The issue of reducing the quantity of a product without making a corresponding change to its packaging is becoming increasingly tangible as courts begin to confirm concrete standards regarding how consumers should be informed.

In a recent ruling [1], the Regional Court of Bremen, Germany, held in proceedings brought by the German consumer protection organization Verbraucherzentrale Hamburg against Mondelēz International, the manufacturer of Milka Alpenmilch chocolate, that reducing the weight of a chocolate bar from 100 g to 90 g while keeping the same packaging does not provide consumers with sufficiently visible information. [2]

Mondelēz argued that the new weight was expressly stated on the packaging and that the change had also been communicated through its website and social media channels. The court, however, found that these measures were insufficient to ensure effective consumer information. Given that the product had previously been marketed in identical 100 g packaging, the reduction to 90 g should have been indicated by a clear and prominent explanatory notice on the packaging for a period of at least four months. In the absence of such information, the German court held that the practice may be considered misleading to consumers.

Although the ruling is not yet final and was not accompanied by the imposition of financial penalties, it represents an important precedent regarding practices associated with shrinkflation phenomenon.

This case is not an isolated incident, as many other manufacturers have resorted to similar practices. The case of the Toblerone chocolate attracted attention in 2016 when its manufacturer increased the spacing between the product's distinctive triangular segments, thereby reducing the amount of chocolate in each bar by 20 grams.[3] In May 2026, Ritter Sport chocolate manufacturer Alfred Ritter GmbH reduced the weight of three of its product varieties from 100 g to 75 g. However, in this case, the reduction was communicated more clearly through new packaging and by promoting the change as a new range of thinner products.[4] Likewise, in Austria, courts have classified as a misleading commercial practice the reduction of the food product “Atlantic Salmon” from 250 g to 220 g while the price and package size remained unchanged.[5]

To date, several European countries have already adopted measures to combat shrinkflation. For instance, as of 1 July 2024, France introduced an obligation requiring retailers to explicitly inform consumers whenever the quantity of a product is reduced.[6] For two months following the introduction of the modified product to the market, retailers must display clear and visible information regarding the reduction in quantity and its impact on the unit price.

Similarly, Austria has recently adopted measures concerning consumer information on reductions in product quantities.[7] The new rules establish labelling obligations for retailers, as well as obligations for manufacturers and suppliers to inform supermarkets about such changes.

As a reminder, at national level, starting from 10 October 2024, the National Authority for Consumer Protection (ANPC) adopted Order No. 539/2024, under which traders are required to clearly and visibly display both the reduction in product quantity and the fact that the price has not changed.[8]

Shrinkflation represents only one of the strategies that economic operators may be tempted to implement in an effort to maintain their competitiveness in an environment already marked by rising production costs. Nevertheless, recent legislative interventions demonstrate that authorities are paying increasing attention to these practices and to their effects on consumers.

In this context, it remains to be seen both how the phenomenon will evolve and the extent to which the attention of European and national authorities will also turn to practices such as skimpflation[9] (reducing product quality without a corresponding reduction in price) or sneakflation[10] (introducing additional charges for the same service), which may have an impact on consumers that is at least as significant.[11]