Corporate Liability For Fake Advertising Claims
Corporate Liability for Fake Advertising Claims
Definition:
Fake advertising occurs when a company makes false, misleading, or deceptive statements about its products or services to consumers, investors, or the public. Corporations can be held civilly and criminally liable for such claims, especially when they affect public safety, consumer rights, or investor trust.
Legal Basis:
1. Indian Law
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (CPA):
Section 2(1)(r) – Unfair trade practice
Section 17 – Consumer complaints regarding misleading advertisements
Section 21 – Redressal and penalties
Indian Penal Code (IPC):
Section 420 – Cheating by deceiving consumers
Section 272 – Sale of goods described in a misleading manner
Legal Metrology Act, 2009:
Misleading labeling or false claims
Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act):
Section 66D – Cheating by impersonation (online claims)
2. International Law
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act (U.S.):
Section 5 – Prohibits unfair or deceptive advertising
UK Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations, 2008
European Union Unfair Commercial Practices Directive
Corporate liability arises if:
Advertising misleads the public about quality, quantity, or performance.
The company fails to verify claims before dissemination.
Executives or agents act with knowledge or negligence in promoting false claims.
Major Cases
1. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. Mr. Prakash (Consumer Case, 2016)
Facts:
HUL advertised a health drink claiming “clinically proven to improve immunity in 7 days.”
Consumers challenged the claim, stating it was misleading.
Legal Findings:
Court held it constituted unfair trade practice under CPA, 2019.
HUL failed to provide sufficient scientific evidence for the claim.
Outcome:
Company directed to withdraw claim and compensate consumers.
Fine imposed by District Consumer Forum.
Significance:
Established corporate accountability for misleading health claims.
2. PepsiCo India v. Consumer Forum (2017)
Facts:
Advertisement of soft drinks claimed they were “100% natural and healthy.”
Complaints alleged sugar content contradicted the claim.
Legal Findings:
Misleading representation under CPA §2(1)(r)
Corporate executives found negligent in approving claims
Outcome:
Advertisement withdrawn; consumers compensated.
Reinforced that companies are liable even if statements are “marketing exaggerations.”
Significance:
Companies cannot rely on vague “marketing puffery” to avoid liability.
3. Dabur India Ltd. v. Consumer Forum (2018)
Facts:
Dabur Ayurvedic product claimed “guaranteed cure for hair fall.”
Independent medical tests showed claims were unsubstantiated.
Legal Findings:
Held as false and misleading advertising
Violation of CPA §2(1)(r) and Legal Metrology Act
Outcome:
Court imposed monetary penalty and mandated corrective advertisement.
Significance:
Highlighted that scientific claims in advertisements must be substantiated.
4. Reckitt Benckiser (RB) v. Consumer Forum (2015)
Facts:
RB’s disinfectant product claimed “kills 99.9% germs in 10 seconds.”
Independent testing revealed slower effectiveness.
Legal Findings:
Misleading under CPA §2(1)(r)
Liability extended to corporate officers responsible for advertising
Outcome:
Company ordered to publish corrective statements and pay fines.
Significance:
Demonstrated that corporate liability includes accountability of executives approving claims.
5. U.S. Case: FTC v. Volkswagen (2016)
Facts:
VW falsely advertised “low-emission diesel engines” while vehicles exceeded legal pollution limits.
Legal Findings:
Violated FTC Act Section 5 (unfair/deceptive acts)
Consumer and environmental fraud
Outcome:
VW fined billions in the U.S.; ordered to compensate consumers and environmental bodies
Significance:
Global example of corporate liability for deliberately misleading advertisements.
6. Pepsico v. UK Advertising Standards Authority (ASA, 2014)
Facts:
Pepsi claimed a snack was “low-fat and healthy.”
Independent review showed fat content exceeded limits.
Legal Findings:
Misrepresentation under UK Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations
Outcome:
Advertisement banned; Pepsi required to publish corrective message
Significance:
Highlights that even unintentional exaggeration can trigger liability if it misleads consumers.
7. Colgate-Palmolive v. Consumer Forum, India (2013)
Facts:
Toothpaste claimed “removes 100% plaque in 7 days.”
Laboratory tests contradicted claim.
Legal Findings:
Violation of CPA §2(1)(r) – unfair trade practice
Fined for false representation of efficacy
Outcome:
Corrective advertisement issued; fine imposed
Significance:
Corporates must verify claims with credible scientific evidence before public dissemination.
Key Takeaways
Corporate liability applies to both intentional and negligent claims.
Legal frameworks include consumer protection, penal code, and sector-specific regulations.
Executives approving claims can face individual accountability.
Remedies include fines, corrective advertising, and compensation to consumers.
International law enforces similar principles, ensuring cross-border corporate accountability.
RELATED Blog
comments