(1) The court considered that the average consumer is aware that it is not possible to fit 200g of fruit and vegetables in a bottle of 100mg, because the content of the bottle is the result of extraction during the production process.
With respect to the graphical illustrations of the fruit and vegetables, the court considered that the average consumer is accustomed to such visualisations, and will not be misled by them.
(2) While the bottle met the 50% threshold for most aspects, it did not meet this threshold with respect to fibres (only 1.5g instead of 3.7 to 4.8g). The court therefore rejected the argument of the defendant that this 1.5g meets the food labelling requirements of Regulation 1924/2006, because the claim of plaintiff concerns publicity and not labelling requirements.
The court also rejected the argument that the accompanying website provides a more detailed explanation of the various nutrition values.
The court thus concluded that the average consumer can be misled by the inaccurate 50% claim.
(3) Pectin is also found in apples, and was also accepted by the Court of Justice in case C-465/98 as not undermining "purely natural" claims.
With respect to the demineralised water, the court considered that the small quantity will not change an average consumer's transactional decision.
Integrale tekst: Integrale tekst