”
Decision of the Bochum Regional Court on advertising for a muesli product
\n\n
The Bochum Regional Court addressed the permissibility of specific advertising statements for a muesli product. The subject of the proceedings were statements on the packaging that could give the relevant public a specific expectation regarding the product’s composition. According to the published reporting on the proceedings (source: urteile.news, article of 14/03/2024, available at https://urteile.news/LG-Bochum_I-13-O-5123_Erfolgreiche-Klage-gegen-Dr-Oetker-Muesliversprechen-unzulaessig~N33817), the challenged advertising was assessed as impermissible.
\n
Subject matter of the dispute: shaping expectations through product presentation and advertising promises
\n
Packaging statements as a legally relevant commercial practice
\n\n
At its core, the issue was whether the challenged wording and design elements of the product presentation were capable of influencing the purchasing decision through a misleading portrayal. For food products, this regularly depends on the overall impression resulting from text, graphic design, emphasis, and the other overall presentation.
\n
Standard: understanding of the average informed consumer
\n\n
What matters is how an average consumer who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect understands the statement in the specific context. According to the reporting, the allegation was that the challenged statement suggested a particular substantive composition that the product did not in fact have in that form.
\n
Key statements of the court’s assessment according to the source report
\n
Impermissibility due to misleading
\n\n
According to the cited source report, the court concluded that the disputed advertising statement, in its specific design, was impermissible. The decisive factor was thus that the advertising could trigger in the consumer an idea of essential product characteristics that is not sufficiently supported by the actual composition.
\n
Overall impression of the advertising rather than an isolated view
\n\n
In the assessment—according to the report—not merely a single sentence was considered in isolation. Rather, the competition-law review typically ties in with the overall impression of the packaging. This can be particularly relevant where certain terms or visualisations create an expectation that would only be qualified upon close reading of the detailed information.
\n
Classification for companies: relevance for labelling and marketing
\n
Susceptibility to risk of advertising statements on composition and quality
\n\n
The case illustrates that statements on composition, on value-determining ingredients, or on special product characteristics in the food sector must be coordinated with particular care. Even the manner of linguistic sharpening or the highlighting of individual contents can be legally significant if it creates an inaccurate impression.
\n
Significance for injunctive claims in competition law
\n\n
According to the reporting, the action was successfully brought. In comparable constellations, injunctive claims under competition law may be at issue if a commercial practice is classified as misleading. Which legal consequences arise in an individual case depends on the specific circumstances of the statement, the context, and the court’s assessment.
\n
Contact person for questions on the competition-law permissibility of advertising
\n\n
Advertising statements on product characteristics and product presentations often operate in the tension between permissible advertising exaggeration and legally relevant misleading. MTR Legal attorneys advise companies, investors, and high-net-worth private individuals in this context on matters of competition law. Further information can be found at: Legal advice in competition law.
“
