Reduced packaging but same price, mandatory labelling postponed until 2026: here's what it's all about and why the timeframe is getting longer

There is a move towards a new slippage in the obligation to mark products as 'shrinkflation', an Anglo-Saxon term composed of the verb 'shrink' and 'inflation'. This is the business strategy by which the size or quantity of a product is reduced, while keeping the price unchanged. The innovation is provided for in an amendment by the rapporteur to the Simplification Bill under consideration in the Senate.

The last Competition Act required manufacturers to inform the consumer "of the fact that the quantity has been reduced, by means of the following statement in the main visual field of the sales package or on a sticker: 'This package contains a product that is X (units) less than the previous quantity'. As of 1 April of this year 2025, manufacturers who market a consumer product that has undergone a reduction in nominal quantity and a corresponding increase in unit price, while keeping the previous packaging unchanged, should have been obliged to inform consumers of the reduction in quantity for the first six months from the date the product concerned was placed on the market. The deadline was then postponed to 1 October 2025.

The amendment now provides for a further postponement until 1 July 2026, 'following discussions with both the European Commission and stakeholders,' the report says.

In March, the European Union had rejected Italian transparency measures. The European Commission opened infringement proceedings against Italy for having introduced a requirement to indicate on consumer product labels a decrease in quantity with unchanged packaging. While recognising "the importance of informing consumers of these changes", the EU executive had considered that the requirement to give the information on each product was not proportionate. These labelling requirements are 'a major obstacle to the internal market and seriously impair the free movement of goods', it had been explained.

The European Commission had also pointed out that the Italian authorities did not provide sufficient evidence on the proportionality of the measure. Other less restrictive options, such as requiring the information to be displayed near the products on sale, would have been possible. According to Brussels, Italy also violated the Single Market Transparency Directive because the measure was adopted during the standstill period following the notification of the draft law, without considering the detailed opinion issued by the Commission. Italy was therefore sent a letter of formal notice, the preliminary initiation of the infringement procedure.