A leading tobacco company in Germany challenged a Munich District Office order that banned its print and online “information” campaign for violating tobacco advertising laws. The campaign described the harms of cigarette combustion and directed readers to a website comparing cigarettes with “less harmful” alternatives like e-cigarettes, heated tobacco, oral tobacco, and tobacco-free nicotine pouches. Authorities argued the campaign was not neutral information, but a form of commercial communication aimed at indirectly promoting the company's “combustion-free” products. They noted that although specific products weren’t named in the campaign, it portrayed heated tobacco as a healthier alternative and created a positive brand association. The website also emphasized the difficulties of quitting smoking, subtly positioning alternative products as solutions.

The court agreed with the authorities, ruling that the campaign’s content was clearly designed to attract smokers to the company's "combustion-free" products. It found the materials fell within the definition of advertising because they were commercial communications with the aim, or with the direct or indirect effect, of promoting the sale of tobacco and related products. Therefore, the campaign breached legal restrictions intended to protect public health and youth. The court rejected the company’s claims of free speech, freedom to exercise a profession, and informational intent, and upheld the advertising ban while ordering the company to pay legal costs.