In re Pladis India Pvt. Ltd. (CCPA Delhi)
Summary: The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA), in its order dated 28.08.2026, considered allegations of misleading advertisement and unfair trade practice concerning Pladis India Pvt. Ltd. (formerly known as United Biscuits Pvt. Ltd.) and its sale of “McVities Whole Wheat Marie Biscuits”. The proceedings concerned the prominent use of the expression “Whole Wheat” on the product packaging despite the ingredient declaration stating that the product contained 19.5% whole wheat flour and 52% refined wheat flour (maida).
The matter came to the CCPA’s notice through a newspaper article referring to concerns raised over food products marketed as “healthy”, “natural” and “organic”. The CCPA thereafter took suo-moto cognizance and initiated a preliminary inquiry. It observed that the representation “Whole Wheat” appeared inconsistent with the composition disclosed in the ingredient list and could lead consumers to believe that they were purchasing a whole wheat-based product.
The Opposite Party contended, among other things, that “McVitie’s Wholewheat Marie” was a registered trademark, that use of the ingredient in branding did not mean that the biscuits contained 100% of that ingredient, and that a front-of-pack disclaimer stated: “This is only a trademark and does not represent its true nature”. It also relied upon Regulation 5(2)(g) of the Food Safety and Standards (Labelling and Display) Regulations, 2020, submitting that the ingoing percentage of whole wheat flour had been disclosed.
The CCPA examined the response and subsequently obtained a detailed investigation report from DG (Investigation), CCPA. The investigation found that the product name conveyed an impression that the product was predominantly made from whole wheat flour, whereas the ingredient declaration showed only 19.5% whole wheat flour and 52% refined wheat flour. It also considered the prominent wheat imagery on the principal display panel and the small, vertically placed disclaimer. The investigation characterised the packaging as interface interference constituting a dark pattern and found violations of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, including Sections 2(9), 2(28) and 2(47), as well as the Guidelines for Prevention and Regulation of Dark Patterns, 2023.
During the hearing, the Opposite Party reiterated that the expression was being used as a registered trademark and that the disclaimer appeared on the packaging. It also stated that the product name was intended to differentiate the product from regular Marie biscuits and acknowledged that the labelling could be modified. In its subsequent comments, the Opposite Party stated that it was willing to remove the word “Wholewheat” from the registered trademark depicted on the pack, would not order fresh packaging bearing the old branding, and sought a nine-month transition period to exhaust existing packaging material.
After considering the submissions and investigation findings, the CCPA held that the issue was not the validity, enforceability or registrability of the trademark, nor did the proceeding adjudicate proprietary rights in the trademark. The issue was whether the prominent presentation of “Wholewheat” on the packaging was capable of creating a false or misleading impression regarding the nature, composition or characteristics of the product.
The CCPA found that the disclaimer could not neutralise the prominent representation because it was printed in disproportionately small white font against a blue background, positioned at the extreme corner and arranged vertically, whereas “Wholewheat” appeared boldly, in a substantially larger and capitalised font, horizontally and prominently. The CCPA held that a disclosure that is technically present but practically difficult to notice cannot sufficiently correct or qualify a prominent claim.
The CCPA further held that the expression “Wholewheat”, in common parlance and from the perspective of an average consumer, conveyed totality of composition rather than selective inclusion of an ingredient. It rejected the Opposite Party’s attempt to characterise the expression as merely a means of communicating wholesomeness or identifying whole wheat as a key ingredient. The Authority held that the use of “Wholewheat” was misleading and factually incorrect when the product contained only 19.5% whole wheat flour.
The CCPA also considered Section 2(28) and Section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as well as the Guidelines for Prevention of Misleading Advertisements and Endorsements for Misleading Advertisements, 2022. It concluded that the impugned claims constituted misleading advertisements and unfair trade practice affecting consumers as a class.
