powrót do Aktualności
The President of the Polish Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK) has initiated explanatory proceedings concerning Danone, Mondelez, Nestlé and Unilever. The authority will examine whether the companies adequately inform consumers about reductions in the quantity of products offered and whether the way products are presented following such changes may mislead consumers.
IMPORTANT: The content, concepts and analyses published by IGI FOOD LAW constitute the intellectual property of IGI FOOD LAW and are protected under copyright law. We welcome inspiration from our work; however, we ask that our materials be used ethically and with due respect for IGI FOOD LAW’s copyright and know-how.
UOKiK’s scrutiny concerns downsizing, also referred to as shrinkflation. In a report commissioned by the authority in 2023, the phenomenon was defined as a practice involving a reduction in the weight or volume of a product while maintaining its existing price and, in most cases, also the size of the packaging. The economic effect is an increase in the price of the product per unit of weight or volume.
Reducing the quantity of a product is not, in itself, a prohibited practice. The manufacturer must, of course, correctly declare the current net quantity of the product. However, a legal issue may arise at a different level – namely, how the change is communicated and how the product is presented to consumers overall. UOKiK is paying particular attention to situations in which, following a reduction in quantity, the packaging looks the same or very similar to its previous version. A consumer who regularly purchases a familiar product may therefore fail to notice that its quantity has changed. This is not a new issue in UOKiK’s practice. The authority’s 2023 report already indicated that downsizing is not unlawful in itself but may – depending on how it is implemented – constitute a practice capable of misleading consumers.
An important and direct context for UOKiK’s current actions is the April judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Case C-301/25. According to UOKiK, the judgment confirms that compliance of product labelling with food law requirements does not preclude a separate assessment of the practice under the rules on unfair commercial practices. In other words, correctly declaring the new weight or volume of a product does not necessarily mean that the manner in which the product is offered to consumers cannot be considered misleading. The President of UOKiK is therefore likely to examine, among other things, whether the reduction in quantity was clearly communicated and whether the appearance, size or graphic design of the packaging creates a misleading impression that the product has not changed. This is an important distinction for food businesses: compliance of the label with food law and compliance of the overall marketing practice with consumer protection law are two separate areas of legal assessment.
The current proceedings are not UOKiK’s first action concerning this phenomenon. In 2023, an extensive study entitled “Downsizing in the Assessment of Polish Consumers” was conducted at UOKiK’s request. It covered a representative sample of 1,105 Polish adults, and one of its objectives was to examine downsizing in the context of consumers’ right to reliable information. The report already referred to the possibility of assessing the overall presentation of a product under the rules on unfair commercial practices. It cited the European Commission’s position that – subject to an individual assessment of each case – the overall presentation of a product may mislead the average consumer as to the product’s size.
One of the most important European examples concerning downsizing is the case involving Milka chocolate bars in Germany.
Dr Izabela Tańska discussed the Milka case and the significance of the judgment for food manufacturers in detail during this year’s 15th IGI FOOD LAW Summer School of Food Law. The current proceedings initiated by the President of UOKiK show that the issue we analysed at the time using the German market as an example is now directly relevant to the enforcement practice of the Polish consumer protection authority. In the Milka case, at the beginning of 2025 Mondelez reduced the nominal quantity of a number of chocolate bars from 100 g to 90 g, while leaving the size and design of the packaging essentially unchanged. The new net quantity was nevertheless correctly declared on the packaging. The case was brought before the court by Verbraucherzentrale Hamburg. In its judgment of 13 May 2026 (12 O 118/25), the Bremen Regional Court (Landgericht Bremen) upheld the consumer organisation’s claim and classified the practice as a so-called “relative Mogelpackung”, finding it misleading to consumers. Importantly, the court indicated that the packaging, considered in isolation, was not objectionable. The issue arose from the comparison between the new product and its previous, established version on the market: with the packaging remaining virtually unchanged, consumers could continue to expect the product to contain 100 g. The case clearly illustrates the distinction between formal compliance of information provided on a label and the assessment of the product’s overall presentation from a consumer protection perspective. Correctly stating “90 g” was therefore not, in itself, sufficient to rule out the possibility of consumers being misled. Mondelez has appealed the judgment, and the case will therefore be considered by the Hanseatic Higher Regional Court in Bremen (Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Bremen).
The proceedings initiated by the President of UOKiK demonstrate that this issue now has very practical relevance for the Polish market as well. For manufacturers, this means that changes in product quantity should be assessed not only in terms of the correctness of mandatory information on the label, but also in terms of how the change is communicated and the overall presentation of the product to consumers. At this stage, UOKiK is conducting explanatory proceedings. The initiation of these proceedings does not in itself mean that the companies concerned have been found to have infringed the law.
“A change in the quantity of a product should not be treated merely as a technical amendment to the product specification and label. The new net quantity must, of course, be correctly declared in accordance with food law requirements. However, this does not conclude the legal assessment.
Companies should also analyse the overall presentation of the product following the change – in particular the size and shape of the packaging, its graphic design, marketing communication and whether consumers can easily recognise that the quantity of the product has been reduced. Particular caution is required where, following a reduction in quantity, the packaging remains virtually identical to that of the product previously marketed in a larger quantity.
The Milka case in Germany clearly demonstrates that correctly declaring the new quantity may not be sufficient where the overall presentation of the product is capable of creating a misleading impression in the mind of the average consumer as to the quantity of the product. We can see the same approach reflected in UOKiK’s current communication: the authority intends to examine not only the information provided on the packaging, but also its appearance, size and the way in which the change has been communicated.
We therefore recommend that, before implementation, every reduction in product quantity be assessed not only by the regulatory team but also from the perspective of the rules on unfair commercial practices. When it comes to downsizing, compliance does not end with a compliant label.”
