Milka's Alpenmelk chocolate bar was reduced from 100g to 90g — the bar made one millimetre thinner — while its price rose from €1.49 to €1.99. The wrapper looked exactly as before. Germany's consumer association sued Mondelez after consumer complaints about the shrinkflation.
Mondelez argued the new weight was clearly printed on the wrapper. On 13 May 2026 the Bremen Regional Court rejected that defence: reducing size or raising prices is permitted, but keeping the packaging's familiar visual identity while doing so deceives consumers, who would not notice the difference in a product they had bought for years.
The court ruled the product should not have been sold this way. Standard practice requires a gap of around four months between old and new versions on shelves; since four months had already passed, no shelf removal was ordered. Mondelez may still appeal.
A German court ruled the identical wrapper deceived buyers, since shoppers recognize products by look, not small print, so the packaging itself was the lie.
The wrapper is the promise: buyers recognise a product by its look, so an unchanged package asserts an unchanged product whatever the small print says.
Printing the weight is not enough when the visual identity lies: the court weighed what shoppers actually notice, not what the label technically discloses.
Doubling down compounded it — 10% less chocolate at a third more money, with the familiar wrapper doing the selling for both changes.
Shrinkflation is legal; hiding it is not: keep the wrapper identical while the bar shrinks and the price rises, and a court can rule the packaging itself deceptive.
The Bremen ruling of 13 May 2026 stopped short of a shelf removal only because four months had already elapsed since the change. Mondelez may appeal; the case landed amid growing European scrutiny of shrinkflation, with consumer groups tracking hidden downsizing across groceries.
FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE