On the shelves of a well-known supermarket chain, the pasta packaging of some companies was all about waving Italian flags and slogans explicitly asserting the “Italianness” of the product: “Italian speciality”, “Italian passion”, and then images of the “Italian flag” and of typically Italian landscapes.

 All this “Italianness”, however, was not supported by the “Italianness” of the raw material “durum wheat” and, in fact, elsewhere on the packaging, often on the back, and in very small and less easily readable print, the non-Italian origin (“EU/non-EU”) of that raw material was specified.

The challenge, first before the Council of State and then before the Court of Justice of the EU, to these methods of informing the consumer at this point concerned two aspects:

• that of “fair consumer information” prescribed by Article 7 of Regulation (EU) 1169/2011 and
• that of “unfair commercial practices” prohibited by the Consumer Code referred to in Italian Legislative Decree 206/2005.

The Court of Justice of the EU, in its judgment of 20 April 2026 (Case C-301/25), to which the matter was referred by the Italian Council of State by order of 22 April 2025, concluded that both objections were valid in parallel, for the reasons that we attempt to summarise here.

The deceptiveness of the wording and images on packaging

A first question therefore concerned the possibility of a violation of Article 7 of Regulation (EU) 1169/2011, the text of which, among other things, provides:

“Article 7. Fair information practices

1. Food information shall not mislead, in particular:

a) as to the characteristics of the food and, in particular, its nature, identity, properties, composition, quantity, shelf life, country of origin or place of provenance, or method of manufacturing or production; (b), (c), and (d) (omitted).

2. Food information shall be accurate, clear, and easily understandable for the consumer.
3. (omitted).
4. Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 shall also apply to:

a) advertising;

b) the presentation of foods, in particular their shape, appearance, or packaging, the packaging material used, the manner in which they are arranged, or the context in which they are displayed.”

In this case, it should also be noted that the information for “pasta” on the Italian market must also include the “origin” of the durum wheat on the label, pursuant to the Ministerial Decree of July 26, 2017, a decree currently extended until December 31, 2026.

This decree (Articles 2 and 3) requires additional information on the labeling for “pasta”:

“Article 2. Information to be included on the pasta label

1. The following information must be included on the pasta label:

a) “Country of cultivation of the wheat”: name of the country in which the durum wheat was grown;

b) “Country of milling”: name of the country in which the durum wheat semolina was obtained.”

Article 3. Information to be included on pasta labels for grains grown or semolina obtained in multiple countries

1. If the operations referred to in Article 2 take place in the territories of multiple European Union member states or are located outside the European Union, the following terms may be used to indicate the place where the individual operation was carried out, even in the absence of mixtures: “EU”, “non-EU”, “EU and non-EU”. (omitted)

Therefore, in this case, the “country of cultivation” was indicated as “EU and non-EU” and not as “Italy“, which was simply the “country of milling”.

Moreover, the requirement for truly accurate consumer information is reiterated in Article 4, paragraph 2 of which states:

Article 4. Provisions to promote better consumer information

1. (omitted).
2. The origin indications referred to in Articles 2 and 3 shall be placed on the label in a prominent place and in the same field of vision so as to be easily visible, clearly legible, and indelible. They shall not be hidden, obscured, limited, or separated in any way by other written or graphic indications or by other elements that could interfere. (omitted).

This last provision therefore clearly expresses the Italian legislator’s desire to provide accurate and complete information on the “Italianness” or otherwise of the food product “pasta,” or on the true extent of that “Italianness.”

On the other hand, before him, the EU legislator itself was concerned that mandatory information be provided to the consumer in a clear and adequate manner, and not merely ostensibly or reductively. This is the case in Article 13 of Regulation (EU) 1169/2011, which, among other things, provides:

“Article 13. Presentation of mandatory particulars

1. Without prejudice to national measures adopted pursuant to Article 44, paragraph 2, mandatory food information shall be displayed in a conspicuous place so as to be easily visible, clearly legible, and, where appropriate, indelible. It shall not be hidden, obscured, limited, or separated in any way by other written or graphic information or other elements likely to interfere.

(omitted)”.

From this complex set of provisions, both Italian and EU, it follows that the pasta packaging contested in the case under consideration did not comply with the obligation to provide accurate and fair information to consumers. Indeed, they conspicuously conveyed a message about the product’s “Italianness” and, instead, concealed—or made more difficult to perceive—the reference to the “non-Italianness” of the raw material “durum wheat.” This was done through the placement and size of the declaration regarding the non-Italian origin of the “durum wheat.”

This behavior is punishable by Article 3 of Legislative Decree 231/2017 with the payment of a fine ranging from a minimum of €3,000 to a maximum of €24,000 to those responsible for placing the product on the market, in this case the supermarket under whose brand the pasta was sold.

So far, therefore, the configurability and sanction for the violation of Article 7 established to protect the good faith of the final “average consumer”.

Violation of Directive 2005/29/EC and the penalty for unfair competition

In this case, however, the Court of Justice of the European Union also found a violation of Articles 5 and 6 of Directive 2005/29/EC, provisions that prohibit “misleading commercial practices,” thus providing for the protection of the “average consumer”:

“Article 5. Prohibition of unfair commercial practices

1. Unfair commercial practices are prohibited.
2. A commercial practice is unfair if:

a) (omitted) it is

b) materially distorts or is likely to materially distort the economic behavior, in relation to the product, of the average consumer it reaches or to whom it is directed, or of the average member of a group if the commercial practice is directed at a particular group of consumers.

