The Amsterdam challenger Holie’s – known for its cheerfully packaged cereals and bars – stepped into the ring last summer against Lotus Bakeries, the major producer behind brands such as nākd. and Trek. The subject of dispute: Holie’s eye-catching Sugar-Score campaign.

Holie’s came up with its own Sugar-Score: a label featuring the letters A, B, or C, colored green, orange, and red respectively. A (green) represents 0–5% sugar, B (orange) 5–10%, and C (red) more than 10%. Simple, one might think. In its campaign, Holie’s compared the sugar content of its own products to the top five best-selling cereals and bars. Among those, the nākd. and Trek bars from Lotus received a red C-label.

Lotus was not amused. According to the company, the campaign was misleading and constituted unlawful comparative advertising. Lotus also argued that Holie’s Sugar-Score amounted to a prohibited nutrition or health claim.

Holie’s defended itself, saying it merely sought to offer transparency about sugar content – surely something in the consumer’s interest. In its judgment of 15 August 2025 (in Dutch), the Amsterdam preliminary relief judge rejected all of Lotus’s objections. According to the court, Holie’s advertising campaign was not misleading. Consumers, the judge said, perfectly understand that a “Sugar-Score” is a comparison based on sugar content. A green A means less sugar; a red C means more, and that’s accurate.

The tone of Holie’s campaign was also deemed permissible. Phrases like “big brands are drowning your food in sugar”, “they’re hiding it behind misleading health claims”, and “marketing bullsh*t” did not cross the line, according to the court – Holie’s was not explicitly dragging Lotus through the mud. And that red C-label? Not defamatory, the judge held. It merely reflects the sugar levels of Lotus’s products. Finally, the court ruled that Holie’s Sugar-Score does not qualify as a nutrition or health claim.

For the legal connoisseurs: Lotus relied, among other things, on Article 6:194 of the Dutch Civil Code (misleading advertising). However, that article applies only to B2B advertising, while Holie’s campaign was clearly B2C. Lotus should have based its claim on the Unfair Commercial Practices Act (Articles 6:193a–j BW), which governs B2C advertising. The court nevertheless allowed Lotus to invoke Article 6:194, though that reasoning is debatable.

It didn’t help Lotus in the end. All of its claims were dismissed. Holie’s emerged not only victorious in court but also in the court of public opinion. By initiating the proceedings, Lotus unintentionally triggered a classic Barbra Streisand effect: the campaign received far more publicity than Holie’s could ever have afforded through its marketing budget. Now, a great many people know that Holie’s bars contain less sugar, and that Lotus’s bars... well, contain quite a bit more.

A red label for Lotus, but a green light for bold comparative advertising.

Holie Foods was represented in these proceedings by Daniël Haije and Lisanne Steenbergen.