Accordingly, the CCPA directed the Opposite Party to discontinue the false and misleading advertisement with immediate effect from all print and electronic media, including social media; ensure that, with effect from the date of the order, all fresh packaging of the product is duly modified so as to remove the false and misleading claim; pay a penalty of ₹1,00,000 for the misleading advertisement and unfair trade practice; and submit a compliance report to the CCPA within five days from the date of the order. The CCPA stated that the directions were passed in exercise of powers vested under Sections 10, 18, 20 and 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Alternative SEO Titles
1. CCPA Penalises Pladis ₹1 Lakh for Misleading Whole Wheat Biscuit Claim
2. CCPA Holds Whole Wheat Label Misleading and Orders Pladis to Modify Packaging
3. CCPA Directs Pladis to Discontinue Misleading Whole Wheat Biscuit Advertising
4. Pladis Faces ₹1 Lakh CCPA Penalty Over Whole Wheat Representation
5. CCPA Rejects Trademark Defence to Misleading Whole Wheat Biscuit Representation
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CENTRAL CONSUMER PROTECTION AUTHORITY
1. The Central Consumer Protection Authority (hereinafter referred to as CCPA) has been established under section 10 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 to regulate matters relating to violation of rights of consumer, unfair trade practices, false and misleading advertisement which are prejudicial to the interest of public and consumers and to promote, protect and enforce the rights of consumer as a class.
2. The CCPA, in exercise of its statutory mandate under Section 18(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as Act), is entrusted with the function of preventing unfair trade practices and ensuring that no false or misleading advertisement is made in respect of any goods or services, and further to ensure that no advertisement of goods or services is issued in contravention of the provisions of the said Act or the rules and regulations framed thereunder.
3. In furtherance of the aforesaid mandate, it came to the notice of the CCPA through an article published by the newspaper namely Mint wherein it referred to a video of social media influencer Shri Harsh Goenka w.r.t. the alarm raised over food items claiming to be “healthy”, “natural” and “organic”. Further, the said article highlighted that:
3.1. The misleading product labels contradicts the ingredient list, for instance whole wheat biscuits have more refined flour than whole wheat.
3.2. It further underscored that all these products might also be getting consumed in rural India….. where reach of the such social media is very less….. Government needs to take stringent action.
4. Inter-alia, the video referred in the above article was perused and it was observed that
a. Multiple products, including McVitie’s Whole Wheat Marie Biscuits, was highlighted in the video, wherein the printed labels prominently contain representations such as “Whole Wheat”. However, the actual composition and ingredient declared on the said products appear to disclose facts contrary to such representations.
b. The videos further highlighted the prevalence of misleading marketing practices in the market and expressed concern that the availability of unhealthy and adulterated food products adversely affect consumers’ health and, in certain cases, may result in hospitalization of consumers.
5. Accordingly, on the basis of contents of the aforesaid article, the CCPA took suo-moto cognizance of the matter and initiated a preliminary inquiry. The said inquiry indicated that:
5.1. United Biscuit (hereinafter referred to as the “Opposite Party”) was marketing and selling its product under the brand name “McVitie’s Whole Wheat Marie Biscuits”.
5.2. However, the aforesaid representation “Whole Wheat” appeared on the label of the product was inconsistent with the composition of the product as disclosed in the list of ingredients printed on the packaging.
5.3. The said list of ingredient indicated that the product contained only 19.5% whole wheat, whereas 52% of the product comprised of Maida (Refined Wheat Flour).
5.4. Thus, it appeared that the misleading claim made by the Opposite Party could deceive consumers into believing that they were purchasing a whole wheat-based product, which was not the case.
6. Considering the above findings of the preliminary inquiry report to be a case of misleading advertisement and violation of consumer rights under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, a Notice dated 07.05.2025 was issued to the Opposite Party to submit response within 15 days along with necessary supporting documents regarding the claim made on the labelling of the product.
7. In response to the above Notice, the Opposite Party Pladis India Pvt. Ltd. (formerly known as United Biscuits Pvt. Ltd.) vide email dated 21.05.2026 submitted that:
7.1. The product brand “McVitie’s Wholewheat Marie” is a Registered Trademark of United Biscuits (UK) Ltd. vide Trademark No. 2824620. Hence, on this ground alone this allegation does not fall within the ambit of misleading labelling (on pack advertisement).
