HomeNewsNewsQuestions and answersUnfair commercial practices: The European Court of Justice rules on Lidl Italia.

Unfair commercial practices: The European Court of Justice rules on Lidl Italia.

  • 08/05/2026
  • Posted by: Marta
  • Category: Questions and answers
No comments
pack of Italiamo pasta from Lidl

Dear Dario,

I read the name of your company Wiise Srl benefit in the Lidl vs. Antitrust Italia case on the relationship between labeling and unfair commercial practices, defined by the EU Court of Justice with a ruling of 30 April 2026. What is your comment on the matter?

Thank you very much, Giulia

The lawyer Dario Dongo, Ph.D. in international food law, answers

The investigation by the Italian Competition Authority (AGCM, Antitrust Italia) into three Italian pasta industries and two large-scale retail trade groups had concerned the presence of geographical references to Italy in the labelling of pasta which was actually made in Italy with wheat exchange market milled in Italy, which however was of different origin. 

Antitrust Italy, investigation and sanction

Antitrust had in fact anticipated the application of Regulation (EU) 2018/775, stating that the fairness of the commercial practice was relevant not only in the context of Regulation (EU) no. 1169/11 but also in the broader context of Directive 2005/29/EC on unfair commercial practices, transposed in Italy with the Consumer Code (Legislative Decree 206/05).

Four of the five operators involved have defined the Antitrust proceedings as a 'declaration of commitments', pursuant to Article 27.7 of the Consumer Code. They even committed to introducing additional information on their labels beyond that required by Regulation (EU) 2018/775 (Dongo, 2020; Dongo and Novelli, 2020).

Lidl Italy However, it refrained from committing to correct the labeling of its pasta with the 'Italiamo' and 'Combino' brands. It was therefore sentenced by the AGCM to an administrative fine of €1 million, which was upheld by the Lazio Regional Administrative Court, and it appealed to the Council of State.

Preliminary reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union

In its appeal to the Council of State, Lidl Italia argued that commercial practices relating to food information fall exclusively under Regulation (EU) No. 1169/201, not Directive 2005/29/EC. The Council of State therefore suspended the proceedings, referring the case to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling. It noted that:

  • 'the behaviour of Lidl Italia, consisting in presenting information which, although not false or untrue, may mislead the consumer of the product in question as to the origin of the wheat used as raw material for the manufacturing of that product, may fall within both the unfair trading practices sanctioned pursuant to Article 6 of Directive 2005/29 and Article 21 of the Consumer Code, both in the conduct prohibited by Article 7 of Regulation No. 1169/2011 and sanctioned in accordance with Legislative Decree No. 231/2017';
  • 'la sanction The penalty provided for by Legislative Decree no. 231/2017 in the event of violation of Article 7 of Regulation no. 1169/2011 is much less severe than that provided for by the Consumer Code which implements Directive 2005/29'. The sanctioning regime established in Italy for violating consumer information regulations relating to food may therefore not be as dissuasive as it should be.

Court of Justice, the Lidl Italia ruling

The Court of Justice of the European Union, in its ruling of 30 April, confirmed the complementarity of the rules on food labelling and advertising, on the one hand, and unfair commercial practices, on the other, based on the following considerations:

  • 'la directive 2005/29 has the objective of ensuring a high level of consumer protection and, to this end, of guaranteeing that unfair commercial practices are effectively combated in the interests of the latter (see, in this sense, judgment of 30 January 2025, Trenitalia, C ‑ 510/23, EU:C:2025:41, point 33and the case law cited). Article 6, paragraph 1, of this Directive aims precisely to ensure adequate consumer protection with regard to the manner in which information provided in the context of a commercial practice is presented.'; (Court of Justice, judgment of 30.4.26, point 34);
  • 'Likewise, from a combined reading of Article 1, paragraph 1, and Article 3, paragraph 1, of the regulation n. 1169/2011 It appears that the objective of this Regulation is to ensure a high level of consumer protection in relation to food information, taking into account their differences in perception and providing them with the basis on which they can make informed choices. To this end, this Regulation seeks to prevent such consumers from being misled by the food information provided to them (see, to this effect, judgments of 1 October 2020, Groupe Lactalis, C ‑ 485/18, EU:C:2020:763, point 43 and the case law cited, as well as of 1 December 2022, LSI – Germany, C ‑ 595/21, EU:C:2022:949, points 29e 30)'; (point 35);
  • 'the protection regimes established by Article 6, paragraph 1, of Directive 2005/29 and Article 7 of Regulation No 1169/2011 they pursue Than we a common goal consisting in ensuring a high level of consumer protection against misleading information and thus preventing consumers from being misled, in particular, as regards certain characteristics of a product or, more specifically, of a food'; (point 36);
  • 'It should also be noted that, taking into account recitals 7, 11, 13 and 14 of the directive 2005/29 and since the protection conferred by Article 6(1) of that Directive requires that a commercial practice induces or is likely to induce the average consumer to take a transactional decision that he would not otherwise have taken, that provision establishes a general prohibition of unfair commercial practices that distort the economic behavior of consumers (see, in this sense, sentences of 19 December 2013, Trento Sviluppo and Centrale Adriatica, C ‑ 281/12, EU:C:2013:859, points 31 e 32, as well as of 19 September 2018, Bankia, C ‑ 109/17, EU:C:2018:735, point 30); (point 37)';
  • 'regarding the regulation n. 1169/2011, its Article 3, paragraph 1, provides that the provision of food information aims at a high level of health protection and of consumer interests, providing end consumers with the basis for making decisions conscious choices and to use food safely, in particular with respect to health, economic, environmental, social and ethical considerations'(paragraph 39).

Conclusions 

With its judgment of 30 April 2026 in Case C-301/25, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) definitively clarified the complementarity of the consumer rights protection regimes provided by Directive 2005/29/EC and Regulation (EU) No. 1169/11.

This official interpretation of common law – binding on administrations, including judicial authorities, at EU and Member State level – requires the utmost attention from operators in the food sector and large-scale retail trade, as it confirms:

  • the competence of the authorities responsible for supervising unfair commercial practices (such as AGCM in Italy) to evaluate commercial information relating to food – even if compliant with the Food Information Regulation (EU) No 1169/11 and al Nutrition and Health Regulations (EC) No 1924/06 – as it is misleading and capable of distorting the economic behaviour of consumers;
  • the applicability, where appropriate, of the draconian administrative sanctions established by the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (EC) 2005/29/EC, the amounts of which may be defined in proportion to the operators' turnover.

Our team of FARE (Food and Agriculture Requirements) is available to operators who intend to prevent such risks, through preventive analysis of labels and advertising, including online, television, and social media, ensuring their legitimacy and transparency.

Cordially 

Dario

Bibliography 

readings: 999

Related Posts:

seafood product labelingLabeling of frozen fish products, answers the lawyer Dario Dongo price per unit of measureWhat unit of measurement for the price of bulk and pre-wrapped foods? superior quality regional excellenceBrand, superior quality, regional excellence in the label? The lawyer Dario Dongo answers


Translate »