Can a consumer organization publicly disparage a product?

When a testing organization questions the effectiveness of a product, it can have disastrous consequences for a company. Although freedom of the press and the right to consumer information enjoy broad protection, this freedom is not absolute in the marketplace. A judgment of the president of the Dutch-speaking enterprise court Brussels of April 2, 2026 clearly illustrates that publishing unsubtle, damaging claims based on methodologically questionable test results constitutes a tort, against which the targeted company can successfully take action.

The facts and legal context

In spring 2025, the company Nomige, active in the cosmetics sector, launched a sunscreen under the name “RayDefense Liquid SPF50 Brush TINTED.” The consumer organization Test-Aankoop had this product tested and came to the conclusion that it showed a significantly lower level of protection (about SPF 20) and, in addition, inadequate UVA protection.

Even before publication, a heated discussion ensued between the parties. Nomige disputed the results with reasons, submitted its own test reports that did support the claimed SPF 50 and pointed out serious errors in Test-Aankoop' test design. Despite these prior warnings and the refusal to allow immediate access to the full test reports, Test-Aankoop proceeded to publish a large-scale, adamant publication via a press release, articles and various channels on social media on June 3, 2025. Nomige took immediate action and obtained through a unilateral petition a ban on further distribution of this content, which Test-Aankoop subsequently opposed.

The court's decision

On April 2, 2026, the Dutch-speaking enterprise court of Brussels ruled in favor of Nomige. The court found that the test basis used by Test-Aankoop was too questionable, too fragile and insufficiently calibrated to support such far-reaching and absolute public conclusions. Among other things, the court ruled that the use of an incorrect reference product (P2 instead of P8) was a serious indication that the test design was not suitable to accurately test an SPF 50 claim.

The court imposed severe sanctions on the consumer organization:

• The publications were formally declared unlawful because the organization violated its duty of care and did not display sufficient loyalty to the counterarguments.
• An immediate cease-and-desist order was issued for the press release, news articles and accompanying posts and videos on Facebook, TikTok and Instagram.
• Test-Aankoop was ordered to pay a penalty of 5,000 euros per violation found and per day of delay, with a cap of 250,000 euros.
• As a remedial measure, Test-Aankoop must publish a summary of the judgement at the top of the homepage of its website and on all its relevant social media channels for 15 days.

Legal analysis and interpretation

This case goes to the heart of the delicate tension between freedom of speech and freedom of the press (enshrined in, inter alia, Article 10 ECHR) and the prohibition of unlawful market practices (Code of Economic Law) and extra-contractual liability (in accordance with Articles 6.5 and 6.6 Civil Code).

Although a consumer organization such as Test-Aankoop plays an essential social role within the public debate and consumer protection, the court ruled that this does not absolve them from a stringent standard of care. On the contrary, a player with such expertise and authority is expected to exercise a high degree of care. When they make commercially far-reaching announcements about a specific product, the court states that their factual basis must be “adequate” and “substantial counter-information should not be ignored in an unbalanced manner”.

By publishing very strong claims about a product, knowing that the testing methodology was seriously and substantiatedly challenged, the organization committed an act beyond protected criticism. Here, merely invoking the ‘editorial nature’ of the publication did not provide a free pass for what the court essentially considered misleading communication by omission.

What this specifically means

• For the entrepreneur (brand owner): This ruling underscores the importance of a sound scientific record for your product claims. In the event of unjustified reputational damage by third parties, you are not powerless. A decisive, legal response - in which you promptly put your own supporting documents on the table - can be important to immediately stop publications and limit commercial damage through a unilateral petition and subsequent proceedings such as summary proceedings.
• For testing organizations, press and action groups: Critical reporting is essential, but the line with ‘badmouthing’ is crossed when the factual basis wavers. You have an obligation to consider the limits of your own research. If a company provides valid, science-based objections for publication, you are obligated to include them loyally and transparently in your reporting to give consumers an unbiased view.

Frequently asked questions (FAQ)

As a company, can I have negative publications in the press or on social media preemptively stopped?
Yes, although ‘preventive censorship’ in Belgium is judged very strictly and is exceptional, in extremely urgent cases (via a unilateral petition) the court can prohibit the publication of erroneous, biased or illegal information when there is an imminent risk of serious and irreparable commercial damage to your company.

What is a cease-and-desist claim for market practices?
This is a specific and speedy proceeding before the presiding judge of the enterprise court in which a party asks for an immediate end to a violation of the Code of Economic Law (CEL), such as misleading advertising, unfair competition or, as in this case, negligent and misleading communications affecting professional interests.

Can I demand rectification if false claims about my product have already been disseminated?
Absolutely. In addition to an order to cease the infringement, the court may also impose a remedy. This often comes in the form of a publication order (penalty-supported), requiring the violator to prominently publish the ruling or a rectification on its own channels at its own expense to restore the market imbalance.

Conclusion

Freedom of speech and the role of the press as a (consumer) watchdog are important, but stop in Belgium where careless claims cause significant economic damage to a company. A critical review is one thing; publicly demolishing a product with factually questionable testing methods and ignoring dissent, is a tort.