EU ADVERTISING · COURT DECISIONS · CHECKED 23 SEPTEMBER 2026
Must a written supplement ad repeat Article 10(2) information?
In Kyberg Pharma, C-657/24, the Court held that a written advertisement is not “labelling” for Article 10(2). The specified information need not be repeated in that written advertisement when it is included on the product’s labelling.
A complete label can satisfy this placement requirement.
First inspect the actual label of the advertised SKU and version. A website statement or a marketer’s assertion is not proof that the label carries the information. If the label evidence is missing or incomplete, Suppvera does not return a waiver for the ad.
Labelling and written advertising have different roles.
Article 10(2) lists information that must accompany the use of a health claim, including the varied-diet statement and, where applicable, quantity and pattern of consumption, people who should avoid the food, and risk warnings. The Court held that the list belongs primarily on the product label. If it is there, a written advertisement does not have to repeat it solely to satisfy Article 10(2). See paragraphs 51–69 and operative part 1–2.
The disease-risk statement can be clear without being verbatim.
For a reduction of disease risk claim, Article 14(2) requires the consumer to understand two points: the disease has multiple risk factors, and changing one may or may not have a beneficial effect. The Court did not require the statutory wording to be copied exactly, provided both points are conveyed accurately, clearly and understandably. Written advertising need not repeat that statement when it is on the actual packaging. A statement merely saying high cholesterol is a cardiovascular risk factor was, subject to the national court’s verification, not enough on its own. See paragraphs 72–73 and 75–91.
Keep each surface and its evidence separate.
Missing required information needs review at label level. Record the SKU and artwork version.
Only a reviewed complete label supports the conditional no-repeat result in this demonstration.
These judgments addressed written advertising. Product pages, paid social, marketplace listings and email have other facts and potentially other legal duties. Claim Context Engine v2 keeps their repeat obligation under review rather than extending the ruling automatically. The ad’s claim wording, authorisation and truthfulness still need their own checks.
Review the claim in its channel.
Choose a surface, declare what is known about the label and inspect separate Article 10(2) and 14(2) states.
Read the decisions.
Kyberg Pharma, C-657/24 · German original17 September 2026 · ECLI:EU:C:2026:774 ↗Kyberg Pharma, C-657/24 · English reference textParagraphs 51–69 and operative part 1–2 ↗Vista-Life Pharma, C-721/24 · English reference textParagraphs 72–73 and 75–91; original language French ↗Point-in-time source check on 23 September 2026. Original judgment languages control; English texts support this working explanation. Educational analysis, not label approval or legal advice. See also when administration wording can itself be a claim.