CCPA Action Against
Misleading “100%” Food Claims
Prelims: Consumer Protection Act
2019 | CCPA | Misleading Advertisements
GS-II: Regulatory Governance | Consumer Rights
Why in News?
The Central
Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) imposed penalties of ₹1 lakh each
on Storia Foods and Mrs. Bectors Food Specialities for misleading use of the
expression “100%” in food advertising and directed withdrawal of the
claims from packaging and digital platforms.
Why “100%” Became a
Regulatory Issue
1.
The CCPA treated “100%” as an absolute
numerical representation rather than a loose advertising expression.
2. For
example, a product represented as “100% whole wheat” was found to contain 87%
whole wheat flour, while some products marketed as “100% juice” or coconut
water involved concentrates, reconstitution or additional ingredients.
3. The
central regulatory principle is that an advertisement must be assessed from the
perspective of the reasonable consumer, not from a technical
interpretation developed later by the advertiser.
Consumer Protection Act,
2019
1.
The CCPA relied upon key provisions of
the Act:
i.
Section 2(9): Consumer's right
to receive information regarding quality, quantity and related characteristics.
ii.
Section 2(28):
Definition of misleading advertisement.
iii.
Section 2(47):
Unfair trade practice.
2.
The action was also linked to the Guidelines
for Prevention of Misleading Advertisements and Endorsements for Misleading
Advertisements, 2022.
Regulatory Significance
1.
Modern consumer markets rely heavily on information
asymmetry: producers know substantially more about product composition than
buyers.
2. Accurate
labelling therefore performs an economic and legal function by allowing
informed choice.
3. Misleading
claims distort competition because firms making exaggerated representations may
gain a commercial advantage over producers using more accurate descriptions.
Consumer Intent vs Consumer
Impression
1.
The CCPA rejected the proposition that
good faith or intended meaning automatically protects an advertiser.
2. The
relevant test is whether the overall representation is capable of misleading
an ordinary consumer.
3. This
establishes an important principle for consumer governance:
4. Disclosure
in fine print cannot necessarily cure a misleading dominant claim.