A French mineral water entrepreneur is trying to force the European Commission to settle a billion-euro question: what exactly does “natural mineral water” mean under EU law? David Merle, owner of the Alpine source Bonneval Emergence, has written to Brussels urging clarification of rules he says rival brands are bending.
The label lets companies sell water at prices up to 400 times those of tap water while promising consumers a rare liquid from a protected source. Under EU rules, mineral water may undergo only a handful of authorised treatments before it is bottled.
Some of the continent’s best-known brands, including Perrier, Hépar, Cristalline and Contrex, were found to rely on methods prohibited under EU law to deal with bacterial and chemical contamination while continuing to market their products as natural mineral water, triggering a nationwide scandal in France in 2024 and several investigations. French authorities consider the companies to have since returned to compliance.
Merle argues they still compete unfairly because of gaps in interpretation and enforcement of EU rules, according to two letters to the European Commission seen by Euractiv. For the businessman it is a David-versus-Goliath story in which he makes no secret that the stakes are existential for his company. EU law does not define how fine a filter can be before it alters the nature of the water, and enforcement is left to member states.
The 2024 revelations showed that Nestlé Waters and Sources Alma had used unauthorised treatments to cope with recurring contamination. Consumer groups filed fraud complaints, and a parliamentary inquiry later alleged that Nestlé Waters benefited from privileged access to senior French officials, something President Emmanuel Macron denied. A Nestlé spokesperson told Euractiv the company had “followed appropriate processes when engaging with authorities, including senior officials” and rejected any suggestion of undue influence.
The dispute reached Brussels after the Commission audited France’s implementation of the rules. Its scathing 2024 assessment warned that Paris’s oversight regime was neither designed to detect or mitigate fraud nor correctly enforced, effectively permitting “non-compliant and fraudulent products” to reach the consumer market. The Commission closed the case after France presented an action plan to strengthen controls.
France itself pushed for a revision of the EU rules in 2025 but has since abandoned that effort, and the Commission has no plans to reopen the file, a spokesperson told Euractiv. In the meantime, Merle has launched civil proceedings in France seeking 1.6 billion euros in damages for unfair competition and asking courts to suspend sales of several flagship brands marketed as natural mineral water. Nestlé said it “firmly reject(s) Bonneval’s allegations as unfounded” and intends to vigorously defend its position.
With both Paris and Brussels stepping back, the legal ambiguity at the heart of the dispute remains unresolved, leaving the bloc’s most prestigious water label open to question at a time when companies across Europe are pressing for simpler, more flexible rules.
Sources: Euractiv, Le Monde, European Commission audit, French Senate report
Author: Europe Desk
discussion