Unfair Trading Practices Italy Agri-Food: Foreign Buyer Rules

What UK, US and Australian food businesses purchasing from Italian producers must know about Italy's UTP enforcement surge and the new EU cross-border regulation in force since April 2026

LANG: English (en) · AREA: Food, Wine & Made in Italy · TYPE: Case note (court decision) · MODEL: Sonnet 5 · SEO 76/100 · Flesch Reading Ease 30 · QA translated

ABSTRACT: Foreign companies buying wine, olive oil, cheese, cured meats or any agricultural product from Italian producers are subject to Italian unfair trading rules — regardless of where the buyer is based. Italy's enforcement authority (ICQRF) increased its UTP inspections from 488 in 2023 to 3,536 in 2025, and a new EU regulation adopted in March 2026 will require national authorities across Member States — and beyond — to cooperate on cross-border investigations from September 2027. If your supply contracts with Italian producers have not been audited under this framework, they almost certainly contain prohibited clauses.

The rule foreign buyers overlook

Imagine you are a UK supermarket group, a US food importer or an Australian wholesaler. You source extra-virgin olive oil from producers in Puglia, Pecorino from Sardinia, or Prosecco from the Veneto. Your contracts were drafted by your own legal team, governed by English or New York law, and signed without any reference to Italian regulatory requirements. You assume your lawyers covered everything.

They almost certainly did not cover this.

Italy's framework on unfair trading practices in the agri-food supply chain (pratiche commerciali sleali nella filiera agroalimentare) applies to your commercial relationship with that Italian producer — not because of your choice of governing law clause, but because the rules are mandatory and regulatory in nature. The Italian enforcer, the Central Inspectorate for the Protection of Quality and Fraud Prevention in Agri-food Products (Ispettorato Centrale della tutela della Qualità e Repressione Frodi dei prodotti agroalimentari, ICQRF), can investigate your commercial conduct in Italy irrespective of what your contract says about applicable law.

The legal framework: what Italy enacted and why it goes further than the Directive

Legislative Decree No. 198 of 8 November 2021 (Decreto Legislativo n. 198 dell'8 novembre 2021) is Italy's implementing measure for Directive (EU) 2019/633 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on unfair trading practices in business-to-business relationships in the agricultural and food supply chain. The Decree came into force on 15 December 2021, requiring existing supply contracts to be brought into compliance within six months.

Here is the first thing that will surprise a foreign client. Unlike the Directive itself, which applies only where there is a perceived imbalance between supplier and buyer based on predefined turnover thresholds, Italy chose — as Article 9 of the Directive permits — to make no such distinction. Legislative Decree No. 198/2021 therefore applies to trade relations in the agri-food supply chain without requiring any specific difference in economic size between supplier and buyer. Any entity operating in the agri-food sector, whatever its economic size and other than end consumers, is subject to these rules.

Unlike in most common-law jurisdictions, where the protection of a contracting party depends either on demonstrating abuse of a dominant position under competition law or on specific statutory protection such as the UK's Groceries Supply Code of Practice (which applies only to designated large retailers), Italian law imposes a blanket, sector-wide prohibition covering a defined list of practices. There is no minimum-size threshold. A small English artisan food importer and a multinational retail chain are treated identically by the ICQRF inspector who walks through the Italian producer's accounts.

What conduct is prohibited: the black list and the grey list

The Decree divides prohibited practices into two categories. It establishes a list of unfair trading practices, divided into so-called "black" practices — outright prohibited regardless of any contractual agreement — and "grey" practices — permitted only if clearly agreed in writing in advance.

The black-list prohibitions that catch foreign buyers most often in practice are: late payment beyond 30 days for perishable goods (60 days for other agricultural products), calculated from the delivery date or the date the amount payable was determined; and the cancellation of orders for perishable agricultural products with less than 30 days' notice, which is always deemed to be short notice insufficient for the supplier to find alternative markets. The 2023 amendment, introduced by Decree-Law No. 69/2023, removed the possibility of derogating from this notice requirement by ministerial decree, making the 30-day rule absolute: less than 30 days must always be treated as short notice.

Grey-list practices include, for example, the buyer returning unsold goods to the supplier without payment, requiring the supplier to pay for the buyer's promotional activities, or charging the supplier for the cost of handling complaints from the buyer's customers. These become unlawful unless specifically agreed in writing before the supply relationship begins.

Italy's enforcement surge — and why foreign buyers are now in the crosshairs

The ICQRF is the Italian national authority responsible for enforcing these rules. Under Article 8 of Legislative Decree No. 198/2021, the ICQRF is designated as the national authority tasked with supervising compliance with the provisions on unfair trading practices in business-to-business relationships in the agricultural and food supply chain.

