Latest Practice in Protection against Unfair Competition

Ukrainian regulation in protection against unfair competition remains highly effective despite the absence of any substantial changes to relevant laws, which is confirmed by the results of the operations of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine (AMCU) for 2025.

The number of corresponding violations remained highest among the types of cases reviewed by the AMCU last year, which confirms the substantial attention that the Committee pays to this type of violation.

It should be noted that the number of cases connected with discrediting of a competitor have risen, which confirms that more business entities have chosen the AMCU as the proper authority to protect their violated rights and interests (as in practice such cases are opened by the corresponding claim of the victim).

At the same time, traditionally most of the unfair competition cases reviewed by the AMCU in 2025 were those of spreading misleading information (particularly in advertisements) regarding goods and services to customers.

A reminder that Article 15-1 of the Law of Ukraine On Protection Against Unfair Competition defines the dissemination of misleading information as a business entity providing information directly or through another person to one, or several, or an indefinite number of persons, including in advertising, incomplete, inaccurate or false statements, in particular, as the result of chosen method of their presentation, concealment of certain facts, or indistinct wordings that have affected or shall affect these persons to purchase, to order, or to realize (sell, deliver,  execute, supply) products, works, services of such a business entity.

Misleading information includes statements that:

• contain incomplete, inaccurate or false data related to the origin of the product, manufacturer, seller, manufacture method, source and method of purchasing, realization, quantity, consumer values, quality, package contents, validity, standards, specifications, features of realization of products, operations, services, pricing and promotional events relating to them, as well as the essential terms of agreement;
• contain incomplete, inaccurate or false data related to financial standing of the entity or its economic activity;
• refer to authorities and rights that are not enjoyed, or relationships that are not involved in;
• refer to production output, purchase, sale or supply of products, works and services that were not performed on the particular day of dissemination of information.

So what can be said about the latest AMCU practice in these types of violations?

In 2025, the AMCU continued its previous focus on pharmacy and adjacent markets. However, the main focus last year was not medications but mainly dietary supplements.

The Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine takes a strict stance on the position related to the interpretation of the provisions contained in the above-stated article. In particular, the AMCU assumes that any promotional information shall be absolutely true, accurate and complete.

And with regards to dietary supplements where exaggerated statements about their effectiveness are the main things which are capable of boosting sales, such position of the AMCU is not easy to deal with. The cases we had in 2025 only confirm this.

The AMCU stated in a number of cases stated that no claims of a specific kind of medical effect (i.e. targeting a specific body organ or function) or general positive health effect (like “promotes health”, “improves condition” etc.) can be made without having a valid medical study which confirms the effect used in the particular promotion or advertisment.

In addition, in a number of cases the AMCU once again mentioned that if the method of presenting a positive effect of a dietary supplement is described as a pharmacological effect, this can cause the consumer to perceive the dietary supplement as a medicine and, therefore, should also be considered as dissemination of misleading information.

It is important to take note of this approach as it is being used much more often. Even when the information provided in the advertisement is not directly misleading, the method of presenting this information may change the perception of the product received by the consumer and, therefore, in accordance with the AMCU, constitutes a violation.

Among interesting cases in 2025 we can note a case regarding butter opened by a statement made by a victim. A state company had purchased “butter” from a number of suppliers and after supplying was carried out it was established that the composition of the product did not meet the legal requirements for “butter” and, therefore, cannot be called as such. What is interesting in this case is that normally such violations (i.e. nonconformity of the composition of the food product with regulatory standards) should be reviewed by the relevant regulatory bodies on consumer protection. But, in this case a 20 million hryvnas fine imposed by the AMCU substantially exceeds the authority of those bodies and will be much more effective in preventing further violations.

At the same time, this also can open an interesting possibility for potential claims to the AMCU, where the basis of the claims will be that incorrect information regarding the product’s composition.

Another interesting decision in 2025 was not a case investigation result by AMCU but rather an issued Recommendations.

According to the Law of Ukraine On protection of economic competition, in cases where the Committee has a reason to believe that particular activity may constitute a violation of relevant law provisions, it can issue Recommendations in which AMCU stipulates what actions they believe may violate current legislation and what should be done to stop them. If the business entity follows the recommendations, then the AMCU shall not open the corresponding probe into the case.

In 2025 Recommendations were issued to Philip Morris regarding IQOS statements on being less harmful than traditional tobacco products. What is interesting is that in the AMCU document the absence of information about long-term studies into potential health risks still not having been carried out was regarded as being “potentially misleading”. Despite Philip Morris providing necessary proof of IQOS statements based on 2-year study (which means Philip Morris legally met the requirement for truthful information), the AMCU decided that absence of this particular information may still mislead the consumer.

The recommendations once again confirm that when investigating potential violations, the AMCU puts significant weight not on actual statements and whether or not they are truthful, but rather on how specific information about a specific product issued/delivered in a specific way will be, or may be, perceived by the consumer.

It should be noted that on a year-by-year basis, the AMCU is slowly but consequentially widening the scope where Article 15-1 of the Law of Ukraine On Protection Against Unfair Competition can be used. Taking into consideration that the fine for dissemination of misleading information is the same as for other cases of unfair competition and comes to 5% of total sales of the goods (services) of the company (company group) for the year previous to the year in which the company is fined. In practice, average fines have long reached tens of millions of hryvnyas, and thus establishing effective compliance for all informational and advertising materials prepared by a company should be one of its priorities.