not recoverable. For businesses, the decision concerns the distinction between product labelling and sales-promoting communications involving health claims. MTR Legal assists businesses with legal issues relating to food advertising and potential claims under competition law as part of its [competition law advisory services](https://www.mtrlegal.com/rechtsberatung/wettbewerbsrecht/).