All about business. — All about finance.

Court Rules Commission Violated Treaty Article 85 (1) Obligations

Controversy Surrounding Advertising Regulations in Coffee Market Reaches Federal Supreme Court

, and Administrator

2025 June 22 . 10:46 AM

2 min read

The Court of First Instance ruled that the Commission violated its duties as outlined in Article 85... — The Court of First Instance ruled that the Commission violated its duties as outlined in Article 85 (1) of the Treaty.

Controversy over Netto's Coffee Ad Sparks Federal Court of Justice Debate

Legal Battle over Lower-Priced Coffee Advertisement Reaches the Federal Court of Justice - Court Rules Commission Violated Treaty Article 85 (1) Obligations

Hey there! Let's dive into the latest buzz surrounding the infamous coffee ad controversy involving Netto.

Netto caused a stir with their advertisement for a cup of joe, boasting a current price of 4.44 euros, a "reduced" price of 6.99 euros from the previous week, a discount of 36 percent, and in a tiny footnote, the lowest price for the brewskie over the past 30 days - also 4.44 euros.

The new Price Indication Ordinance (PIO) had been around for about seven months, requiring retailers to reveal the lowest total price for a product in the last 30 days when promoting a price decrease. This move propelled EU law into action.

The Competition Center flagged Netto's coffee ad as deceptive, accused them of flouting the PIO, and filed a lawsuit demanding a cease and desist order. The Regional Court of Nuremberg sided with the Competition Center in September 2024, deeming the advertising unclear. However, the court left hanging the question of whether a discount must always be calculated based on the lowest price in the last 30 days. A few days later, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Luxembourg confirmed the practice, establishing a precedent for Netto's case.

Now, the ball's in the Federal Court of Justice's (BGH) court to decide if the Regional Court's ruling stands or if it needs a second cup of java. Netto's lawyer claimed the footnote was somewhat unwieldy but not misleading. On the other hand, the Competition Center's lawyer argued that the minuscule footnote and the "reduction of 36 percent" were the brochure's main focus, rendering the price information less visible and understandable.

Reiner Münker, the Competition Center's managing board member, expressed confidence after the hearing in Karlsruhe. "Consumers like ourselves didn't receive sufficient clarity about the least expensive price for that specific coffee product," he remarked, predicting the BGH would nix the ad campaign.

Netto replied with silence when contacted, stating they refrain from commenting on ongoing courtroom skirmishes. A verdict is yet to be served. The BGH usually unveils its decision a few weeks after the oral hearing.

While the BGH has yet to cast its verdict on the matter, it's clear that the fight for truthful advertising and transparency in pricing continues. Keep your eyes peeled for the coffee buzz around the net! ☕️ 🚨 💵 📜

In the ongoing debate at the Federal Court of Justice, the dispute over Netto's coffee ad is raising questions about the clarity of advertising and adherence to the Price Indication Ordinance, which directly impacts the broader business community and employment policies, as fair pricing is crucial for consumer trust and economic stability.
As the Federal Court of Justice prepares to make a decision on Netto's coffee ad controversy, this case serves as a potent reminder for businesses to prioritize transparent pricing policies in order to foster a sense of confidence within the community and adhere to financial regulations, ensuring a robust business environment for all stakeholders.