The Basque Consumer Institute Kontsumobide issued a 30,001 euro sanction to Yelmo Cines for blocking entry to its venues for food bought outside the cinema. The case centers on the prohibition of bringing in outside food and beverages, a policy the regulator considered to be potentially unfair to consumers who already purchase meals or snacks elsewhere before attending a screening.
Kontsumobide launched an inquiry in January after complaints from eight individuals and two consumer associations, the Basque People and Consumers Association (EKA/ACUV) and Facua Consumers in Action. The administrative process was still pending as Yelmo Cines submitted a statement, and Kontsumobide noted that the proceedings had not yet reached a final resolution.
In the related complaint brought by EKA/ACUV, the issues involved Megapark and Artea cinemas located in Bizkaia and Boulevard de Vitoria. Since the start of the year, these venues were forbidden from promoting or enforcing the rule that items purchased outside the cinema could not be brought inside. The association described the practice as abusive and argued that it amounted to a serious consumer violation, urging penalties up to 150,000 euros on that basis.
According to EKA/ACUV, the core activity of Yelmo Films is movie exhibition and not hospitality, so enforcing a ban on outside food should be judged differently. This perspective was shared in an internal memo published by the association on Monday, which questioned the alignment of the restriction with the cinema’s primary lawful activities. The statement asserted that prohibiting outside food is not inherently tied to the central service of film presentation.
Facua also contested the restriction, arguing that the main function of a cinema is to screen films rather than provide food service. They maintained that the policy to exclude outside food was not a valid justification and noted that on-site food purchases remain available. The stance reflects a broader debate about whether cinemas can or should regulate what patrons bring with them, particularly when the venue also offers a concession stand for refreshments.
In the Madrid region, Facua has pursued a similar challenge against Yelmo Cines, highlighting a broader pattern of consumer complaints about entry restrictions tied to outside consumables. Signs located inside several cinemas reportedly state that entry may be refused to anyone with outside food or beverages, accompanied by a warning that the right of entry is reserved by the company. Facua pointed to these notices as evidence of a policy that may contravene consumer protections and fair-market practices.
Facua described the company’s “right of admission” as a misapplication of a policy that should not be treated as a blanket exclusion requiring customers to surrender items before entering. They argued that the service provided by cinemas—movie screenings—does not depend on treating external food as an exclusive privilege. In their view, the ban represents an overreach that ignores the consumer’s legitimate expectations to enjoy a cinema experience with reasonable flexibility regarding food choices, especially where alternatives are regularly available inside the venue.
As the case unfolds, the central question remains whether the restriction serves a legitimate and necessary business purpose beyond fair access to the film experience. The proceedings are moving through the administrative channels, with a hearing and subsequent resolution still to come. Kontsumobide continues to assess whether enforcement aligns with consumer rights and with applicable regulations governing commercial practices in the entertainment sector.
Observers note that this situation highlights the tension between consumer convenience and the business models of modern cinemas. While concessions are a staple of the cinema experience, the right of patrons to bring food from outside raises practical questions about health, safety, and the overall operating model. The outcome of this case may influence how cinemas across the region structure their entry policies, balancing revenue considerations with consumer expectations and legal obligations.
Until a final ruling is issued, both supporters and critics of the policy are watching closely. The ongoing process reflects a broader movement toward clarifying the boundaries of what is permissible in terms of external food in entertainment venues, while ensuring that consumer protections remain robust and clearly defined for all parties involved.