7.2. The ingredient emphasized in the branding in no way means that these biscuits are made of 100% of the ingredient cited in the branding. The Company has categorically mentioned the disclaimer of front of pack which is reproduced herein “this is only a trademark and does not represents its true nature”.
7.3. As per Food Safety And Standards (Labelling And Display) Regulations, 2020, Regulation 5 (2) (g) stipulates as follows:
The ingoing percentage of an ingredient (including compound ingredients or categories of ingredients), by weight or volume as appropriate, at the time of manufacture, shall be disclosed for foods sold as a mixture or combination where the ingredient:
(i) is emphasized as present on the label through words or pictures or graphics; or
(i) is not within the name of the food but, is essential to characterise the food and is expected to be present in the food by consumers.
Thus, Opposite Party stated that it disclosed the ingoing percentage of wholewheat flour used at time of manufacture of “McVities Whole wheat Marie” biscuits which is 19.50 % of the total ingredient.
7.4. The term “Whole wheat” has been used as part of branding to suggest and build awareness among the consumers about “McVities Wholewheat Marie” biscuits being made of wholewheat flour (19.5%) as key ingredient besides refined wheat flour (52%) and to differentiate it from regular Marie biscuits, which are made up of refined wheat flour (Maida) without addition of whole wheat flour as an ingredient.
7.5. The brand has been coined to mean that wholewheat is essentially, fundamentally, basically and in essence a key ingredient of “McVities Wholewheat Marie” biscuits.
8. The reply submitted by the Opposite Party was examined by the CCPA and it was noted that:
8.1. Firstly, the Opposite Party agreed that “McVitie’s Wholewheat Marie Biscuit” consisted of only 19.5% Wheat Flour (Atta). Yet, it claimed “Whole Wheat”. Thus, it blatantly deceived consumers under the garb of the misleading term i.e. Whole Wheat.
8.2. Secondly, the claim that “Whole Wheat” is intended merely to signify that wheat flour is the “key ingredient source” to build awareness among the consumers about “McVitie’s Wholewheat Marie” is misleading thereby indicating the adoption of misleading advertisement for the sale of goods.
8.3. Further, the company was unable to furnish any substantive reply or materials particularly addressing the aforesaid concerns raised in the Notice. Thus, CCPA was satisfied that there exists a prima-facie case of violation of consumer rights, misleading advertisement and unfair trade practice which lead to the necessity of further scrutiny.
9. Thereafter, CCPA, vide letter dated 16.07.2025 CCPA forwarded the matter to DG (Investigation) CCPA for detailed investigation.
10. The Investigation report dated 16.07.2026 was received from DG (investigation) CCPA wherein the following were submitted:
10.1. It was observed that the company markets the product under the name “McVitie’s Wholewheat Marie Biscuits”, which conveys the impression that the product is predominantly made from whole wheat flour. However, the ingredient declaration on the packaging reveals that whole wheat flour constitutes only 19.5% of the product, whereas refined wheat flour (maida) constitutes 52%.
10.2. While the company has contended that the expression “Wholewheat” is merely a registered trademark and serves only as a brand identifier rather than a representation of the product’s composition, the principal display panel prominently depicts large images of wheat stalks/grains alongside the brand name. Such visual representations reasonably reinforce the perception that the product is primarily made from whole wheat and possesses healthier nutritional characteristics.
10.3. The company has stated that the disclaimer, “This is only a trademark and does not represent its true nature,” is prominently displayed, however, the investigation observed that the disclaimer is printed in a small, vertically placed font and is not readily noticeable to an average consumer.
10.4. The investigation further observed that the combined effect of the prominent use of the expression “Wholewheat,” the visual depiction of wheat on the principal display panel, and the inconspicuous disclaimer materially influence consumer perception. Such packaging amounts to interface interference and constitute a dark pattern by impairing informed consumer decision-making and influencing consumer’s transactional choices.
10.5. The Food Safety and Standards (Labelling and Display) Regulations, 2020 requires that the name of the food shall indicate its true nature. In the present case, the investigation observed that the product name and overall presentation are not fully reflective of the actual composition of the product, particularly in view of the comparatively low proportion of whole wheat flour. Accordingly, the labelling, when considered in its entirety, does not adequately indicate the true nature of the food product.
