Lidl (Environment and consumers) French Text [2010] EUECJ C-159/09 (07 September 2010)

Comparative advertising of food products based solely on price is lawful under Directive 84/450/CEE, provided the products compared have sufficient interchangeability and the advertising is not misleading; differences in taste or quality do not render such advertising unlawful.

Source-derived case information.

Parties: Applicant: Lidl SNC; Respondent: Vierzon Distribution SA
Jurisdiction: European Union
Judgment Date: 07 September 2010
Procedural Posture: Preliminary Reference / Opinion of Advocate General
Outcome: Question answered; comparative advertising lawful under specified conditions.
Legal Topics: Comparative Advertising, Misleading Advertising, Interchangeability of Products, Directive Interpretation

European Union Law Consumer Protection Competition Law Comparative Advertising Misleading Advertising Interchangeability of Products Directive Interpretation

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3

Parties

Lidl SNC

Applicant

Vierzon Distribution SA

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Preliminary Reference / Opinion of Advocate General

Legal Issues

1 Is comparative advertising of food products based solely on price lawful under EU law, despite differences in taste and quality?
2 Does EU law preclude national rules prohibiting comparative advertising of food products due to their subjective characteristics?

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Question answered; comparative advertising lawful under specified conditions.

Orders

National court must verify sufficient interchangeability and absence of misleading advertising per Article 3 bis of Directive 84/450/CEE.

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.