The Authority found that a pre-selected donation mechanism added charges unless consumers actively opted out, impairing informed choice and constituting an unfair trade practice.
CCPA held that a subscription renewal interface using the phrase Accept Risk amounted to multiple prohibited dark patterns, including confirm shaming and forced action. A penalty was imposed despite subsequent modifications to the interface.
The CCPA held that failure to disclose that many successful candidates attended only a free Interview Guidance Programme amounted to misleading advertising. The key takeaway is that coaching institutes must clearly disclose the nature of courses attended by successful students.
The CCPA held that failure to disclose the specific courses attended by successful NEET and IIT-JEE candidates amounted to concealment of material information. The authority imposed a ₹5 lakh penalty and directed discontinuation of the advertisements.
CCPA held that sale of toys without mandatory BIS certification violated the Consumer Protection Act and Toys Quality Control Order. The Authority imposed a penalty and directed future compliance with mandatory standards.
Claims of high success rates in competitive exams were not supported by complete data or documentation. The decision emphasizes that unverifiable claims in advertisements amount to misleading representation and unfair trade practice.
The authority examined whether automatic service charges violate consumer rights. It ruled that default billing of such charges is coercive and constitutes an unfair trade practice. The case reinforces that service charges must remain voluntary.
The CCPA held that specific developmental claims such as early crawling and walking were misleading as they lacked scientific studies or quantified data. Disclaimers and testimonials were found insufficient to justify outcome-based advertising.
The CCPA held that failure to disclose the specific courses undertaken by successful UPSC candidates amounted to misleading advertisement and a violation of consumer rights, warranting a higher penalty as a repeat offence.
Failure to make service charge voluntary and to address consumer complaints was held to breach statutory consumer rights. Software modification and penalty were directed.