10.6. Additionally, it is in violation of Regulation 5(1) of the Food Safety and Standards (Labelling and Display) Regulations, 2020, as the name and front-of-pack presentation of the product do not adequately indicate its true nature.
10.7. The manner in which the product is named, depicted, packaged and presented fails to adequately disclose its true nature, composition and mislead consumers in this regard.
10.8. Such presentation constitutes an violation of Sections 2(9) violation of consumer rights, 2(28) misleading advertisement and 2(47) unfair trade practice of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as it deceives consumers as to the nature and composition of the product and thereby influences their purchasing decisions through misleading representations, notwithstanding the actual composition of the product.
10.9. It is also in violation of the Guidelines for Prevention and Regulation of Dark Patterns, 2023, particularly the prohibited dark pattern of “Interface Interference.” The prominent display of the expression “Wholewheat” and wheat imagery, coupled with the inconspicuous disclaimer, highlights certain information while obscuring other material information, thereby misdirect consumers and influence their purchasing decisions.
10.10. Henceforth, a case relating to the violation of consumer rights and misleading advertisement under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is established.
11. In view of the findings in the DG (Investigation) Report, the CCPA vide letter dated 29.07.2026 shared the investigation report with the Opposite Party to furnish their comments, if any. However, no comments were received from the Opposite Party. Thereafter, a hearing was scheduled on 17.08.2026.
12. During the hearing held on 17.08.2026, Shri Anurag Kumar – Director and Ld. Legal Counsel appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party and submitted the following:
12.1. That the Opposite Party stated that being a duly registered trademark, the use of the expression “Wholewheat” on the product packaging is in the nature of a trademark usage and, therefore, the same, by itself, cannot be construed as a misleading representation or advertisement on the product label.
12.2. The Opposite Party further stated that, an express disclaimer had been provided on the front of the packaging, stating: “This is only a trademark and does not represent its true nature”.
12.3. The name of the product “McVitie’s Wholewheat Marie Biscuit” has been adopted to differentiate it from regular Marie biscuits. It is essential to make consumer aware that this product is not regular Marie product.
12.4. Further, it was admitted that the product labelling did not proved to promote the product as expected and the same may be modified.
12.5. A request was made during the hearing that if required, the Opposite Party may submit the comments on the DG (Investigation) Report within a period of 3 days.
13. During the hearing dated 17.07.2026 CCPA noted the following:
13.1. The CCPA noted that the prominent depiction of the claim “Whole Wheat”, despite the admitted position that the product contains only 19.5% Atta, even though the existence of a registered trademark in respect of the brand name incorporating the expression “Whole Wheat” does not, by itself, confer any immunity from the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 or permit a representation which is misleading or deceiving consumers. The protection afforded to a registered trademark cannot be construed as a licence to make or perpetuate a misleading representation under the guise of a trademark, particularly where the product contains only 19.5% Atta.
13.2. The CCPA observes that disclaimer cannot be permitted to neutralise or cure a representation which, by virtue of its prominence and placement, has already created a potentially misleading impression. A disclaimer cannot be used as a device to make a prominent representation which is likely to influence consumer choice and thereafter seek to qualify or negate the same through subordinate language.
13.3. The submission that the expression “Wholewheat” is intended merely to distinct product as a whole wheat flour-source assurance is an ex post facto rationalization (to justifying actions after they have occurred) and cannot override the plain and natural meaning of the representation. From the standpoint of expression which conveys that the entirety of the product, or at the very least the entirety of its substantive composition, is derived from Atta.
13.4. The attempt to restrict meaning to the “Wholewheat” alone to distinct from other products in the market is neither borne out from the packaging nor apparent to the consumer at first glance. It is a settled principle in consumer protection jurisprudence that representations must be assessed from the perspective of a reasonable consumer of average intelligence, and not through a technical interpretation by the advertiser. The Opposite Party’s attempt to conflate inherently subjective taglines with an absolute compositional claim is therefore unsustainable and misleading.
