Teaser: “BPA-free” on a baby bottle. “Gluten-free” on a water bottle. “Complies with the EU Ecodesign Regulation” on an electrical appliance. What sounds like a special environmental achievement is, in many cases, simply a legal obligation. Annex No. 10a of the Unfair Competition Act (UWG) targets precisely this practice: anyone who advertises statutory minimum standards as a voluntary feature could be liable to a warning from 27 September 2026.

The problem: “BPA-free” as a selling point

A manufacturer of baby bottles prominently advertises its product with the “BPA-free” label. The target audience, parents, associates this with a special safety feature offered by the manufacturer.

The fact is: BPA (bisphenol A) has been banned in baby bottles throughout the EU since 2011. Every baby bottle on the EU market is BPA-free, regardless of the manufacturer. The claim therefore suggests a unique feature that does not actually exist.

It is precisely this practice that is covered by Annex 10a of the Black List: the presentation of legally required standards as a unique feature of one’s own product range.

What Annex 10a specifically prohibits

The rule is (in simple terms): anyone who presents a requirement that applies by law to all products in the relevant category on the EU market as a distinctive feature of their own offer is always acting unlawfully.

According to our interpretation, three conditions must be met cumulatively:

1. Legal requirement: There must be a legal provision applicable across the EU, such as an EU regulation (REACH), a transposed directive or an EU-wide ban on a substance.

2. Applicability to ALL products in the category: The requirement must apply to the entire product group, not just a subset. Example: The BPA ban applies to all baby bottles, but the restriction on phthalates in toys applies only to certain toys (age-appropriate), not to all of them.

3. Presentation as a distinctive feature: The legal requirement must be highlighted in advertising, as a distinguishing feature that gives the impression of a voluntary extra benefit.

Five real-life examples

Case 1: “Gluten-free water”

Water naturally contains no gluten. Nevertheless, bottles of water labelled “gluten-free” can be found on the market. Recital 5 of the EmpCo Directive cites precisely this example.

In our view, from 27 September 2026 onwards, this claim is likely to constitute a breach of Annex 10a, it suggests a distinctive characteristic that applies to all waters in the category.

Case 2: ‘BPA-free’ on baby bottles

As described above: BPA has been banned in baby bottles across the EU since 2011. Whilst the statement “BPA-free” is factually correct, in our view, highlighting it in advertising as a distinctive feature is likely to be problematic from 27 September 2026 onwards.

The situation may be different for drinking bottles for adults: BPA is not banned across the EU in this context, so “BPA-free” could be a genuine product-specific claim.

Case 3: “Complies with the EU Ecodesign Regulation”

An electronics manufacturer prominently states on the packaging: “Complies with the EU Ecodesign Regulation”. In fact, every device in this category must meet the ecodesign requirements, otherwise it would not be allowed to be sold at all.

As we understand it, this statement could contravene Annex 10a from 27 September 2026 onwards. The impression that this represents a voluntary extra benefit is misleading.

Case 4: “CFC-free”

CFCs have been banned across the EU since 1995. A claim such as “CFC-free” on a spray can or fridge suggests a distinctive feature which, in fact, all products in this category must fulfil.

Case 5: “Free from [banned substance]”

The most common variant: a manufacturer writes “free from [substance X]”, even though substance X is already banned for this product category. Whilst the statement is not incorrect, it gives the impression that the manufacturer is doing something special.

What else is permitted?

Not every reference to legal standards is problematic. In our view, the following statements should be unobjectionable:

Exceeding the standard: “70 per cent lower energy consumption than the EU Ecodesign requirement for Class E”, this advertises a performance that exceeds the statutory minimum.

Purely informative mention: Where a manufacturer states in the small print of the technical documentation that it complies with a standard, without using this as a distinguishing feature.

National standards (with restrictions): If the requirement applies only nationally and not across the EU, Annex 10a does not, in our interpretation, apply directly. However, the general prohibition on misleading advertising under Section 5 of the Unfair Competition Act (UWG) could apply.

How does Annex 10a differ from other offences?

Annex 10a has a distinctive feature: it is more specific than other offences and therefore takes precedence.

Example: ‘Gluten-free water’ may satisfy both Annex No. 10a (legal impossibility of adding gluten as a distinguishing feature) and Section 5(3)(3) (irrelevant benefit). Under the speciality rule, No. 10a is likely to take precedence.

Three questions to ask yourself about every ‘free from’ claim

1. Is the substance being advertised prohibited for this product category in the first place? If so: the claim is likely to be risky under Annex 10a.

1. Does the ban apply across the EU to all products in this category? If itapplies only nationally or only to a subset of products: No. 10a may not apply, but Section 5 of the Unfair Competition Act (UWG) could come into play.

1. Are you presenting the absence of the substance as a distinctive feature? If so: risk. If it is merely a mandatory piece of information: probably harmless.

Sectors particularly affected

The practice of promoting statutory minimum standards as a unique selling point is widespread across all sectors. Particularly common examples include:

• Food & drink: ‘gluten-free’, ‘lactose-free’, ‘free from artificial colourings’, when the characteristic is already required by law or occurs naturally
• Cosmetics & personal care: “paraben-free”, “microplastic-free”, for substances that are already banned in this category
• Electronics: “complies with EU ecodesign”, “energy-efficient”, where the product meets standards that are already mandatory
• Packaging: “CFC-free”, “BPA-free”, “free from plasticisers”, for substances that have long been banned

This is how the GreenClaims Manager helps

Our algorithmic tool analyses your marketing texts for “free from” and “complies with” claims and checks whether these are based on legal standards that apply to your product category anyway. For each finding, you’ll receive a risk classification and a specific suggestion for improvement.

FAQ

What does Annex No. 10a of the UWG mean?

Annex 10a prohibits the presentation of statutory product requirements, which apply to all products in a given category on the EU market, as a special feature of one’s own offer. This offence is included on the blacklist and has been applicable since 27 September 2026.

Sources: Amendment to the Unfair Commercial Practices Act (UWG), Federal Law Gazette (BGBl.) 2026 I No. 43, Annex No. 10a | Bundestag Document (BT-Drs.) 21/1855, pp. 87–89 | Directive (EU) 2024/825 (EmpCo), Recital 5. As at July 2026.