November 2025 – Competition and regulatory authorities across Europe are showing renewed vigilance toward the pharmaceutical sector—a field shaped by the intersection of competition law, regulatory frameworks, consumer protection, and IP. Recent cases illustrate that investigations in this area are increasingly complex and precedent driven, offering valuable guidance on how authorities assess commercial behaviour.
Sun Wave Pharma case – the Romanian Competition Council unveils unfair competition practices
In May 2025, the Romanian Competition Council (“RCC”) announced the conclusion of its investigation into Sun Wave Pharma S.R.L., a major player in the food supplements market in Romania. The inquiry focused on allegations that Sun Wave Pharma pressured its manufacturer, Geltec Private Ltd., to halt supplies to its competitor, Bleu Pharma.
The case was triggered in 2024 by a complaint from Bleu Pharma, a newer market entrant operating on the same distribution market. Both companies had previously sourced products from Geltec. During the investigation, the RCC found that Geltec’s decision to terminate its commercial relationship with Bleu Pharma occurred abruptly and without legitimate economic grounds. Coupled with evidence of a strained relationship between the two distributors, the authority concluded that the contractual rupture was the result of unlawful pressure exerted by Sun Wave Pharma.
The RCC ordered Sun Wave Pharma to immediately cease the identified unfair competition practices, warning that non-compliance could lead to fines. On the basis of the authority’s decision, Bleu Pharma may also seek damages in court.
Beyond its immediate consequences, the case sets a meaningful precedent for future assessments of commercial conduct in the pharmaceutical and food supplements sectors in Romania. It reinforces the importance of compliance with unfair-competition rules, which are specifically designed to ensure a level playing field, safeguard market access for new entrants, and foster innovation.
The investigation also aligns with a broader EU-wide trend: regulators are taking a closer look at pricing, distribution, and marketing strategies within the pharma sector, seeking to strike a balance between fair competition and the economic realities of the industry.
CJEU’s DocMorris ruling: the EU perspective on pharma advertising
At the EU level, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) delivered a landmark ruling in Case C-517/23 (DocMorris) in February 2025. The judg ment provides crucial interpretative guidance on the advertising of medicinal products while also touching on consumer protection, IP, and the free movement of goods and services.
The case concerned a series of marketing campaigns by DocMorris NV, a Dutch online pharmacy supplying both prescription-only (“RX”) and non-prescription (“OTC”) medicines to German consumers. The campaigns offered customers discounts, vouchers, or monetary rewards connected to the submission or use of prescriptions.
German courts asked the CJEU to clarify (i) whether such campaigns qualify as “advertising of medicinal products” under Directive 2001/83, and (ii) whether EU law prevents Member States from prohibiting campaigns promoting the purchase of unspecified RX products using incentives linked to the purchase of other products, including OTC medicines.
Firstly, the CJEU referred to the broad concept of advertising of medicinal products as per Directive 2001/83, noting that it encompasses “any form of door-to-door information, canvassing activity, or inducement designed to promote the prescription, supply, sale, or consumption of medicinal products.”
Therefore, the CJEU reaffirmed that the definition of advertising covers any activity intended to promote the prescription, supply, sale, or consumption of medicinal products, regardless of whether a specific product is mentioned.
Secondly, the CJEU referred to the distinction between RX and OTC incentives, namely campaigns rewarding the submission of a medical prescription, and campaigns offering vouchers for OTCs or other, non-medicinal products.
Because RX products require prior medical assessment, incentives linked to their purchase influence only the choice of pharmacy, not the decision to consume the medicine itself. By contrast, vouchers for OTC products, which are freely available without medical intervention or advice, may encourage consumption, thus falling within the scope of medicinal advertising.
Thirdly, in view of the distinction above, the CJEU held that EU law does not preclude a national prohibition on advertising strategies that incentivise the purchase of unspecified RX products by offering benefits redeemable for OTCs or other goods. Such measures can legitimately aim to prevent excessive or irrational use of medicines and therefore serve public health objectives.
The ruling offers a structured framework for assessing the proportionality and legality of pharmaceutical marketing campaigns and underscores the shared regulatory space between EU and national authorities.
Looking ahead: impact on the upcoming EU pharma package
Both the Sun Wave Pharma decision and the DocMorris ruling will influence ongoing debates in Romania surrounding the EU’s forthcoming pharmaceutical package, which aims to modernise the regulatory regime while preserving competitiveness and ensuring patient safety.
As enforcement activity intensifies, companies operating in the pharmaceutical sector should reassess compliance programs, marketing strategies, and distribution arrangements to anticipate scrutiny from both national and EU-level regulators.