The Landgericht Bremen (Bremen Regional Court) has ruled in proceedings brought by the Verbraucherzentrale Hamburg against Mondelez (judgment of the LG Bremen of 13.05.2026, ref.: 12 O 118/25): A Milka bar containing 90 grams may not simply look like the well-known 100-gram bar without consumers being clearly informed of the reduced content quantity.
The chamber granted the application for an injunction and assessed the challenged design as a "relative deceptive package" and thus as misleading.
This was not a case of the classic "air packaging", but of a new package that is not necessarily oversized when considered in isolation. Rather, the misleading element arose from comparison with the earlier product: Anyone who has been reaching for the well-known Milka bar for years would expect, given an almost unchanged packaging, to still receive the familiar 100-gram bar – not 90 grams.

The Case: One Millimetre Less Chocolate

Mondelez reduced the nominal content quantity of numerous Milka bars from 100 to 90 grams at the beginning of 2025. The packaging remained essentially the same: the same purple, the same logo, the same recognition effect. The bar itself was reportedly only around one millimetre thinner.
The new quantity indication "90 g" did appear on the packaging. However, this was not sufficient for the court. Because while the weight indication provided information about the current content, it did not clarify that the content quantity had been reduced compared to the well-known predecessor packaging. A formally correct net weight can nonetheless be insufficient in terms of the overall impression if the packaging continues to create the expectation associated with the earlier product.

Rising raw material costs – justification for the change?

Alongside the reduction in quantity, the recommended retail price of the Alpenmilch bar rose from € 1.49 to € 1.99. In terms of 100 grams of chocolate, this represents a unit price increase of around 48%. Not least for this reason, the Verbraucherzentrale Hamburg subsequently voted the Milka bar the "Deceptive Package of the Year 2025" on 21 January 2026: with 66.7% of votes, the highest share in the twelve-year history of this vote.

Why the packaging was formally correct — and yet misleading

Classic deceptive packaging cases frequently concern the question of whether the specific packaging gives the impression of containing more than it actually does. Such an "absolute" deceptive package may exist, for example, where a package leads consumers to expect significantly more content because of its size. These classic air or misleading packages are frequently addressed via § 43 para. 2 MessEG and unfair competition law claims, e.g. § 8 UWG.
In classic air packaging cases, a significant empty space can be a strong indicator of misleading. In case law, the question of whether the actual fill volume falls significantly short of the packaging volume plays a role, as established by "Tiegelgröße" (BGH, judgment of 11.10.2027 - I ZR 78/16) through to "Hydra Energy" (BGH, judgment of 29.05.2024 - I ZR 43/23).
By this classic standard, the new 90-gram Milka bar was not objectionable. The packaging was full, the bar filled it – only one millimetre thinner. A classic deceptive package within the meaning of the "Tiegelgröße" case law was not present.

The new concept of the "relative deceptive package"

New is the concept of the "relative deceptive package": with a relative deceptive package, the new packaging is not necessarily incorrect or oversized when considered in isolation.
The misleading element only arises from comparison with the earlier product: consumers know the Milka bar as a 100-gram product, see the same purple packaging again and therefore assume that they are still buying the familiar 100-gram bar. The LG Bremen considered precisely this recognition effect to be decisive.
The LG Bremen thereby introduced a temporal dimension alongside the static assessments of deceptive packaging. What is decisive is not only what is in the package, but also what was previously in it and whether the consumer still has this in mind.
In the Milka case, the LG Bremen found a misleading of consumers: a mistaken belief on the part of consumers about the content quantity arose from the comparison with the earlier product prior to the change. The court now also protects this prior knowledge – the expectation associated with a brand one has known for years.

The notice must be clear, comprehensible and perceptible

In the view of the LG Bremen, Mondelez should have clearly indicated the changed content quantity. The notice does not necessarily have to take a specific form. However, it must be clear, comprehensible and perceptible, and must have a real chance of being seen in the practical purchasing situation.
A merely formally present notice is therefore insufficient if it is lost in the overall picture of the packaging. Particularly with well-known branded products, consumers do not have to meticulously study the entire packaging every time in order to discover a hidden reduction in quantity.
The court also links this to a transition period: with such a reduction in content quantity, a clear notice is required for a period of at least four months, so that consumers can internalise the change.

In the practical purchasing situation, the consumer must have a real chance of perceiving the changes to the content quantity. The notice must therefore not merely be formally present, but must actually inform consumers in the overall picture.
In other words: the consumer must have a chance to actually see the notice.

What manufacturers should learn from this

The decision is not a general ban on shrinkflation. Companies are permitted to raise prices, reduce content quantities and adjust packaging. They simply have to do so in a way that does not mislead consumers about the change.
In practical terms this means:
Anyone who reduces the content quantity of a well-known product and essentially retains the packaging, design and brand identity should clearly and visibly indicate the change on the packaging. Otherwise, claims for injunctive relief are threatened, in particular from consumer organisations, competition associations or competitors with standing to bring proceedings, § 8 UWG.

Update notice (as of 20.05.2026): The judgment is not yet final. Mondelez may appeal to the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Bremen within one month of service.

Is a competitor – similarly to Milka – advertising with a so-called "deceptive package"? Or are you yourself being accused of advertising with a so-called "deceptive package"?

Schedule a free consultation with our specialist lawyers now