In recent years, there has been a growing phenomenon that consumers receive less of a product for the same price – a practice known as “shrinkflation”.
Shrinkflation is defined as a business practice whereby contents of a product are reduced while the package and price remain unchanged. This practice effectively  results in a hidden increase in the unit price of the product.

Recently, the first Austrian court ruling on the admissibility of shrinkflation under unfair competition law has been issued. The Vienna Higher Regional Court (OLG Wien 24.06.2025, 4 R 197/24f) upheld the previous decision of the Vienna Commercial Court (Handelsgericht Wien) against a frozen food distributor for misleading commercial practices under § 2 of the Austrian Unfair Competition Act (UWG). An appeal to the Supreme Court (OGH) was permitted, but not filed by the defendant, so that the decision is final.

Until the beginning of 2023, the producer sold its product “Atlantic Salmon” with a net content of 250 grams per package. In February 2023, the net weight was reduced to 220 grams while the price and package size remained the same. The only modification of the packaging was the indication of the new (instead of the previous) weight.

The Austrian Association for Consumer Information (VKI) considered this to be a hidden price increase which was not sufficiently transparent to consumers, and filed a suit (Verbandsklage) in order to force the producer to refrain from such practices in future. The Court upheld VKI’s claim that this was a deceiving of the consumers regarding the price (§ 2 para 1 no 4 UWG) and regarding the essential features of the product (§ 2 para 1 no 2 UWG) and also a misleading commercial practice according to § 2 para 4 UWG. The claim was also not yet time-barred (verjährt), as the unfair practice was continued.

According to the Court, the reduction in the net weight of the product was not noticeable to the average consumer because not only the packaging size remained the same, but also the information on the packaging and the price remained unchanged. The average consumer expects that a product offered in the same packaging, with the same information and the same price, contains the same amount of the product. Even the correctly indicated unit price cannot prevent the deceptive effect on consumers, as it is intended for comparing prices between different products, but not for comparing the current price of a product with its previous price.

A similar phenomenon, named deceptive packaging (Mogelpackung, i.e. prepackaged goods whose external appearance is misleading as to the number, size, volume, or weight of the goods actually contained therein) has already been addressed in decisions of the Austrian Supreme Court (OGH 29.01.2019, 4 Ob 150/18i) and – recently – the German Supreme Court (BGH 29.05.2024, I ZR 43/23). The common denominator of both concepts is that the mere indication of the net weight is in both cases not enough to prevent deceiving the consumer.

In response to the recent court decision, the Austrian government also intends to adopt legislation to address shrinkflation practices. The need for clear legal provisions concerning deceptive packaging which, in line with German law, clearly defines the ratio of filling quantity to air content has also been emphasized. An amendment to the Price Marking Act is expected to help ensure the visibility and legibility of the unit price. In the future producers may therefore be required to indicate changes in filling quantities on the front of product packaging. Similar legislation is already in force in other jurisdictions, e.g. France, where larger food retailers are required to inform consumers about such changes.

In addition, allegedly high food prices (also compared to neighbouring countries) and controversial discount campaigns have come into public focus. In September 2025, 270 inspections were carried out in Vienna by the Market Authority, resulting in almost 200 complaints.

To sum it up, food producers and distributors in particular have to bear in mind that courts and public authorities are increasingly sensitive as far as price transparency is concerned, and should therefore carefully check their current price labeling strategies and, if necessary, amend them accordingly.