The European Union's top court rules that disinfectants can't be advertised as 'skin friendly'
The European Union’s top court says products such as disinfectants can’t be advertised as “skin friendly.”
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The European Union's top court said Thursday that products such as disinfectants can't be advertised as “skin friendly.”
The European Court of Justice issued its ruling after a German federal court sought its opinion in a case against a drugstore chain that sold a hand, skin and surface disinfectant with a label that, among other things, declared it “skin friendly.”
In that case, the German Association for Protection against Unfair Competition argued that drugstore chain dm failed to comply with an EU regulation on biocidal products. The court said the regulation prohibits promoting such products by calling them a “low-risk biocidal product,” “nontoxic,” “harmless,” “natural,” “environmentally friendly" or “animal friendly” — “or any similar indication.”
The EU court found that “skin friendly” has positive connotations that avoid suggesting any risk, and may imply that the product could be beneficial for the skin.
“Such an indication is of a misleading nature which justifies the prohibition of its use in the advertising of the biocidal product at issue,” the court said in a statement.