On 30 April 2026, the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered its judgment in Lidl Italia Srl v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (Case C‑301/25), confirming that a single instance of misleading food labelling can simultaneously breach two distinct EU regulatory frameworks, and attract penalties under both.
Background
Italy’s Competition and Market Authority fined Lidl Italia €1 million for presenting its pasta products in a way that created a strong impression of Italian-grown wheat, while the product actually contained wheat sourced from a mix of EU and non-EU countries. The fine was issued under Italian consumer protection law implementing the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (Directive 2005/29/EC, “UCPD“), raising the question of whether the more specific food labelling rules under Regulation 1169/2011 (“FIR“) should have applied exclusively.
Importantly, the Court did not find that Lidl’s statements were false. Rather, it held that the packaging, taken as a whole, could nudge consumers toward the wrong conclusion about the product’s origin. That broader impression, i.e., the cumulative effect of imagery, design, and presentation, was sufficient to treat the marketing as misleading and justify the fine.
The legal question
At the heart of the case was Article 3(4) UCPD, which provides that where a conflict exists between the UCPD and another EU instrument governing specific aspects of unfair commercial practices, the more specific rule takes precedence. Lidl argued that the FIR, as a sector-specific food law instrument, should displace the UCPD entirely.
The Court disagreed. It held that Article 3(4) only applies where there is a genuine, irresolvable conflict between the two regimes, not merely an overlap. Since the UCPD protects consumers’ economic interests while the FIR addresses food safety and accurate food information, the two instruments pursue complementary objectives and can operate concurrently. A practice that complies fully with the FIR cannot be prohibited under the UCPD, but a practice that breaches both may be sanctioned under either or both.
This distinction is more than technical. If the FIR were the only applicable instrument, enforcement would be limited to food safety authorities acting within that regulation’s narrower framework. The UCPD opens the door to action by consumer protection and competition authorities as well, under a broader legal test and potentially far higher penalties.
Why this matters for food operators
The ruling carries particular weight for companies operating in the food business, including e-commerce providers, where product listings, images, titles, bullet-point claims, and descriptions can constitute both “food information” under the FIR and a “commercial practice” under the UCPD at the same time.
The Court confirmed that Article 7(4) FIR expressly covers the “presentation of foods, in particular their shape, appearance or packaging”. Applied to digital retail, this means that hero images, lifestyle photography, and packaging shots displayed on product pages are governed by the same standards as physical labels. An image evoking a specific geographic origin, like Italian countryside paired with a pasta product, for example, may satisfy the “likely to mislead” threshold under both frameworks, even where no individual statement is technically false. Critically, the mere omission of clear, prominent information about mixed origins may be sufficient to establish a breach.
Key takeaways for food businesses
Businesses operating in the EU food sector should note the following:
- Compliance with the FIR alone does not provide a complete shield against UCPD enforcement. Both instruments apply to the same conduct, and national authorities may pursue penalties under either or both simultaneously.
- Visual and contextual cues, not just written statements, are assessed. Imagery, design choices, flags, landscapes, and artisanal presentation all carry implied provenance signals and are evaluated as part of the overall impression a product creates.
- The overall presentation must not give consumers a false impression. Even where all claims on the label are technically accurate, a misleading cumulative impression, created by packaging, imagery, and layout together, is sufficient to establish a breach.
- Online product listings are subject to the same scrutiny as physical packaging. A product detail page in its entirety, including hero images, titles, and bullet-point claims, must satisfy both the FIR’s specific requirements and the UCPD’s broader standard.
- Regulatory exposure may be compounded across multiple member states. E-commerce operators selling across the EU face enforcement by multiple national authorities, each of which may act under their own transposition of the UCPD alongside the directly applicable FIR. Under the 2022 UCPD amendments, fines may be scaled to EU-wide turnover for serious cross-border breaches.
If you would like to discuss how these rules may affect your business, please get in touch with us.
Image credit: Freepik
