Listen to the article:

Case: Kyberg Pharma Vertriebs-GmbH v Schutzverband gegen Unwesen in der Wirtschaft eV. Referring court: Bundesgerichtshof (Germany). CELEX: 62024CJ0657. ECLI: EU:C:2026:657. Subject: placement of the mandatory information accompanying health claims (Article 10(2)) in written-press advertising of a food supplement.

Operative part: (1) Article 10(2) of Regulation No 1924/2006 must be interpreted as meaning that written advertising to promote a food supplement does not come under the concept of “labelling” within that provision. (2) The mandatory information listed in that provision does not have to be included in written advertising to promote a food supplement if that information is included in the labelling of that supplement.
Diagram: Article 10(2) hierarchy — labelling first, then presentation and advertising
Fig. 1. Article 10(2) hierarchy: points (a)–(d) primarily on labelling; presentation and advertising only if no such labelling exists. C-657/24: written advertising ≠ labelling.

1. Facts: glucomannan, labelling, and the 2020 press advertisement

Kyberg Pharma markets a food supplement in capsule form containing, inter alia, glucomannan (konjac mannan). The packaging included a statement highlighting the importance of a varied and balanced diet and a healthy lifestyle — i.e. the information corresponding to Article 10(2)(a) of Regulation 1924/2006.

In 2020 Kyberg Pharma distributed in the written press an advertisement promoting that product, containing inter alia: “Lose weight the healthy way” and “Glucomannan helps you lose weight as part of a low-calorie diet”. The parties agreed that the advertisement did not include the diet-and-lifestyle statement from the packaging.

Schutzverband gegen Unwesen in der Wirtschaft — a trade association acting under the German UWG — sued for an injunction requiring Kyberg to cease promoting the product with those health claims without mentioning the importance of a varied and balanced diet and a healthy lifestyle (Article 10(2)(a)). The Landgericht München I upheld the action (19 January 2022); the Oberlandesgericht München dismissed the appeal (20 July 2023). Kyberg appealed on a point of law to the BGH, which referred questions to the Court of Justice.

Primary source: facts and operative part from the CJEU judgment of 17 September 2026 in Case C-657/24 (CELEX 62024CJ0657; ECLI:EU:C:2026:657). No assessment of the UWG merits — those remain with the BGH.

2. Questions referred and limitation to written advertising

The BGH asked: (1) whether “labelling” in Article 10(2) also covers written advertising for the food; (2) whether — even where the labelling contains the required information — the information requirements must also be satisfied in advertising that uses a health claim.

On the second question the Court reformulated the scope: the dispute concerned a journal advertisement, so the analysis was limited to written advertising. Digital, social media and TV as such were not covered by the operative part beyond that factual limit.

Flowchart: C-657/24 operational checklist for press advertising with a health claim
Fig. 2. Checklist: authorised claim (Article 10(1)) → are (a)–(d) on the labelling? → YES: C-657/24 removes the duty to repeat in written advertising; NO: duty in presentation and advertising.

3. Holding 1: written advertising is not “labelling”

Article 10(2) provides that health claims are permitted only if the listed information is included in the labelling, or if no such labelling exists, in the presentation and advertising.

The Court built the interpretation on three pillars:

  • Wording: the legislature uses three distinct terms — labelling, presentation, advertising — without overlapping scopes. The phrase “if no such labelling exists” denotes subsidiarity, not equivalence of advertising with labelling.
  • Context: Articles 1(2) and 3 of Regulation 1924/2006 systematically distinguish labelling and advertising. The definition of labelling (now Article 2(2)(j) of Regulation 1169/2011) is broad, but so is advertising (Article 2(a) of Directive 2006/114) — and the distinction must remain effective.
  • Objectives: Implementing Decision 2013/63/EU, Annex point 2.1: labelling concerns the delivery of the food to the final consumer; advertising concerns the promotion of supply by the FBO. Extending labelling requirements to written advertising as a matter of principle would upset the balance between the internal market and health protection (cf. Novel Nutriology C-386/23, paragraph 63 — health-protection aim).
ConceptFunctionDefinition / guidance
LabellingDelivery of food information (packaging, document, label…)Art. 2(2)(j) Reg. 1169/2011; Art. 2(1)(d) Reg. 1924/2006
AdvertisingPromotion of the supply of goods / servicesArt. 2(a) Directive 2006/114; Art. 2(1)(g) Reg. 1169/2011
PresentationThird channel — where no labelling existsArt. 10(2); Decision 2013/63 point 2.1
After C-657/24Written advertising of a supplement is not labelling; (a)–(d) primarily on the label

4. Holding 2: no duty to repeat in written advertising

Because the Article 10(2) information must primarily appear on labelling, and presentation and advertising come into play only where no labelling exists, the obligation is fulfilled where points (a)–(d) are already on the product labelling — without any need to repeat them in written advertising.