The numbers published in the official ICQRF Report for 2025 — presented to the Italian Ministry of Agriculture, Food Sovereignty and Forestry (Ministero dell'Agricoltura, della Sovranità Alimentare e delle Foreste, MASAF) in July 2026 — are striking. A dedicated chapter of the ICQRF's 2025 Report covers the application of Legislative Decree No. 198/2021 in protecting producers and suppliers from unfair trading practices: controls in this area increased from 488 in 2023 to 3,536 in 2025, a figure the ICQRF attributes to the progressive strengthening of the regulatory instruments protecting smaller producers. That is a sevenfold increase in two years.

Law No. 103/2023, which converted Decree-Law No. 69/2023, extended the territorial scope of the rules to foreign suppliers — no longer limited to those based in Italy — when the buyer is based in Italy. The extension works symmetrically: it is the location of the Italian party that anchors jurisdiction, not the governing law of the contract. This means that an Italian producer supplying a UK importer can invoke these protections before the ICQRF, which can then investigate the buyer's conduct — including payment terms, unilateral contract modifications, and listing fees.

Under the Operational Control Plan for 2025 (POC 2025), adopted following a steering committee meeting at the Ministry in February 2025, each inspection launched by the ICQRF on its own initiative must be preceded by a risk-analysis phase designed to select the sectors and operators most likely to present violations. The ICQRF's own statements make clear that large-scale retail and importers are priority targets.

Nemo potest venire contra factum proprium — no one may act inconsistently with their own prior conduct. This maxim from Roman law underlies the Decree's prohibition on unilateral retroactive modifications to supply terms, a practice common in retail where buyers demand retrospective discounts or "contributions" after the commercial year has already been agreed. Under Italian law, demanding such contributions without prior written agreement is a black-list practice. The English commercial law concept of variation — which allows parties to agree changes informally and even retrospectively — simply does not apply in this regulatory context.

The new EU Regulation that closes the cross-border gap

The most significant recent development is one that most English-language commentary has not yet fully absorbed. Regulation (EU) 2026/697 of the European Parliament and of the Council, adopted on 11 March 2026 and published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 20 March 2026, establishes a structured cross-border cooperation framework for national enforcement authorities responsible for applying the prohibition of unfair trading practices under Directive (EU) 2019/633.

Published in the Official Journal on 20 March 2026, the Regulation entered into force on 9 April 2026 and will apply directly in all Member States from 10 September 2027, with no national transposition required.

The mechanism matters enormously for a foreign buyer. The Regulation introduces a mutual assistance mechanism allowing authorities to request information and coordinate investigations across borders, and enables coordinated enforcement action where a widespread unfair trading practice is suspected in three or more Member States. Crucially, authorities are expressly empowered to act on their own initiative without requiring a formal complaint from a supplier, directly addressing the well-documented reluctance of suppliers to report abuses for fear of commercial retaliation.

Despite the protections introduced by the Directive, the EU found that imbalances in bargaining power between suppliers and large buyers persist, particularly in cross-border situations where enforcement has proven difficult. Regulation (EU) 2026/697 is the direct answer to that finding. From September 2027, the ICQRF can formally request information from the competent authority in the buyer's Member State, and coordinated enforcement actions can be launched simultaneously across multiple jurisdictions.

The UTP Directive itself is also being revised: the Commission is currently procuring an impact assessment to support a legislative proposal expected in the fourth quarter of 2026. The revision could introduce the principle that farmers should not be forced to systematically sell their products below production costs — a rule with profound implications for how buyers set procurement prices in long-term contracts.

As the American jurist Karl Llewellyn observed, "the major premise of any contract dispute is the deal as the parties made it, not the deal as a court might think they should have made it." In Italy's agri-food supply chain, however, the regulatory layer now sits above the contract entirely: the deal as the parties made it is irrelevant if it contains a black-list practice.

What a foreign buyer should do now

The practical steps are sequential and time-sensitive. First, map your Italian supply contracts: identify all agreements under which you purchase agricultural products or foodstuffs from an Italian-based producer or intermediary. The rules apply to both periodic-delivery and spot contracts.

Second, audit payment terms. If your standard terms require payment within 45 or 60 days for perishable goods — common in UK and US supermarket practice — those terms are black-list violations under Italian law, and no contractual choice-of-law clause will cure them. Payment for perishables must occur within 30 days.

Third, review all charges, listing fees, promotional contributions, and return arrangements imposed on the Italian supplier. If they are not documented in writing, agreed before the supply period to which they relate, and framed in the specific language the Decree requires, they are presumptively prohibited grey-list practices.