13.5. On a request during the hearing an opportunity was granted to the Opposite Party, to file its comments on the contents of the DG (Investigation) Report within 3 days i.e. by 20.07.2026.
14. The Opposite Party vide email dated 21.08.2026 submitted its following comments on the DG Investigation Report:
14.1. That while the Opposite Party respectfully maintains that it’s labelling was adopted in good faith and without any intention to deceive, it recognises the CCPA’s concern that the overall presentation of the product, viewed from the perspective of an average consumer, may create an impression as to the composition of the product that the Company did not intend.
14.2. The Opposite Party is ready and willing to revise the pack label of the product “McVitie’s Wholewheat Marie” by removing the word “Wholewheat” from the registered trademark depicted on the pack.
14.3. It will not place any order for fresh packaging material bearing the old on-pack branding.
14.4. The Opposite Party will implement the revised packaging within a reasonable transition period of 9 months from the date of the CCPA’s acceptance of this submission in order to the exhaust the existing packaging material already procured, since the packaging materials are plastic materials it will put additional burden on the environment if destructed without use.
15. The CCPA, after careful consideration of the submissions observes that –
15.1. Section- 2(28) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 defines “misleading advertisement” in relation to any product or service to mean an advertisement:
i) falsely describes such product or service; or
ii) gives a false guarantee to, or is likely to mislead the consumers as to the nature, substance, quantity or quality of such product or service; or
iii) conveys an express or implied representation which, if made by the manufacturer or seller….thereof, would constitute an unfair trade practice; or
iv) deliberately conceals important information.
15.2. Section 2 (47) of the Act defines ‘unfair trade practice’ as to the practice when for the objective of promoting the use or supply of any service, any person, adopts unfair or deceptive practice inter-alia any statement, whether orally or in writing or by visible representation including by means of electronic record which falsely represents that the goods are of a particular standard, quality, quantity, grade, composition, style or model [(Section 2(47) (b)] or represents that the goods or services have sponsorship, approval, performance, characteristics, accessories, uses or benefits which such goods or services do not have [(Section 2(47) (d)].
15.3. Inter alia, the Guidelines for Prevention of Misleading Advertisement and Endorsement of Misleading Advertisement, 2022 stipulates under para 12 (d) that an advertisement shall not contain statements or visual presentations which directly, or by implication, or by omission, or by ambiguity, or by exaggeration are likely to mislead consumers about the product advertised, or the advertiser, or about any other product or advertiser.
15.4. Further the aforesaid Guidelines in para 11 (2) stated that a Disclaimer in advertisement shall fulfil the following requirement:
a. The font used in a disclaimer shall be the same as that used in the claim;
c. The placement of the disclaimer shall be at a prominent and visible place on the packaging and ideally be on the same panel of the packaging as that of the claim.
e. The disclaimer shall be so clear, prominent and legible as to make it clearly visible to a normally-sighted person reading the marketing communication once, from a reasonable distance.
16. From a bare reading of the above provisions of the Act, it is clear that any advertisement should:
16.1. contain truthful & honest representation of facts and shall not falsely describe products;
16.2. An advertisement shall be considered to be valid and not misleading, if it does not mislead consumers by exaggerating the accuracy, scientific validity or practical usefulness or capability or performance or service of the goods or product.
16.3. The underlying object of consumer protection legislation is to empower consumers by ensuring access to complete, accurate, and truthful information, thereby enabling them to make informed choices. In furtherance of this objective, with the enactment of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the traditional doctrine of caveat emptor has undergone a marked transformation, giving rise to the principle of caveat Venditor.
17. The CCPA further observes that a consumer cannot reasonably be expected to neglect the plain and prominent representation on the front of the package merely on account of a disclaimer in hardly noticeable font size directing that the expression does not represent the “true nature” of the product. Such an approach would effectively permit a manufacturer or marketer to make a potentially misleading representation as part of its branding and subsequently seek immunity by characterising the same as a trademark. Such an interpretation defeats the very object and purpose of the statutory framework governing misleading advertisements and unfair trade practices, which is to ensure that consumers are provided with truthful, accurate and non-deceptive information at the point of purchase.