Article 6. Misleading Practices

1. A commercial practice is considered misleading if it contains false information and is therefore untrue or in any way, including its overall presentation, deceives or is likely to deceive the average consumer, even if the information is factually correct, regarding one or more of the following elements and in any case causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to make a transactional decision that he or she would not have made otherwise: a) (omitted);

b) the main characteristics of the product, such as its availability, benefits, risks, workmanship, composition, environmental or social characteristics, accessories, circularity aspects such as durability, reparability, or recyclability, after-sales customer service and complaint handling, the method and date of manufacture or performance, delivery, fitness for purpose, uses, quantity, description, geographical or commercial origin, or the results that can be expected from its use, or the results and essential characteristics of tests and inspections carried out on the product; (omitted)”.

We recall that this conduct has been sanctioned in Italy by the Consumer Code (Legislative Decree 206/2005):

“Article 27. Administrative and judicial protection

1. The Italian Competition Authority, hereinafter referred to as the “Authority”, exercises the powers set forth in this Article also as the competent authority for the application of Regulation (EU) 2017/2394 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2017 on cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws and repealing Regulation (EC) 2006/2004, within the limits of the provisions of the law.

1-bis. Even in regulated sectors, pursuant to Article 19, paragraph 3, the exclusive jurisdiction to intervene in the conduct of professionals that constitutes an unfair commercial practice, without prejudice to compliance with applicable regulations, lies with the Italian Competition Authority (AGCM), which exercises it based on the powers set forth in this Article, after obtaining the opinion of the competent regulatory Authority. (omitted).

(2 to 8 omitted.)

9. With the provision prohibiting the unfair commercial practice, the Authority also orders the application of an administrative fine ranging from €5,000 to €10,000,000, taking into account the severity and duration of the violation and the professional’s financial and financial circumstances. In the case of unfair commercial practices pursuant to Article 21, paragraphs 3 and 4, the fine cannot be less than €50,000. (from 9-bis to 11: omitted)».

Joint Application

At this point, in the ruling under consideration, the Court of Justice of the EU also addresses and clarifies the issue of the possibility of sanctioning the same “unfair” conduct both with respect to the individual “average consumer” and with respect to unfair competition with respect to other competing professional operators.

The Court, in fact, reaches an affirmative conclusion (paragraph 41 of the ruling), establishing a relationship of “complementarity” between the two sets of rules, both of which must be considered violated by conduct such as that at issue:

“41. It follows that the consumer protection regimes established by Article 6, paragraph 1, of Directive 2005/29 and Article 7 of Regulation No. 1169/2011 are complementary in that they aim to sanction different aspects of the same conduct contrary to Union law.”

The sanctions “mess”

Thus far, in a very brief and concise summary, is the content of the ruling of the European Court of Justice under review. Our reflection on this matter must be supplemented by a further reference to the comprehensive and complex framework of sanctions available under the Italian legal system.

Indeed, it should be remembered that, unlike the exclusively administrative sanctions regime for violations of the Consumer Code, the administrative sanction for violations of Article 7 of Regulation (EU) 1169/2011, or those provided for by Article 3 of Legislative Decree 231/2017, is merely subsidiary in nature as it is preceded by the so-called “penal reservation clause,” expressed with the usual formula “Unless the act constitutes a crime.”

The case described in the legal case under consideration—the use of wording and images falsely suggesting the “Italianness” of the product “pasta,” when the raw material “durum wheat” is entirely or predominantly of “non-Italian” or even “non-EU” origin—could constitute the offense under Article 517 of the Criminal Code: “Sale of a food product with false indications” regarding its origin.

If such a crime were to be committed, the aforementioned administrative offense would therefore be nullified.

However, given what has just been highlighted, it should be noted that “misleading” indications of the Italian origin of any commercial product are also subject to a “special” provision, namely that of Article 4, paragraph 49-bis of Law 350/2003, which provides for a flat administrative penalty, i.e., without a penalty clause, as follows: “the offender shall be punished with an administrative fine ranging from €10,000 to €250,000.”

Significantly, the subsequent paragraph 49-quater provides for an exception to this administrative mechanism with the following wording: “The misleading indication of the use of the trademark, referred to in paragraph 49-bis, shall be punished, when it concerns virgin olive oils, pursuant to Article 517 of the Criminal Code.”

This reinforces the conclusion that, when the “false claim” concerns a food substance other than “virgin olive oil,” the only applicable sanction would be the administrative sanction referred to in paragraph 49-bis mentioned above.

However, we cannot ignore the fact that the aforementioned administrative sanctions, namely those introduced by paragraph 49-bis of Law 166/2009, predate and conflict with — and therefore likely to be deemed tacitly repealed — the subsequent and general sanctioning framework established by the aforementioned Legislative Decree 231/2017. This legislation should also be considered prevalent by virtue of the “principle of succession of laws over time.”

As can be seen, we are therefore faced with a highly complex, indeed decidedly intricate and even contradictory, regulatory landscape, which it is hoped will receive effective and definitive clarity.

Finally, it should be remembered that Law No. 75 of April 21, 2026 (the so-called “Lollobrigida Law”) came into force on May 29, 2026. This law, which introduced a new crime in the food sector, regarding “false information,” under Article 517-septies of the Criminal Code.