Appellate tribunal upholds CCP action against misleading ice cream claims
- CCP had said Unilever Pakistan and FrieslandCampina Engro mislead consumers by advertising frozen desserts as ice cream
The Competition Appellate Tribunal (CAT) has upheld the Competition Commission of Pakistan’s (CCP) findings against Unilever Pakistan and FrieslandCampina Engro for misleading consumers by advertising frozen desserts as ice cream, according to a press release.
The case stemmed from a complaint filed by Pakistan Fruit Juice Company Private Limited, the maker of Hico ice cream, which accused the two companies of deceptive marketing through television and social media advertisements.
Following a formal inquiry, the CCP issued show-cause notices to Unilever Pakistan and FrieslandCampina Engro, which market frozen desserts under the brands Walls and Omore.
In its decision, the Commission relied on standards set by the Pakistan Standards and Quality Control Authority (PSQCA) and the Punjab Pure Food Regulations 2018.
READ MORE: Deceptive marketing: CCP slaps Rs150m fine on Mezan Beverages
These regulations clearly differentiate ice cream from frozen desserts. Ice cream is defined as a product made from milk, cream, or other dairy ingredients, while frozen desserts are produced from a pasteurised mix that may include milk products and edible vegetable oils.
The CCP concluded that presenting frozen desserts as ice cream amounted to false and misleading information for consumers, in violation of Section 10 of the Competition Act. It directed both companies to stop such representations in their advertisements.
While upholding the CCP’s findings, the tribunal reduced the penalty imposed on each company from Rs75 million to Rs15 million.
READ MORE: Deceptive marketing practices: CCP imposes Rs170m penalties on two frozen dessert makers
In the case of Unilever Pakistan, an additional penalty for airing advertisements that falsely compared its frozen dessert to dairy ice cream was reduced from Rs20 million to Rs5 million.
The tribunal clarified that the reduction in penalties should not be interpreted as condoning the violations. It said the relief was granted as a measured exercise of appellate discretion, guided by principles of proportionality and mitigating circumstances.
Comments