17.1. In common parlance as well as under regulatory scrutiny, the expression “Wholewheat” conveys totality of composition and not selective exclusivity of a single category of ingredient. The test is not the subjective intent of the manufacturer, but the objective understanding of an average consumer of ordinary prudence, who would reasonably construe “McVities Whole Wheat Marie Biscuit” to mean that the product is entirely composed of Atta.
18. It is imperative to mention that statutory provisions mandate diligence to be carried out for offering sale of goods and services and violating the same, amounts to misleading advertisement and unfair trade practice. In the present matter after consideration of the submissions made by the Opposite Party and findings recorded in the investigation report, CCPA finds the following:
18.1. The CCPA observes that the issue under consideration is not the validity, enforceability or registrability of the trademark, nor does the present proceeding seek to adjudicate upon any proprietary right subsisting in favour of the Opposite Party in respect of the said trademark. The issue is whether the manner in which the expression “Wholewheat” has been prominently displayed and presented on the product packaging is capable of creating a false or misleading impression in the mind of an ordinary consumer regarding the nature, composition or characteristics of the product. The protection accorded to a registered trademark under the applicable intellectual property law cannot operate as an exemption from, or override, the statutory safeguards available to consumers against misleading representations under the consumer protection law.
18.2. The disclaimer relied upon by the Opposite Party cannot be considered to neutralise the prominent representation conveyed through the term “Wholewheat”. In the present case, the disclaimer is printed in a disproportionately small white font against a blue background, positioned at the extreme corner of the packaging, and arranged vertically from bottom to top, making it inherently difficult for a consumer of normal eyesight to locate, read, and associate with the label of product at the point of purchase (Annexure: A). This is directly contrary to the word “Wholewheat”, which is displayed boldly, in a substantially larger and capitalized font, horizontally and prominently, thereby attracting the consumer’s immediate attention and creating a clear, affirmative, and dominant impression that the product possesses the characteristics ordinarily understood and expected from a product represented as “Wholewheat.”
18.3. A disclosure which is technically present but practically difficult to notice cannot reasonably be treated as sufficient to correct or qualify a prominent claim. The overall presentation of the product, therefore, is such that the principal representation is likely to be perceived by consumers before, and without meaningful consideration of, the unnoticeable disclaimer, thereby creating a misleading impression regarding the true nature and composition of the product and having the potential to materially influence the consumers purchasing decision.
18.4. The assessment of whether a representation is misleading is understood having regard to the overall impression created by the product packaging and the manner in which the representation is prominently presented to the consumer, and not merely on the basis of a qualifying statement appended thereto. A disclaimer cannot be employed as a means to make a representation which, in its primary and prominent presentation, is misleading consumers and thereafter seek to neutralise the same through fine-print.
18.5. The reliance placed on Regulation 5 (2) (g) of the Food Safety and Standards (Labelling and Display) Regulations, 2020 is misinterpreted by the Opposite Party. The provision cannot, by any interpretative exercise, be justification for making an exaggerated or absolute claim. Thus, the use of superlative or absolute qualifiers mislead consumers.
a. Once a manufacturer use an absolute descriptor such as “Wholewheat”, it assumes a higher burden of accuracy. Particularly, a product containing 19.5% wheat flour, by the Opposite Party’s own admission, falls short of the literal and ordinary meaning of “Whole wheat”, thereby rendering the claim factually incorrect. The adoption of an exaggerated claim for competitive advantage, cannot be countenanced under the regulatory regime.
18.6. Inter alia, the CCPA noted that the Opposite Party’s product is prominently marketed and offered for sale on various quick-commerce platforms (Annexure: B) under the noticeable representation “Wholewheat on the packaging.” However, the ingredient list on the product itself states that wholewheat constitutes only 19.5% of the product, despite the Opposite Party’s own assertion in its reply that wholewheat is a “key ingredient.” This discrepancy assumes particular significance because the representation “Wholewheat” is not presented merely as a secondary description, but as a prominent feature of the product.