The Court confirmed this with Decision 2013/63 (point 2.1(a) and (b)) and Article 12 of Regulation 1169/2011: mandatory food information must be available when the purchase decision is made; for prepacked food — directly on the package or an attached label. Where labelling already contains (a)–(d), the consumer has that information at purchase; if the legislature had intended a mandatory repeat in written advertising, it would have provided for that expressly.

Operational takeaway for FBOs: Article 10(2)(a)–(d) must still appear on the labelling of the specific product. A press ad with a health claim need not repeat those pieces if the labelling already has them — but the claim in the ad remains subject to Article 10(1) (authorisation). C-657/24 does not liberate unauthorised claims.

5. What the Court does not decide

  • Digital / social / TV as such — beyond the written-advertising facts (reformulation of Q2).
  • Whether a specific claim is authorised — a separate Article 10(1) and Article 13/14 list question.
  • German UWG merits — left to the BGH on the basis of the Court’s interpretation.

6. Article 10(3) versus Articles 10(1)–(2)

The judgment concerns specific health claims and the accompanying mandatory information under Article 10(2). It does not change Article 10(3): reference to general, non-specific benefits of the nutrient or food for overall good health or health-related well-being may be made only if accompanied by a specific health claim from Article 13 or 14. A marketer who uses a general wellbeing line in advertising without an accompanying listed claim still infringes Article 10(3) — irrespective of C-657/24.

7. Operational checklist for supplement marketers

  1. Ensure the claim in the advertisement is authorised (Article 10(1)) and used under the list conditions.
  2. On the packaging of the specific SKU put the full Article 10(2)(a)–(d) set — including (a) on diet and lifestyle.
  3. In press / written advertising for that product — after C-657/24 — you need not repeat (a)–(d) if they are already on the labelling.
  4. For generic advertising (not linked to a specific labelled product) Decision 2013/63 still indicates that the mandatory information must appear in presentation and advertising.
  5. Do not confuse the exemption from repeating Article 10(2) with Article 10(3) (general wellbeing) or with the duty to authorise the claim.
  6. Document: CELEX 62024CJ0657, 32006R1924, 32013D0063 — not secondary blogs that contradict EUR-Lex.

Related reading

A different health-claim thesis: refusal of the creatine → cognitive function claim (Reg. EU 2026/1118). On overlapping information regimes: C-301/25 Lidl Italia — UCPD and Article 7 FIC. Novel Nutriology C-386/23 (cited in C-657/24 for the health-protection aim) addresses a different issue — botanical claims.

Glossary

  • Article 10(2) Reg. 1924/2006 — specific conditions: mandatory information accompanying a health claim (points a–d).
  • Labelling — any words, particulars, trade marks, etc. relating to a food and placed on any packaging, document, label… (Art. 2(2)(j) Reg. 1169/2011).
  • Advertising — the making of a representation in any form in connection with a trade to promote the supply of goods or services (Art. 2(a) Directive 2006/114).
  • Decision 2013/63/EU — Commission guidelines on Article 10; Annex point 2.1 distinguishes labelling (delivery) and advertising (promotion).

Conclusion

C-657/24 closes the dispute over whether press advertising of a supplement “is labelling” under Article 10(2) and whether points (a)–(d) must be repeated there despite complete labelling. The answers: no and no — for written advertising where the labelling already contains the required information. In parallel, the judgment does not weaken Article 10(1) (authorisation), Article 10(3) (general wellbeing), or the duty to put the full (a)–(d) set on the packaging. UWG merits and non-written channels remain outside the operative part.

Educational material, not legal advice. This text is based on CJEU judgment C-657/24 (CELEX 62024CJ0657; ECLI:EU:C:2026:657), Regulation 1924/2006 Article 10, Regulation 1169/2011 Articles 2 and 12, and Decision 2013/63/EU. Qualification of a specific campaign depends on the channel, claim wording and national enforcement law.

Primary sources

  1. CJEU judgment of 17 September 2026, C-657/24, Kyberg Pharma — CELEX 62024CJ0657; ECLI:EU:C:2026:657. Language versions: PL, DE.
  2. Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 — Articles 1(2), 2, 3, 10(1)–(2); CELEX 32006R1924.
  3. Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 — Articles 2(2)(j), 12; CELEX 32011R1169.
  4. Commission Implementing Decision 2013/63/EU — Annex point 2.1; CELEX 32013D0063.
  5. Directive 2006/114/EC — Article 2(a) (definition of advertising); CELEX 32006L0114.
  6. CJEU judgment C-386/23, Novel Nutriology (30 April 2025) — cited in C-657/24 for the health-protection aim; different thesis (botanical claims).