Suche
Mein Konto
Deceptive packaging: Court ruling demands clarity for consumers!
A ruling by the Hamburg Regional Court addresses the misleading practice of deceptive packaging for food and cosmetic products.
Deceptive packaging: Court ruling demands clarity for consumers!
Consumer protection has once again caused a stir. Current judgments on so-called deceptive packages clearly show that in the future, manufacturers will have to provide clearer information when they change the contents of their products. This emerges from a ruling by the Hamburg Regional Court, which made a precedent on the issue on February 13, 2024. This gave rise to the requirement that if the filling quantity is reduced, the packaging must also be adapted accordingly. This was reported by the website VZHH, which in its article draws attention to the problems that consumers have recently had with various products.
A specific example is the case against Upfield. It was criticized here that the filling quantity of Sanella margarine was reduced without the packaging being adjusted. Consumers felt deceived and complained about the trickery of Mondelez, whose products, including the popular Milka chocolate, have been named deceptive pack of the month on several occasions.
The legal basis
On May 29, 2024, the Federal Court of Justice ruled that a product is considered a deceptive package if it is only about two-thirds full. Consumers should be able to rely on the packaging being proportionate to the actual contents. This principle was clearly evident in a recent case involving a cosmetics company's men's wash gel. Despite the defendant's initial success before the regional court, the Federal Court of Justice rejected the decision and called for a reassessment based on the evidence of misleading. This shows how conscientious the courts are in such cases.
The BGH's decision is based, among other things, on Section 43 Paragraph 2 of the MessEG. It makes it clear that there is a ban on deceptive packaging in order to protect consumers from false expectations. Even if packaging does not always have to be in proportion to the contents due to technical circumstances, the principle remains that manufacturers must be transparent. Investigations found that companies like Mondelez often exploit laws to employ marketing strategies that could confuse or deceive consumers.
Demands of consumer advocates
The consumer protection associations are therefore calling for binding guidelines from the legislature. Clear labeling is required if products have a smaller filling quantity. Particularly interesting is the suggestion that this information remain visible for at least six months after a reduction. The aim is to better inform consumers and protect them from possible deception.
The case law is unanimous: consumers have the right to be informed about the actual filling quantity instead of being confronted with oversized packaging that conveys a false image. Given the number of complaints about Mondelez and other companies, it is to be hoped that these developments will lead to greater transparency in trading.
For consumers who suspect fraudulent packaging, the legal path is clear: they can assert their rights and seek legal assistance if necessary. Consumers shouldn't be afraid to report these violations - because ultimately they are the ones who can bring about change.