Administrative Court of Baden-Württemberg (VGH Baden-Württemberg) halts food shaming – What businesses must know now

A landmark decision on food shaming for all food businesses.

The public disclosure of hygiene law violations pursuant to § 40 Abs. 1a LFGB – long established in common parlance as "food shaming" – is considered one of the most stringent instruments of consumer protection law. Hardly any other administrative act has such a massive, sometimes existentially threatening shaming effect: Once published content spreads via search engines, social media and local media often within hours. Exculpatory information, by contrast, rarely reaches the public.

The Administrative Court of Baden-Württemberg (VGH Baden-Württemberg) has now, with order of 12.11.2025 – 9 S 987/25 set another milestone:

A published text is in principle indivisible – and if it is unlawful in parts, it must be prohibited in its entirety.

Divisibility is only possible in narrowly limited exceptional cases.

This clarification significantly changes the defence opportunities for food businesses.

Background: The food shaming pursuant to § 40 Abs. 1a LFGB

Purpose of the publication obligation

• § 40 Abs. 1a LFGB obliges authorities to inform the public without delay if there is a sufficiently justified suspicion that a food business has violated hygiene regulations to a "not insignificant extent" and a fine of at least EUR 350 is to be expected.

This mandatorily includes:

• naming of the food business,
• accurate representation of the violations,
• publication on the internet, usually for six months.

The objective is consumer information, which according to the legislator should enable an autonomous purchasing decision. However, in practice, a significant imbalance arises: publication often takes place before the conclusion of an administrative offence procedure; corrections are hardly possible.

Problem: Disproportionate effect of food shaming

Once businesses are published online with terms such as "rodent infestation", "glaring hygiene deficiencies" or "living mouse in the sales area", the reputational damage is substantial and lasting:

• ratings plummet
• media reports follow
• the Google entry remains findable for years
• turnover losses can be existentially threatening

For this reason, courts scrutinize the publication obligation particularly strictly – as did the Administrative Court of Baden-Württemberg.

The case: Drastic findings – and a comprehensive publication text

During a routine inspection of a bakery branch on 20.12.2024 the authorities found the following deficiencies:

• significant cleaning deficiencies,
• significant rodent infestation with
  – one living mouse,
  – several dead mice,
  – extensive mouse faeces and urine traces,
  – contaminated packaging materials,
  – mouse faeces between bakery products.

The deficiencies were completely eliminated the following day; the closure was lifted. Nevertheless, the authority intended to publish on verbraucherinfo-bw.de with extremely detailed and vivid wording – including the "five dead mice in the refrigeration unit" and a "living mouse in the merchandise display".

The bakery applied to the Administrative Court (VG) Freiburg in urgent proceedings. The Administrative Court (VG) prohibited individual passages but allowed the rest of the text – an (inadmissible) "text amputation".

The decision of the Higher Administrative Court (VGH): The publication text is fundamentally uniform and indivisible

The Higher Administrative Court (VGH) completely overturns this decision.

1. Serious infringement of freedom of profession (Art. 12 GG)

The Senate makes clear once again that a publication pursuant to § 40 Abs. 1a LFGB constitutes a particularly intense infringement of Art. 12 GG and is therefore only permissible upon strict compliance with the law.

2. Principle: The publication text is indivisible

The Higher Administrative Court (VGH) states unequivocally:

The subject matter of the dispute is the text formulated by the authority as a whole.

Courts are not permitted to isolate individual parts and allow the rest to stand.

This is because:

• the authority has sole procedural control over the formulation,
• courts are not permitted to create new text (separation of powers),
• any change to the text alters the meaning.

Consequently, the principle is:

One error in the text – and the entire publication is unlawful.

3. However: divisibility is possible – but only in extremely narrowly circumscribed exceptional cases

The Higher Administrative Court (VGH) explicitly recognises a narrow exception:

Only if individual text passages are completely self-contained in form and substance and the authority has also assessed them in isolation, can the publication text be divisible.

Such an exceptional case exists if:

• multiple completely independent violations are present,
• the findings have no connection to one another,
• the authority conducted separate assessments,
• the removal of one part does not alter the meaning of the remaining text.

Examples of permissible exceptional cases could be:

• separate violations in two different establishments of the same enterprise,
• separate findings from different inspections,
• multiple violations of completely different types that were not assessed jointly.

Why did NO exceptional case exist in the present case?

The Higher Administrative Court (VGH) explains this in detail:

• The findings (live mouse, dead mice, faecal traces) served uniformly to establish "significant infestation".
• The authority had prepared a uniform penalty prognosis.
• A deletion of individual passages (e.g. five dead mice) would have substantially altered the core message – "significant mouse infestation" – significantly.
• The wording "in the business premises" was also not isolated, but shaped the entire context.

Consequence:

None of the findings was substantively independent.

4. Consequence: The publication is impermissible overall

Because the administrative court (VG) had already classified individual passages as impermissible and the authority did not challenge this, the higher administrative court (VGH) had to prohibit the entire publication text.

Precisely herein lies the major practical success for affected enterprises:

Even a small mistake by the authority can prevent the entire publication.

Significance for practice: A powerful defensive instrument for businesses

The decision significantly strengthens the defence rights of food enterprises against the food public shaming system.

1. Error in text = entire publication impermissible

Enterprises only need to find one unlawful passage – this is often possible:

• imprecise spatial specifications
• exaggerated or dramatising formulations
• failure to show that defects have already been remedied
• legally incorrect assessments
• unclear derivation of "materiality"

2. Authorities must formulate texts with extreme precision in future

The decision compels authorities to structure publication texts:

• with clear structural organisation,
• with proper separation between findings,
• with definitive penalty prognoses.

For this reason alone, the food public shaming system will be used far more cautiously in future.

3. Interim legal protection against the food public shaming system becomes more effective

Courts now have a clear standard of review:

indivisibility as the starting point, divisibility only as an exception.

This considerably improves the prospects of success for enterprises in interim proceedings.

Specialist lawyer recommendation: How to defend yourself effectively against a threatened publication

If you as a food enterprise receive a hearing letter and the food public shaming system is threatened, you should act immediately:

1. Have the text examined sentence by sentence

There are often several starting points for legal errors.

2. Argument against divisibility

Highlight:

• uniform finding,
• no separate assessments,
• no isolated breaches.

3. Request interim legal protection against the food public shaming system at an early stage

Once published content can virtually never be recovered.

4. Secure documentation

Photos, cleaning logs, pest control reports – anything can be crucial.

5. Actively work towards complete prohibition

Particularly in socially charged topics such as food hygiene, consistent action is worthwhile.

Conclusion

The decision of the Higher Administrative Court Baden-Württemberg (VGH) of 12.11.2025 is one of the most important in recent case law on the food public shaming system:

• principle of indivisibility,
• divisibility only in extremely rare exceptional cases,
• concrete strengthening of the defence rights of enterprises,
• clear boundaries for administrative publication practice.

For food enterprises this means:
The prospects of success in legal protection are better than ever.

Do you need support with a threatened food public shaming system publication?

The experts from AVANTCORE Rechtsanwälte in Stuttgart support you consistently and effectively – from the hearing procedure via argumentation on indivisibility to successful interim legal protection.

Contact us early – before the publication text goes online.