wristband
without a print, is not a
Medical device
wristband
without a print, is not a
Medical device
of
Does a patient identification wristband have to meet the same requirements as a ventilator? Is advertising that emphasizes patient safety enough to turn an everyday object into a medical device?
What the case was about
In June 2023, a home care service ordered two types of patient wristbands from an American manufacturer through Diagramm Halbach GmbH & Co. KG. The wristbands are made of plastic and can be individually printed with letters, numbers, or barcodes. This allows, for example, a patient’s name, date of birth, and case number to be recorded. In this specific sale, however, they were delivered completely unprinted.
The manufacturer, Zebra, promoted the wristbands by highlighting their benefits for patient safety, including during medication administration, blood transfusions, and specimen identification. However, Diagramm did not verify before the sale whether the wristbands had a CE mark and an EU declaration of conformity, as required by the Medical Devices Regulation for distributors of medical devices.
The Competition Authority viewed this as a violation of competition law’s rules governing market conduct and demanded that Diagramm cease and desist. Since Diagramm refused to issue a corresponding statement, the dispute ultimately ended up before the Bochum Regional Court.
The Decisive Turning Point
Everything hinged on a single question. Only if the wristbands had been classified as medical devices would Diagramm have been required to verify the CE marking and the declaration of conformity before selling them. Since even the Bochum Regional Court was unsure whether the manufacturer’s advertising claims were sufficient to establish a medical purpose for the wristbands, it referred the question to the European Court of Justice.
The Court’s Decision
On July 2, 2026, the Court of Justice of the European Union issued a ruling in Case C-427/24. The Court first emphasized that, while the intended use specified by the manufacturer is an important factor, it is not the sole criterion for classifying a product as a medical device. Unlike with medicinal products, the manufacturer’s representation alone is not decisive. In addition, an objective assessment must be made to determine whether a product actually fulfills one of the medical functions specified by law, such as the diagnosis, monitoring, or treatment of diseases.
Although the manufacturer’s promotional material submitted by the Competition Center clearly describes the potential consequences of errors in patient identification, the court held that these statements were merely supplementary promotional information that did not itself describe any medical use of the product.
Ultimately, the decisive factor is that the specific wristbands sold were delivered unprinted. As a result, they did not contain any patient data and were not intended to serve a specific medical purpose or to have any effect on the human body.
Identification wristbands for patients in the healthcare sector, which can be individually printed with letters, numbers, and/or barcodes to identify the patient in question and store other data pertaining to them, but are delivered completely unprinted, cannot be classified as “medical devices.”
In its reasoning, the court went even further. It stated that the sole purpose of the wristbands was to accurately identify the patient, and that this could be achieved just as effectively through a name tag, a hospital ID card, or a copy of the patient’s ID. The method of identification has no direct impact on the administration of medication, medical examinations, blood transfusions, or the allocation of samples itself, but merely serves an administrative function.
To clarify the distinction, the Court referred to an earlier decision concerning prescription software that had actively processed patient data to warn doctors of drug interactions or overdoses. This support function differs fundamentally from a mere identification aid that does not involve any data processing of its own.
Practical Tips
For retailers of health-related products, a nuanced assessment is more worthwhile than a blanket classification. The key factor is whether a product objectively fulfills an independent medical function or whether it merely performs a supportive, administrative role. The manufacturer’s advertising claims should be taken into account but must not be accepted uncritically if they are clearly intended solely for sales promotion. Retailers should also document the actual condition in which a product is sold, as this condition may be legally relevant under this ruling. In case of doubt, it is advisable to consult the manufacturer regarding the intended use and, if necessary, seek a legal assessment before commencing sales.
Conclusion
The ruling explicitly applies only to unprinted wristbands; however, the reasoning goes further and classifies patient identification as an administrative function in principle. It therefore remains unclear how a printed wristband containing additional medically relevant information would be assessed and where exactly the line between mere sales promotion and genuine intended use lies. The Court of Justice also does not elaborate on the point raised by the referring court—that a CE marking might sometimes be applied solely for marketing reasons. In practice, this means that a case-by-case assessment remains necessary.
We are happy to
advise you about
Competition law!
