Comparative and Misleading Advertising under Dutch Law

Published on 8 September 2025 · Last updated 28 October 2026

Comparative advertising is allowed in the Netherlands if it meets all eight conditions of Article 6:194a(2) Dutch Civil Code: among other things, it must not mislead or denigrate and must compare like with like, objectively and verifiably. A company that publishes misleading advertising about its own goods or services, or an unlawful comparison, acts unlawfully towards competing businesses (Articles 6:194 and 6:194a Dutch Civil Code). The advertiser must then prove that its factual claims are correct (Article 6:195).

This page is for foreign manufacturers, brand owners and retailers that advertise in the Netherlands, or that see a competitor compare its products with theirs. You will read when a comparison is lawful, when an advertisement is misleading, who must prove what, and how to stop an advertisement quickly through summary proceedings. Environmental claims have their own rules: see greenwashing under Dutch law.

What is comparative advertising under Dutch law?

Any advertising that explicitly or implicitly identifies a competitor or the goods or services a competitor offers (Article 6:194a(1) Dutch Civil Code). Naming the competitor is not required: a recognisable reference to its product, packaging or brand is enough.

The Dutch rules implement Directive 2006/114/EC, which protects traders against misleading advertising and sets the conditions for permitted comparative advertising (Article 1). The conditions for comparative advertising are therefore the same throughout the EU, which helps companies that run one campaign across several countries; for misleading advertising between businesses, Member States may apply stricter rules.

When is comparative advertising allowed in the Netherlands?

Only if it meets all eight conditions of Article 6:194a(2) Dutch Civil Code. The comparison must not be misleading, must compare goods or services that meet the same needs, and must objectively compare material, relevant, verifiable and representative features such as price (Article 6:194a(2)(a) to (c)).

The other conditions protect the competitor’s brand and reputation. The comparison may not:

cause confusion between the advertiser and the competitor, or between their brands and products (condition d);
discredit or denigrate the competitor’s brands, trade names, goods, activities or circumstances (condition e);
compare products with a designation of origin with products that do not have the same designation (condition f);
take unfair advantage of the reputation of the competitor’s brand or trade name (condition g);
present goods or services as imitations or replicas of goods or services with a protected brand or trade name (condition h).

A comparison that refers to a special offer must state clearly when the offer ends and, if it has not started yet, when it begins, or that it runs while stocks last (Article 6:194a(3)). If the comparison meets all conditions, using the competitor’s brand in it does not infringe that brand; the Amsterdam court applied this in the case discussed below (ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2025:5929).

When is advertising misleading under Dutch law?

When a public statement about your own goods or services is misleading in one or more respects, for example about the nature, composition, quantity, origin, price, conditions of delivery, guarantees or test results (Article 6:194(1) Dutch Civil Code). Leaving out essential information that a business customer needs to decide can also be misleading (Article 6:194(2) and (3)).

Courts assess the statement from the point of view of the average, reasonably informed, observant and circumspect member of the audience it targets. The question is whether the incorrect or incomplete information misleads or can mislead that person and can influence economic behaviour, and whether it is material enough to do so (Rb. Amsterdam 15 August 2025, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2025:5929, para. 4.5).

Since the implementation of the EU rules on unfair commercial practices, consumers rely on Articles 6:193a to 6:193j Dutch Civil Code. Article 6:194 is the route for businesses: a competitor can invoke it whatever the target audience of the advertisement, whether businesses, consumers or both (ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2025:5929, para. 4.6).

Question	Business-to-business route	Consumer route
Main rule	Art. 6:194 (misleading) and 6:194a (comparative) Dutch Civil Code	Art. 6:193a to 6:193j Dutch Civil Code (unfair commercial practices)
Who can bring a claim	A business harmed or threatened by the advertisement	Consumers, interest groups (art. 3:305a) and the ACM
Burden of proof on the facts	Advertiser (art. 6:195)	Trader, where appropriate (art. 6:193j)
Typical remedies	Injunction, rectification, damages (art. 6:195 and 6:196)	Damages and annulment of contracts (art. 6:193j); injunction under the general rules

Who bears the burden of proof in advertising disputes?

The advertiser. If a claim is brought under Article 6:194 or 6:194a against the party that determined the content of the advertisement, that party must prove that the facts stated or suggested are correct and complete (Article 6:195(1) Dutch Civil Code). In comparative advertising it must produce that evidence within a short period.

