CCPA fined two major brands

‘100%’ on front label, disclaimers on the back: Why CCPA fined two major brands-INDIAN EXPRESS

The consumer watchdog found that Mrs Bectors’ ‘100% Atta Bread’ and Storia's '100% coconut water' claims were misleading and fined them Rs 1 lakh each.

Consumer Protection and Misleading Advertising in India

Legal Framework

• India’s consumer protection system is mainly governed by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
• The Act aims to protect consumers from: Unfair trade practices , Misleading advertisements, Defective goods and Deficient services

Central Consumer Protection Authority

• The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) is the key regulatory body under the Act.
• It has been established to:
  • Protect consumer rights collectively
  • Prevent unfair trade practices
  • Take action against misleading advertisements
  • Order recall, withdrawal or discontinuation of deceptive advertisements and promotions

Meaning of Misleading Advertisement

• Section 2(28) of the Consumer Protection Act defines a misleading advertisement as one which:
  • Falsely describes a product or service
  • Gives a false guarantee
  • Misleads consumers about the nature, quality or usefulness of a product
  • Deliberately conceals important information

Guidelines on Misleading Advertisements, 2022- The Guidelines for Prevention of Misleading Advertisements and Endorsements, 2022 require that advertisements must be:Truthful, Verifiable , Honest and Not misleading for an ordinary consumer

Role of FSSAI

• In the food sector, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) also plays an important regulatory role.
• FSSAI had warned that the use of claims like “100%” may create a false impression of absolute purity, superiority or guaranteed quality.
• The concern is that the term “100%” is not specifically defined in food safety regulations, yet it can strongly influence consumer perception.

Case 1: “100% Atta Bread”

Case 2: “100% Tender Coconut Water” and “100% Juice”

CCPA acted against English Oven’s “100% Atta Bread” and “100% Whole Wheat Bread” claims. The product contained only 87% atta, not 100%. Company argued that “100%” meant no maida and atta was the only grain source. CCPA rejected this, saying an ordinary consumer would understand “100% Atta” as fully made of atta. Hence, the claim was held misleading, especially when used with “Zero Maida.”

CCPA examined Storia’s claims of “100% Tender Coconut Water” and “100% Juice.” Coconut water was made from only 9.6% concentrate, not fresh natural coconut water. Juice products mainly contained water, with only 4%–16% fruit pulp/concentrate. Health claims like “Combats Virus” and “Kills Fatigue” were found unsubstantiated. CCPA held that a small back-label disclaimer cannot justify a bold misleading front-label claim.

Key Legal Principle

• Compliance with FSSAI food safety norms does not protect a company from action under consumer law if its advertisement is misleading.
• Even if a product is legally manufactured, its branding and promotion must be truthful, fair and not deceptive.
• Advertisements must be judged from the perspective of an ordinary reasonable consumer, not by technical explanations given later by the company.
• If a claim can mislead consumers, the advertiser’s intention is not important.
• The principle has shifted from caveat emptor — “let the buyer beware” — to caveat venditor — “let the seller beware”.

Significance

• These orders strengthen consumer protection by making companies accountable for bold front-of-pack claims.
• Companies cannot hide behind fine-print disclaimers or technical ingredient details.
• Regulatory compliance under one law cannot justify misleading conduct under another law.
• The decision will affect the wider food and beverage industry, especially claims like “100%,” “natural,” “pure,” and “healthy.”