Competition Violation: Where Caramel is Stated, There Can’t Just Be Flavor

News  >  Competition Violation: Where Caramel is Stated, There Can’t Just Be Flavor

Arbeitsrecht-Anwalt-Rechtsanwalt-Kanzlei-MTR Legal Rechtsanwälte
Steuerrecht-Anwalt-Rechtsanwalt-Kanzlei-MTR Legal Rechtsanwälte
Home-Anwalt-Rechtsanwalt-Kanzlei-MTR Legal Rechtsanwälte
Arbeitsrecht-Anwalt-Rechtsanwalt-Kanzlei-MTR Legal Rechtsanwälte

Flavorings are not enough: A product labeled as caramel pudding must also contain caramel. This was decided by the Munich Regional Court (Case No.: 33 O 13261/21).

What is stated on packaging must also be inside. Otherwise, there is a violation of competition law. If products suggest a certain ingredient through their name, it must also actually be present. Otherwise, misleading advertising and impermissible consumer deception may occur, explains the commercial law firm MTR Legal Rechtsanwälte, which focuses on competition law advice.

An example of such deception was the case held before the Munich Regional Court. Here, the defendant food manufacturer had placed a pudding labeled “Caramel Pudding” on supermarket shelves. In reality, the pudding contained no caramel, and the flavor was only created by flavorings. Besides the product name, three asterisks were printed, which were supposed to refer to the ingredients.

A trade association saw this presentation as impermissible advertising. The consumer expects that a product so labeled actually contains caramel. A mere caramel flavor is not sufficient, especially as it is not specified as such but simply as flavoring.

The lawsuit was successful at the Munich Regional Court. The court ruled on October 11, 2022, that there was a breach of competition pursuant to Article 7 (2) of the Food Information Regulation (LMIV). The objection of the defendant food manufacturer, that the package prominently displayed the notice “no added sugar” and thus clearly indicated that the product could not contain caramel, was not accepted by the LG Munich. Consumers understand this notice to mean that no sugar is additionally added.

The asterisk notice was also not sufficient. A notice with three stars is not understood by consumers as a reference to further information but rather as a sign of the high quality of the product.

The ruling aligns with the case law of the BGH, which has similarly decided on a product with raspberry-vanilla flavor. If the presentation of the product suggests a certain ingredient to the consumer, it must also be present.

At MTR Legal Rechtsanwälte, attorneys experienced in competition law provide advice.