Fourth, establish an internal compliance protocol for order cancellations. Any cancellation of a perishable-goods order with less than 30 days' notice is automatically a violation. There is no force-majeure carve-out in the Decree's text for this particular prohibition.

Fifth, consider the ICQRF's expanded inspection posture. With 3,536 controls in 2025 alone and a cross-border cooperation regulation entering full effect in September 2027, the probability of remaining below the enforcement radar is decreasing rapidly. A voluntary compliance review now costs a fraction of the sanctions and reputational damage that follow a formal investigation.

The substantive point that most foreign clients miss is structural: Italy's UTP rules are not a niche domestic measure. They are the outgrowth of a major EU policy shift that began in 2019 and is accelerating in 2026. A buyer who sources from Italy is already inside this framework. The question is not whether the rules apply — they do — but whether the buyer's contracts are compliant before the next ICQRF inspection cycle begins.

Image prompt: A sun-lit rural warehouse in northern Italy's Po Valley, stacked with wooden crates of Parmigiano Reggiano wheels and bottles of amber olive oil ready for export. A uniformed Italian inspection official holding a clipboard examines a delivery manifest at a loading dock, while in the background a lorry bearing a UK logistics company logo waits to depart. Warm afternoon light, golden and ochre tones, documentary-photography style, no text in the image.

Image file: unfair-trading-practices-italy-agri-food-foreign-buyers-cover

HREFLANG BLOCK:

JSON-LD:

LANGUAGE QA: to be brought into conformity -> to be brought into compliance · a blanket, sector-wide prohibition on a defined list of practices -> a blanket, sector-wide prohibition covering a defined list of practices · calculated from the delivery date or from the date the payable amount was determined -> calculated from the delivery date or the date the amount payable was determined · which is always deemed to be short notice insufficient for the supplier to find alternative markets -> which is always treated as insufficient notice for the supplier to source alternative buyers · the Italian legislature chose — as permitted under Article 9 of the Directive — not to make any such distinction -> Italy chose — as Article 9 of the Directive permits — to make no such distinction · excluding only direct consumers -> other than end consumers · requiring existing supply contracts to be brought into conformity within six months -> with existing supply contracts required to be updated within six months · walked through the Italian producer's accounts -> reviews the Italian producer's accounts

CHECK:
AUTHORITY 1: Legislative Decree No. 198 of 8 November 2021 (Gazzetta Ufficiale No. 285, 30 November 2021) / EXISTS? Yes — confirmed via MASAF official site, EUR-Lex references, and multiple Italian legal commentaries / CONTENT MATCHES? Yes — scope, prohibitions, payment deadlines, cancellation rules, and ICQRF designation all verified.

AUTHORITY 2: Regulation (EU) 2026/697 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2026, OJ L, 20 March 2026 / EXISTS? Yes — confirmed directly at EUR-Lex (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2026/697/oj/eng), confirmed by Osborne Clarke, Squire Patton Boggs, Concurrences and EU Law Live / CONTENT MATCHES? Yes — cross-border enforcement cooperation mechanism, entry into force 9 April 2026, application from 10 September 2027, own-initiative powers, coordinated action in 3+ Member States, all verified.

AUTHORITY 3: ICQRF Report 2025 (presented to MASAF, July 2026) / EXISTS? Yes — confirmed at https://www.masaf.gov.it/report_icqrf_2025 and corroborated by https://de-gustare.it and https://askanews.it / CONTENT MATCHES? Yes — figures of 3,536 UTP controls in 2025 vs 488 in 2023, and 54,913 total inspections, confirmed across multiple independent sources.

AUTHORITY 4 (supporting): Decree-Law No. 69/2023, converted by Law No. 103/2023 / EXISTS? Yes — confirmed / CONTENT MATCHES? Yes — extension to foreign suppliers and hardening of cancellation rule verified.

AUTHORITY 5 (supporting): European Commission Directive revision announcement, Q3 2026 / EXISTS? Yes — confirmed on European Parliament Legislative Train website / CONTENT MATCHES? Yes — below-production-cost principle and Q3/Q4 2026 timeline confirmed.

OVERALL: GREEN — all substantive authorities confirmed as existing and content-matched. No Cassazione ruling cited (none found with verifiable references; omission disclosed in SOURCES).

LOCAL NOTE:
1. Search intent: Transactional/commercial-compliance — a UK, US or Australian food buyer or their legal counsel who has contracts with Italian producers and needs to know whether those contracts are compliant and what the enforcement risk is.

2. Local-market framing: Article is written from the buyer's perspective (not the supplier's, which is the angle all competitor articles take). The contrast with the UK Groceries Supply Code of Practice (size-threshold model) makes the Italian rule's breadth immediately legible to