The consumer protection service should name the supermarkets referenced in its e-Kalathi price comparisons, despite repeated calls for greater transparency, the consumers’ association said on Thursday.
In a statement, the association said that despite its continued insistence that the consumer protection service’s price observatory disclose the names of supermarkets, this information remains absent.
The association said highlighting potential savings through the app without naming the supermarkets is misleading. The consumer, it said, “has the right to know the names of the supermarkets so that he can make his choice”.
It also said that when the announcement points out that the consumer can save a considerable amount of money if he buys from the cheapest supermarket, “the consumer has the right to know the names of the supermarkets so that he can make his choice.”
It also disputed figures published by the consumer protection service, saying the number of common products listed in e-Kalathi is 230, not 248.
“The report that 248 products are common across seven large supermarkets does not appear to be accurate,” the association said. “These products are common to five supermarkets, only three of which are considered large.”
Additionally, according to the organisation’s own calculations based on 230 common products priced against the cheapest supermarket, Sklavenitis offered the lowest basket total at €844.74. Athienitis follows at €861.56, with Alphamega the priciest at €893.91.
Since the e-Kalathi app’s launch on June 12, 2025, feedback has remained mixed to negative, with the consumers’ association and others raising a long line of issues.
Originally intended to inform shoppers about prices and availability of basic products across major supermarkets islandwide, the platform allows users to compare shopping baskets made up of selected items at different stores.
Ahead of its release, then Commerce and Industry Minister George Papanastasiou described the app as a dynamic tool aimed at everyday use, promising continuous improvement based on feedback from consumers and stakeholders.
However, criticism emerged soon after launch on several fronts.
The exclusion of kiosks and bakeries raised concerns over unfair competition that could disadvantage smaller retailers, while supermarkets reported an increased workload due to daily price updates.
Other criticisms focused on the limited range of products available for comparison, which restricts consumer choice and complicates efforts to identify common items across supermarkets.
Usability issues were also highlighted, including price information limited to the cheapest option per district, the absence of store proximity filters, and the lack of distance-based comparisons, with broader concerns continuing over the platform’s overall scope and effectiveness.
Click here to change your cookie preferences