- within Tax, Strategy, Government and Public Sector topic(s)
In a recent decision (Decision No. 911 of 09.10.2025, the “Decision”), the Bulgarian Commission on Protection of Competition (the “CPC”) set out important conclusions regarding the distinction between product labelling and advertising within the meaning of the Bulgarian Protection of Competition Law (the “PCA”). The decision carries significant implications for unfair competition practice and consumer protection in the food industry.
Factual Background:
The case arose from a complaint by a Bulgarian producer of cold-pressed fruit juices against several competitors. The challenged packaging included claims such as “100% natural juice”, “no preservatives”, “no added sugar” and “no colorings”. The claimant argued that these statements breached food-labelling rules because they highlighted characteristics allegedly shared by all products of the same type. It also argued that the same statements amounted to misleading advertising, on the basis that they could make the products appear more distinctive or attractive than comparable juices with similar content.
Key Conclusions of the CPC:
The CPC held that, in the present case, the labelling of fruit juices should not be considered advertising within the meaning provided by the PCA. The packaging and labels formed part of the product’s external commercial presentation and primarily communicated information about composition and characteristics. The CPC therefore distinguished product information that is inherent to packaging from promotional messages or slogans.
The CPC emphasized that the production and sale of fruit juices in Bulgaria are governed by detailed primary and secondary legislation, with compliance monitored by specialized state authorities. In particular, the Bulgarian Food Safety Agency plays a central role in official control over food-law compliance. Against that background, the CPC treated compliance with food-labelling requirements as primarily a matter for the sectoral regulatory framework, while separately assessing whether the conduct had an unfair competition impact.
The CPC introduced an important criterion concerning the way information is perceived by consumers: advertising typically reaches or seeks to capture the consumers without requiring them to take specific steps to find the message. By contrast, in the case of a product label, the consumer must stop, pick up and examine the product, and read the relevant inscriptions. CPC distinguished this from brochures, television, online, radio, internet and billboard advertising, which are designed to attract attention more directly and can reach consumers without comparable action on their part.
Conclusion
The Decision offers practical takeaway for advertisers and food-sector businesses: informative labelling of food products does not constitute advertising where its purpose is to inform consumers about the product’s composition or characteristics. Businesses in the sector should take these conclusions into account when formulating the information displayed on the packaging of their products. That does not mean packaging claims are risk-free. They remain subject to strict food-labelling rules and regulatory scrutiny.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]