This reverses the normal rule that the party relying on facts must prove them. In practice, it means you should have your evidence ready before a campaign starts: test reports, price surveys with dates and sources, label data and the method behind any score or ranking. Statements that cannot be checked, such as pure opinions or obvious exaggeration, usually fall outside this burden, but a statement that suggests measurable facts does not.

Planning a comparative campaign in the Netherlands, or targeted by one? A short legal review of the claims and the evidence file costs less than an injunction in the middle of a campaign. Contact our litigation team in Amsterdam.

What can a competitor claim against unlawful advertising?

The court can prohibit the advertisement and order the advertiser to publish a rectification in a manner the court specifies (Article 6:196(1) Dutch Civil Code). An injunction does not require proof of actual loss: harm that is threatened is enough.

The advertiser that determined the content of the advertisement is also liable for the resulting damage, unless it proves the violation is neither its fault nor otherwise attributable to it (Article 6:195(2)). The EU directive likewise requires that a cessation order be possible without proof of actual loss, intention or negligence (Article 5(3) Directive 2006/114/EC).

Many advertising disputes are decided in summary proceedings (kort geding), because a campaign runs for weeks, not years. The claimant must show an urgent interest; the judgment is provisional. See kort geding in the Netherlands. Self-regulation is a parallel route: the Dutch Advertising Code Committee (Reclame Code Commissie) handles complaints about advertisements, but its decisions are recommendations, not court orders.

What did the Amsterdam court decide in Lotus Bakeries v Holie Foods?

The provisional relief judge of the District Court of Amsterdam rejected all claims of Lotus Bakeries against the “Sugar Score” campaign of Holie Foods on 15 August 2025. The comparison was not misleading, was permitted comparative advertising and was not a nutrition or health claim (Rb. Amsterdam 15 August 2025, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2025:5929).

Holie labelled the five best-selling cereals and bars, including Lotus’s nākd. and TREK bars, with an A, B or C score in green, orange or red based on sugar per 100 grams. Lotus argued that consumers would read the red C as “unhealthy” and that the campaign denigrated its brands. The judge found that the words “Sugar Score” and the context made clear that only sugar content was scored, that the score was transparent because it was based on grams per 100 grams, and that a lower score alone did not damage Lotus’s reputation. Because the comparison met the conditions of Article 6:194a(2), the trademark claims also failed.

The judge also held that the score was not a nutrition or health claim within the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 on nutrition and health claims. Holie’s counterclaim against sustainability claims by Lotus was rejected as well, because it lacked an urgent interest and was not suitable for summary proceedings. The practical lessons are clear:

base every score or ranking on one measurable feature and say which one;
use public, checkable data, such as information on the label;
keep the evidence file ready from day one, because the burden of proof is on you;
avoid wording that suggests more than the data show, such as health effects.

When should you involve a Dutch lawyer for advertising disputes?

Before launch, if a campaign names or shows a competitor’s products, and immediately if you find an advertisement that targets your products. Campaigns change fast, and the urgency required for summary proceedings fades if you wait.

MAAK Advocaten in Amsterdam advises foreign and Dutch companies on advertising claims and comparative campaigns, sends and answers cease-and-desist letters and conducts summary proceedings and main proceedings before the Dutch courts in first instance and on appeal. Read more about our litigation practice or about acting against greenwashing by competitors.

Frequently asked questions about comparative and misleading advertising in the Netherlands

Is comparative advertising legal in the Netherlands?

Yes, if it meets all conditions of Article 6:194a(2) Dutch Civil Code: not misleading, comparing like with like, objective and verifiable, no confusion, no denigration and no unfair use of the competitor’s brand, and no presentation of goods as imitations (with a separate rule for designations of origin).

Can I name a competitor’s brand in my advertising?

Yes, if the comparison meets the legal conditions. In that case, using the brand does not infringe it; the Amsterdam court confirmed this in Lotus Bakeries v Holie Foods (ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2025:5929).

Who must prove that an advertisement is correct?

The advertiser that determined the content. Under Article 6:195 Dutch Civil Code it must prove the accuracy and completeness of the facts stated or suggested, and in comparative advertising it must do so within a short period.

How fast can I stop a competitor’s misleading advertising?

Through summary proceedings (kort geding), where a hearing can be scheduled within days or weeks and a judgment follows in principle two weeks later. The court can prohibit the advertisement and order a rectification (Article 6:196 Dutch Civil Code).

Can a competitor claim damages for misleading advertising?

Yes. The advertiser that determined the content is liable for the resulting damage, unless it proves the violation is neither its fault nor otherwise attributable to it (Article 6:195(2) Dutch Civil Code).