Technological innovation in the tobacco sector has in recent years introduced “alternative” products that are reshaping the market while raising new questions about informational transparency and consumer protection. In this context, the Italian Competition Authority (AGCM) has launched an investigation (PS12940) against Philip Morris Italia S.p.A. for an alleged unfair commercial practice concerning the promotion of products advertised with the expressions “smoke-free,” “a smoke-free future,” and “smoke-free products.” According to the Authority, such claims may be misleading or incomplete under Articles 20 et seq. of the Italian Consumer Code (Legislative Decree No. 206/2005), as they could lead consumers to believe that these products are free from health risks or less harmful than traditional tobacco products, despite containing potentially harmful substances and generating nicotine dependence. On October 14, 2025, AGCM officials, assisted by the Special Antitrust Unit of the Guardia di Finanza, carried out inspections at the premises of Philip Morris Italia and Philip Morris Manufacturing & Technology Bologna as part of an investigation to verify the accuracy of commercial communications and their compliance with consumer protection regulations. Legal Issues and Significance of the Case The investigation is of legal relevance, lying at the intersection of competition law, consumer protection, and advertising regulation for products with potential health risks. The Authority exercises its powers under Article 27 of the Consumer Code, aimed at ensuring fair commercial practices, while also reflecting the principles of truthfulness and completeness of information established by Directive 2005/29/EC on unfair commercial practices. The use of the term “smoke-free” — although technically referring to the absence of combustion — may exploit a semantic ambiguity likely to lead the average consumer to interpret the claim as synonymous with “risk-free.” This dynamic also raises competitive concerns, as such communication could create an undue competitive advantage over other market operators subject to stricter advertising constraints. Innovation and Communicative Responsibility The AGCM’s initiative highlights how, in markets driven by technological innovation, corporate responsibility in communication becomes essential for the protection of collective interests. Informational transparency thus serves as a balance between freedom of enterprise and public health protection, consistent with the approach of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which has repeatedly stressed the importance of assessing the overall impact of advertising messages on the perception of the average consumer (see Case C-210/96, Gut Springenheide). Companies operating in the field of heated tobacco or reduced-risk products must therefore ensure that commercial messages are sufficiently clear, verifiable, and scientifically substantiated, avoiding formulations that may indirectly suggest a better safety profile compared to other products. The Role of Advertising Self-Regulation: A Complementary System of Protection The case brought by the AGCM can also be viewed considering the work of the Italian Advertising Self-Regulation Institute (IAP), which for years has overseen the accuracy of public communications through its Code of Marketing Communication Self-Regulation. While the AGCM intervenes with ex post with public enforcement powers, the IAP acts ex ante and ex post with a preventive and ethical approach, ensuring that advertising is honest, truthful, and accurate. Both institutions share the common goal of protecting consumers from ambiguous or potentially misleading messages, though on different legal bases. Article 2 of the IAP Code prohibits any communication likely to mislead “through ambiguity, omission, or exaggeration” — a principle substantially aligned with Articles 20–22 of the Consumer Code enforced by the AGCM. In the context of heated or reduced-risk products, IAP case law has repeatedly held that health-related or safety claims must be supported by objective, complete, and verifiable scientific evidence, and cannot rely on subjective perceptions or suggestions of well-being. This dual level of oversight — public (AGCM) and self-regulatory (IAP) — helps define a multi-layered protection system, where corporate communication responsibility becomes a central factor in both fair competition and market reputation. Conclusions The investigation launched by the AGCM is not only a case of enforcement in unfair commercial practices but also a significant precedent for the evolution of transparency standards in the communication of innovative products. The protection of health and the accuracy of information remain essential values guiding any marketing strategy — particularly in sectors where technological innovation can easily blur into the promise of harmlessness.
2026 - Morri Rossetti