18.7. In view of the foregoing, it is evident that the use of the expression “Wholewheat” is misleading, factually incorrect, and violative of the principles governing fair advertisement. The explanations furnished by the Opposite Party fail to dispel the inherent ambiguity and deceptive potential of the claim, and are therefore rejected.
19. For the foregoing reasons, CCPA is of the considered view that the submissions made by the Opposite Party fail to rebut the findings of DG (Investigation) Report, along with its inadequate substantiation for the claims. Accordingly, the Authority finds no merit in the Opposite Party’s contentions and upholds the observations and concerns recorded in the DG (Investigation) Report. Considering the claims made by the Opposite Party and the analysis and findings in the aforementioned paras, CCPA is of the opinion that it is also necessary to levy a penalty for falsely representing the product.
20. The CCPA is empowered under Section- 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 to issue directions to the advertiser of false or misleading advertisement to discontinue or modify the advertisement and if necessary, it may, by order, impose a penalty which may extend to ten lakh rupees and for every subsequent contravention may extend to fifty lakh rupees. Further, Section 21 (7) of the above Act prescribes that following may be regarded while determining the penalty against false or misleading advertisement:-
a. the population and the area impacted or affected by such offence,
b. the frequency and duration of such offence,
c. the vulnerability of the class of persons likely to be adversely affected by such offence.
d. the gross revenue from the sales effected by virtue of such offence.
21. While the Food Safety and Standards (Labelling and Display) Regulations, 2020 permit a ingoing percentage of an ingredient by weight or volume as appropriate, at thetime of manufacture, the regulatory framework does not permits the representation of such product as “Whole Wheat” where the product admittedly contains only 19.5% atta along with other ingredients. Such claims falsely represents the product and gives a false guarantee to mislead the consumers as to the nature, substance, quantity or quality of such product which violates the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
21.1. The CCPA is of the considered view that the expression “Wholewheat”, conveys to an average consumer that the product is entirely composed of whole wheat flour, yet contains only 19.5% of wheat flour, thereby creating a false and misleading impression regarding its composition and characteristics. The use of such an absolute qualifier is neither incidental nor innocuous, rather, it is calculated to convey to consumers a clear and unequivocal impression and absence of any dilution or admixture.
21.2. The explanation submitted by the Opposite Party, that the impugned claims were intended merely to communicate wholesomeness, is untenable and cannot justify a representation that has the tendency to deceive consumers. Acceptance of such reasoning would lead to absurd and impermissible consequences, enabling products with only a marginal proportion to say 5% of atta to be marketed as “Whole Wheat Biscuit”.
21.3. The doctrine of good faith cannot be invoked to justify or cure a representation that is inherently misleading. It is noted that where a claim is capable of creating a false impression in the mind of the consumer, the presence of intent becomes irrelevant. The submission that the product contains approximately 19.5% whole wheat flour, which substantially contradicts the principal claim made on the packaging and therefore does not support the Opposite Party’s case.
21.4. It is a settled principle in consumer protection jurisprudence that representations must be assessed from the perspective of a reasonable consumer of average intelligence, and not through a technical interpretation by the advertiser. The Opposite Party’s attempt to conflate inherently subjective taglines with an absolute compositional claim is therefore unsustainable and misleading.
21.5. Accordingly, the CCPA concludes that the impugned claims constitute misleading advertisements and unfair trade practice within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and with affects consumers as a class.
22. In view of the above, the CCPA hereby issues the following directions to the Opposite party:
i. To discontinue false and misleading advertisement with immediate effect from all print / electronic media including social media.
ii. The Opposite Party shall further ensure that, with effect from the date of the Order, all fresh packaging of the product is duly modified so as to remove the false and misleading claim.
iii. The Opposite Party shall pay a penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/- for indulging in misleading advertisement and unfair trade practice.
iv. The Opposite Party shall submit a compliance report to CCPA on the above directions within 5 days from the date of this Order.
23. The above order and directions are passed in exercise of the powers vested upon CCPA under section 10, 18, 20, 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Annexure: A
Annexure: B
–
