On 15 August 2025, the Amsterdam District Court ruled in the dispute between Lotus Bakeries and Holie Foods in the Netherlands. Holie Foods used its own “Sugar Score” to place the sugar content of bars and breakfast products side by side, including Lotus products. Lotus objected and went to court, but the preliminary relief judge in Amsterdam rejected the claims. The decision raises a key question under Dutch law: how far may you go in naming a competitor without crossing the line? Comparative advertising can pay off, yet it touches several fields at once: advertising and consumer law, but also trademark and food law. A planned campaign must therefore address several risk points to avoid potential claims. In this blog, our Dutch attorneys for advertising and unfair competition offer practical guidance for litigation in the Netherlands.
The decision
Holie Foods, a Dutch startup focused on healthier breakfast products, developed an innovative “Sugar Score.” It is a simple A, B, C system with color coding that classifies foods by sugar content. Green-A corresponds to the lowest sugar content and Red-C to the highest. Holie used the Sugar Score in its campaign in the Netherlands. In that campaign, Holie compared its products to the five best-selling cereals and bars. That included Lotus Bakeries, known for the nãkd. and TREK muesli bars. Lotus argued that the campaign was unlawful due to misleading and comparative advertising. It also argued that Holie used non-permitted nutrition and health claims. Lotus started summary proceedings (ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2025:5929), yet lost.
The court held that Holie’s Sugar Score did not mislead consumers. Three pillars support that view. First, consumers understand that the label concerns the product’s sugar content. Because Holie relied on verifiable label data (grams of sugar per 100 grams), the campaign fell within the rules for comparative advertising in the Netherlands. The idea that a “green A label” suggests less sugar and a “red C label” suggests more sugar was not misleading under Dutch law.
Second, the court rejected trademark infringement. Holie did not use Lotus’s marks in a misleading or harmful way. In fact, Holie sought to differentiate itself from Lotus on sugar levels.
Third, Lotus argued that the Sugar Score amounted to a prohibited nutrition or health claim under EU rules. The court disagreed. A nutrition claim suggests beneficial properties (“high in protein”), while a health claim promises health effects (“strong bones”). Holie’s Sugar Score did neither. It merely informed consumers about sugar content without asserting health benefits. That nuance shows the importance of precise wording in ads.
The judgment confirms that sharp, creative comparisons can be allowed, provided the factual basis holds up.
Comparative vs. misleading advertising in the Netherlands
Comparative advertising is generally allowed in the Netherlands. The legal basis sits in Article 6:194a Dutch Civil Code, aligned with Directive 2006/114/EC. The law requires that the comparison be relevant, objective, and verifiable. Think of measurable features such as sugar per 100 grams, price per kilo, or recycled content verified by audit. You may name a competitor if needed to land your message, as long as the presentation does not cause confusion about origin or quality.
Misleading advertising is the flip side. If information is wrong, incomplete, or lacks essential context, the average consumer may be misled. A claim like “30% cheaper” can mislead if you compare per serving while the market compares per 100 grams. The same applies to health suggestions without authorised claims, or sustainability claims without solid, verifiable support. The Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets and the Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority act as regulators. Courts, including the Amsterdam court, refine the standards through case law.
Comparative advertising under Dutch law
An ad is comparative once a commercial message explicitly or implicitly refers to a competitor or its products. Naming names is not required. It suffices if the average consumer can reasonably link the message to a specific competitor. Thus, the “average consumer” lens matters. The core rule remains simple: you may compare if the comparison is objective, verifiable, and not misleading. Comparative ads must therefore meet clear conditions under Dutch law.
Misleading advertising under Dutch law
Article 6:194 Dutch Civil Code addresses “misleading statements,” whether oral or written. The statute does not define misleading advertising exhaustively. It does list topics that may render an ad misleading, such as statements on nature or composition, origin or time of manufacture, as well as the scope or duration of a guarantee. An ad misleads where facts are incorrect, essential data are omitted, or the message confuses the average consumer. Suggestive statements may also mislead. Think of using a logo in an ad to imply that a competitor’s product is defective.
The standard applied in the Netherlands
In practice, regulators and courts assess ads from the perspective of the average consumer in the Netherlands. This fictional reasonably informed, observant, and circumspect consumer sets the benchmark. Judges examine whether statements can mislead this consumer and affect economic behavior. Context also matters when deciding if an ad misleads. The ad must not cause confusion about marks or trade names, and it must not needlessly damage a competitor’s reputation. Nor may you free-ride on a well-known mark to gain an unfair advantage.
Holie’s Sugar Score passed the test because Holie acted transparently. The A (0–5% sugar), B (5–10% sugar), and C (>10% sugar) bands matched the nutrition tables directly. Contextual clarity also played a role. Holie expressly named sugar as the focus in its campaigns. That clarity avoided confusion about what was being assessed and therefore did not mislead the average consumer under Dutch law.
Reversal of the burden of proof under Dutch law
A notable feature in Dutch advertising and comparative-ad cases is the reversed burden of proof. The advertiser, not the complainant, must prove that its factual claims are correct and complete. This departs from the main procedural rule: whoever asserts must prove.
The rule applies once a testable statement is made, for example on price, composition, sustainability, or performance. Implicit yet verifiable claims also fall within scope. Pure value judgments that cannot be checked usually fall outside it. The standard always remains what the average consumer understands in the ad’s context.
Importance of compliance under Dutch law
Misleading and unlawful comparative advertising is wrongful toward consumers and competitors in the Netherlands. A court may impose an injunction, require withdrawal, and order rectification. Liability for damages can follow as well. It suffices to show that such statements can cause harm. Actual loss need not be proven. Unlawful ads may also cause reputational damage and a loss of trust among consumers and partners in the supply chain.
Advertising and unfair-competition lawyer in Amsterdam
Do you doubt whether your ad counts as permissible comparative advertising in the Netherlands, or risks being seen as misleading? Do you believe someone infringes your mark through misleading or comparative advertising? Our Dutch lawyers in advertising and unfair competition are ready to help. Your interests come first, and we pursue practical solutions and swift results. Contact our law firm in Amsterdam to speak with experienced Dutch attorneys and explore your options for court proceedings in the Netherlands.
