In Germany, the pharmacy chain DM-Drogerie Markt GmbH & Co. KG (DM) advertised the disinfectant "BioLYTHE" with the packaging labels "ecological universal broad spectrum disinfectant", "skin, hand and surface disinfection", "effective against SARS-Corona", "skin friendly", "organic", and "alcohol-free". The German Association for Protection against Unfair Competition filed a lawsuit against DM-Drogerie Markt GmbH & Co. KG (DM), arguing that the use of these labels violated the relevant European Union legislation on the sale of biocidal products.
As a matter of fact, biocidal products cannot be advertised in such a way as to mislead the user as to their risks to health or the environment or their efficacy and the promotion of biocidal products as "low-risk biocidal product", "non-toxic", "harmless", "organic", "environmentally friendly", "animal friendly" or any similar indication is prohibited by the relevant legislation. In response, the German Federal Court asked the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) for an opinion on how the phrase "any similar indication" should be interpreted. The CJEU stated that it includes "any expression which minimizes or denies the risks of biocidal
products to health or the environment". In particular, it stated that the phrase "skin-friendly" used in the labeling of the product "BioLYTHE" could clearly mislead consumers by giving the impression that the product could be beneficial for the skin by eliminating the harmful side effects of the product by giving it a positive connotation.
In line with the opinion of the CJEU, the German Federal Court of Justice emphasized that the phrase "skin-friendly" is misleading and should be prohibited in the advertising of biocidal products.
As a result, DM-Drogerie Markt GmbH & Co. KG (DM) used phrases such as "skin-friendly", "ecological universal broad spectrum disinfectant" and "organic" in the advertisement of BioLYTHE disinfectant, which were found to be contrary to the regulations on the advertising of biocidal products, and it was decided that these expressions are misleading to consumers and should therefore be banned.
You can access the full text of the decision via this link.