Decision of the Bremen Regional Court on Weight Reduction in Chocolate Bars
The Bremen Regional Court addressed the question of whether changing a chocolate bar from the previous 100 grams to now 90 grams in the specifically chosen packaging is suitable to mislead consumers about the actual amount contained. The subject of the proceedings was the contested packaging design of a well-known Milka chocolate bar, in which the filling volume was reduced without the outer appearance changing in a way that makes the change immediately apparent to average buyers.
Key Statements of the Court’s Evaluation
Standard: Misleading by Presentation and Expectation
According to the competitive analysis used by the court, it is primarily based on the view of an average informed, reasonably observant, and discerning consumer. What is decisive is whether the specific design of the product – in particular the overall appearance from format, graphic design, and labeling – suggests or reinforces a misconception about the quantity.
Significance of the Unchanged “Appearance” Despite Changed Filling Volume
The focus was on the situation where the package still conveyed the impression of a “usual” bar shape, as it is typically associated with 100 grams in the market. According to the legal evaluation, such continuity in design can be suitable to maintain the expectation among some consumers that it is still the previous standard amount.
Labeling of the Filling Volume and Its Competitive Legal Classification
Filling Volume Indication as Mandatory Information – but Not Always Sufficient
Although the filling volume indication is generally provided and usually displayed on food packaging, the court considered whether the mere existence of this indication in the specific design situation is sufficient to exclude misleading if the packaging otherwise suggests a different expectation.
Overall Effect of the Packaging as the Decisive Subject of Examination
For the assessment, it was not an isolated consideration of individual indications that was decisive, but the overall effect of the design. From the court’s perspective, the optical continuity of a product – while simultaneously reducing the product amount – can, in individual cases, contribute to a misconception, even if the correct gram number is listed somewhere on the package.
Procedural Context and Classification
Status and Nature of the Decision
The decision was made by the Bremen Regional Court (Ref. 12 O 118/25). To what extent the proceedings will continue or further instances will be invoked is not conclusively determined from the report used here. As long as a procedure has not become legally binding, the presumption of innocence remains unchanged; a final evaluation is reserved for the competent courts.
Source
The basis of this newly composed representation is the report “New 90 instead of 100 Grams Milka Chocolate Bar is Misleading (13.05.2026)”, available at: https://urteile.news/LG-Bremen_12-O-11825_New-90-instead-of-100-Grams-Milka-Chocolate-Bar-is-misleading~N35979.
Relevance for Companies in Sales and Product Communication
The decision makes it clear that the competitive assessment of product packaging regularly begins with the overall appearance. Changes in filling volumes can – depending on the specific design – trigger issues of fair trading law if the market appearance continues or suggests the previous quantity signal. What remains crucial is always the specific design in the individual case and its effect on consumers.
Transition: Need for Clarification in Fair Trading Law Issues
Companies dealing with similar topics of product labeling, packaging changes, or the communicative support of quantity changes often face demarcation questions in fair trading law. For an individual case assessment, professional support can be useful; information onlegal advice in competition lawcan be found at MTR Legal Attorneys.
