Spotlight on shrinkflation: Austria's Anti-Deceptive Packaging Law now in effect

In recent months, the phenomenon of shrinkflation has moved noticeably into the centre of public attention in Austria. The media, politicians and consumer protection organisations are addressing the issue with increasing frequency, driven by ongoing inflation. On 1 April 2026, the Anti-Deceptive Packaging Act (Anti-Mogelpackungs-Gesetz) came into effect, raising more questions than it answers.

What is shrinkflation?

The term "shrinkflation" refers to a specific type of price increase that is often difficult for consumers to detect: companies reduce the net content of a product while keeping the packaging size largely unchanged and the retail price constant.

At first glance, the nominal retail price therefore appears stable. In practice, however, consumers receive a smaller quantity of the product for the same price. The associated price increase is often only recognisable by checking the unit price (usually per litre or per kilogram), which must be displayed on the price label, meaning that the price rise is only indirectly perceptible to consumers. For this reason, consumer protection advocates criticise this pricing mechanism as misleading and unlawful, while businesses often justify it by citing persistently high inflation rates and the recent significant rise in raw material and production costs, presenting it as a more acceptable alternative to raising prices while maintaining the same packaging size.

Provisions of the Anti-Deceptive Packaging Act

In response to this development, the Austrian legislature has introduced a specific labelling requirement for products affected by "shrinkflation" through the so-called "Anti-Deceptive Packaging Act", which entered into force on 1 April 2026 and will cease to apply after 30 June 2030.

Essentially, the law establishes a labelling obligation for retailers in the food and drugstore sectors. This requirement applies whenever the quantity of a product is reduced while the package size appears to remain the same, resulting in a higher price per unit of measurement. The labelling obligation is specifically triggered as soon as the price per unit of measurement increases by at least 3 %.

In such cases, retailers must provide appropriate labelling for a period of 60 days. The Act requires "an easily understandable statement regarding the reduction in quantity" and cites as an example the wording "Attention: Less content ­– higher price" (in typical cases, of course, it would have to read "same price" or "higher unit price").

Depending on the size of the business or the specific retail location, retailers are required to provide a notification – either on the product itself, on the shelf, in the immediate vicinity or via an information sign – indicating that the product is affected by shrinkflation. The notice must be clear and easily understandable. In this context, manufacturers and suppliers already have a prior obligation to inform retailers of any reduction in quantity. 

Certain small outlets, as well as sales made through distance selling or outside business premises, are exempt.

To enforce the new requirements, the Act provides for administrative penalties. Competitors and public interest bodies (including the Chamber of Labour and the Consumer Protection Association), as well as associations, may also file lawsuits under the Unfair Competition Act (UWG) in the event of violations. Class-action lawsuits under the Qualified Institutions Act are also available. 

Open questions of interpretation and practical implications

The Act raises a number of interpretive questions that will create considerable uncertainty in practice. For example, the labelling obligation applies regardless of whether a modified presentation is used as part of the reduction in quantity. The decisive factor will be whether the current presentation is likely to give the average consumer the impression that they are still purchasing the product previously on offer. It also remains unclear what criteria should be used to determine the "appropriate" size and clarity of the text.

The phrase "immediate vicinity" of the product, as used in Section 3(1) of the Anti-Deceptive Packaging Act, also leaves room for interpretation. Questions also arise regarding the duration of the labelling requirement for products affected by shrinkflation that are offered on a recurring basis but remain in the product range for less than 60 consecutive days at a time, such as promotional or seasonal items.

Finally, it remains to be seen how the specific labelling obligations can be reconciled with the full harmonisation under the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UGP-RL) and the Price Indication Directive (PrAG-RL), and what relationship national information obligations have to transparency and anti-deception standards that are, in principle, exhaustively regulated under EU law.