Navigating European Union food supplement regulations requires balancing marketing messaging with strict legal boundaries. On September 17, 2026, the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered two milestone rulings (Case C-657/24 and C-721/24) that provide clarity on product labeling, written advertising, and health claim classifications under Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006.[1]
These decisions offer significant operational leeway for marketing teams while establishing clear boundaries on dosage framing.
Case C-657/24 concerns a written advertisement for a weight-loss food supplement. The company omitted the mandatory statement about the importance of a varied and balanced diet and healthy lifestyle in the advertisement, even though the warning was printed on the product label. The Court was asked to clarify whether this mandatory warning must be included in the written advertisement if it is already present on the label.
Case C-721/24 stemmed from a lawsuit over advertisements published in periodicals directed at health professionals. The core questions are whether statements about a supplement’s frequency of intake and route of administration can constitute a health claim, whether companies must use the exact wording of the mandatory statement regarding disease risk factors under Article 14(2) of Regulation 1924/2006, and whether an advertisement containing a reduction of disease risk claim was required to include that mandatory statement, given that this information was already present on the product’s packaging.
The first practical takeaway simplifies advertising requirements. The Court established that written promotional materials (such as magazine ads, flyers, or digital campaigns) are legally distinct from product labeling. Labeling exists to inform buyers at the moment of delivery, while advertising exists to generate sales. Because of this distinction, food business operators no longer need to repeat mandatory disclaimers—such as the requirement to state the importance of a varied diet and a healthy lifestyle—in written ads, provided that exact statement is clearly printed on the physical packaging. The consumer receives the required health context when purchasing or receiving the physical product, so duplicating it in promotional copy is redundant.
The second outcome addresses disease risk reduction claims under Article 14(2). When making a claim about reducing a disease risk factor, operators were traditionally required to copy statutory legal warnings word-for-word. The Court clarified that you do not need to copy the official warning verbatim. As long as your text clearly, accurately, and understandably communicates the two core legal points—that the disease has multiple risk factors and that changing one factor may not necessarily prevent the disease—you have full flexibility to adjust the wording. Furthermore, if this warning is already present on the physical label, it can also be safely omitted from your written advertising.
However, the Court drew a strict line on how dosage and administration methods are marketed. Phrasing that describes how or when to take a product—such as claiming a “daily dose works better than a single dose” or highlighting a “sublingual” delivery mechanism—will be classified as a regulated health claim if it implies a superior health outcome, greater efficacy, or a reduced risk of side effects. In practice, national enforcement authorities will almost always assume consumers connect dosage instructions with enhanced health benefits. If a statement about intake frequency or delivery method implies better health performance, it requires a fully authorized health claim before it can be used on packaging or in marketing campaigns.
These rulings allow companies to clean up written promotional materials and drop rigid legal copy on disease risk warnings, provided physical packaging remains compliant. At the same time, marketing teams must stop framing dosage routines or administration routes as superior delivery methods unless those specific assertions are backed by an authorized health claim.
To maintain compliance across EU distribution channels, food supplement operators should implement immediate operational adjustments:
- Audit current written advertising campaigns. Review print ads, digital promotional banners, and social media campaigns. You can safely streamline ad copy by removing redundant mandatory disclaimers—such as the varied diet warning—provided those exact disclosures are fully compliant and visible on the physical product package.
- Review dosage and delivery claims. Inspect product descriptions for phrases such as “sublingual absorption for faster action” or “daily administration delivers maximum effect.” Treat any phrasing that links administration routes or dosage frequencies to superior biological performance as a health claim, and verify its authorization status accordingly.
- Refine disease risk disclaimers. Review Article 14 disease risk reduction claims on packaging to ensure multi-risk factor disclosures remain clear and accessible. While rigid verbatim text is no longer required, the essential message—that modifying one risk factor does not guarantee disease prevention—must remain unmistakable.
By separating promotional messaging from package labeling requirements, the Court has given operators room to craft cleaner advertising. Simultaneously, classifying delivery methods as health claims reinforces the necessity of strict regulatory verification before publishing usage assertions.
References:
[1] Curia – Court of Justice of the European Union, Judicial Activity (14-18 September 2026): https://infocuria.curia.europa.eu/tabs/affair?lang=en&matiere=RAPL.SEALI&close-date-start=2026-09-14&close-date-end=2026-09-18