CCPA action on ‘100%’ claims revives debate over criminal liability for deceptive ads

The Central Consumer Protection Authority's (CCPA) decision to penalise food brands Storia Foods and Beverages and Mrs. Bectors Food Specialities Ltd's English Oven brand for allegedly misleading "100%" claims has reignited a broader debate on whether India's existing advertising regulations are sufficient to curb deceptive marketing practices or whether criminal liability should be introduced for repeat offenders.

The consumer watchdog has imposed penalties of ₹1 lakh each on the two companies and directed them to immediately withdraw the disputed claims from product packaging, websites and digital platforms. The action was taken under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and the Guidelines for Prevention of Misleading Advertisements and Endorsements for Misleading Advertisements, 2022.

The CCPA's interpretation of the expression '100%' is that it is an absolute and precise numerical claim that cannot be used loosely as a marketing slogan.

"The term '100%' must correspond exactly with the actual composition of the product and cannot be used approximately or metaphorically," the authority said, adding that consumers are entitled to interpret such representations in their literal sense.

Crackdown on absolute claims

In the case of Storia Foods, the CCPA took suo motu cognisance of advertisements for products including Storia 100% Tender Coconut Water and several variants of Storia 100% Juice. The products were marketed across the company's website, product packaging and multiple e-commerce platforms including Amazon, Flipkart, BigBasket, Blinkit, JioMart and Zepto.

The regulator separately examined advertising campaigns by English Oven that promoted products using claims such as "100% Atta Bread", "100% Whole Wheat Bread", "Taste of 100% Nourishment" and "The taste of 100% Goodness". These advertisements appeared across newspapers, social media platforms, YouTube, the company's website and product packaging, collectively garnering more than 5 million views.

During proceedings, Mrs. Bectors admitted that the bread products contained 87% whole wheat flour. The CCPA concluded that products containing 87% whole wheat flour could not legitimately be marketed as "100% Atta Bread" or "100% Whole Wheat Bread".

The authority further noted that the simultaneous use of "100% Whole Wheat Bread" and "Zero Maida" created a cumulative impression that the product consisted entirely of whole wheat flour and no other ingredients, thereby misleading consumers regarding its composition.

Importantly, the regulator rejected the company's argument that "100% Atta" merely referred to wheat flour being the sole grain source used in the product.

"Advertisements must be evaluated from the perspective of a reasonable consumer and not through technical explanations offered after the fact," the authority observed.

Existing law already carries significant penalties

The action highlights the growing willingness of regulators to scrutinise advertising claims that rely on absolute language, particularly in categories such as food, health and financial products where consumer trust is critical.

Under the Consumer Protection Act, the CCPA can direct advertisers, manufacturers, traders, endorsers and publishers to modify or discontinue misleading advertisements. The authority may also impose penalties of up to ₹10 lakh for a first violation and up to ₹50 lakh for subsequent contraventions.

Celebrity endorsers may be barred from endorsements for up to one year for a first violation and up to three years for repeat offences. Publishers can also face penalties under certain circumstances.

While the Act does not directly criminalise misleading advertisements, failure to comply with CCPA orders can attract imprisonment and monetary penalties.

Advertising claims are also subject to sector-specific oversight. Financial products, for example, fall under separate disclosure and advertising requirements prescribed by regulators such as the Reserve Bank of India and the Securities and Exchange Board of India. In parallel, the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) operates a self-regulatory mechanism that can require advertisements to be modified or withdrawn.

Is criminal liability the answer?

The latest enforcement action has renewed discussions within the advertising and legal community on whether civil penalties alone are sufficient to deter misleading advertising in an increasingly digital marketplace.

According to ASCI, self-regulation continues to play a significant role in ensuring compliance. Data from FY26 showed that 61% of advertisements formally reviewed by the self-regulatory body were modified or withdrawn without contest, while overall voluntary compliance stood at 86%.

"Our current regulatory framework already provides for penalties, withdrawal directions and restrictions on endorsers," said Manisha Kapoor, Secretary General and CEO of ASCI.

However, Kapoor pointed to the growing prevalence of fraudulent operators exploiting digital channels to target consumers.

"We do see a rise in fraudulent companies luring consumers into scams and frauds, and those need to see appropriate penal action," she said.

ASCI's FY26 data revealed that 75.4% of advertisements found in violation related to harmful products or situations. The body also flagged 6,933 offshore betting advertisements during the year.

"Our data highlights the scale of harm that misleading advertising can create. Platform accountability and robust enforcement must ensure that misleading advertising is not simply treated as a cost of doing business," Kapoor added.

Legal experts argue that while criminal liability may strengthen deterrence, it should be reserved for egregious cases involving deliberate deception.

"Introducing criminal liability may encourage companies to undertake more rigorous reviews before publishing advertisements because of the heightened risk involved," said Naqeeb Ahmed Kazia, Partner at CMS INDUSLAW.

"However, it may not necessarily be the most effective solution in all cases. Many instances of misleading advertising arise from inadequate oversight rather than intentional misconduct."

According to Kazia, stronger enforcement of existing penalties, improved compliance frameworks and greater consumer awareness may be more effective than broad-based criminalisation. "Criminal liability may be appropriate in cases involving deliberate deception or significant consumer harm," he said.

Industry calls for personal accountability

Some industry veterans believe the current regime lacks sufficient deterrence and that accountability should extend beyond corporations.

Naresh Gupta, co-founder of advertising agency Bang In The Middle, argued that misleading claims often stem from commercial pressures to maximise consumer appeal.

"It is easiest to sell by telling selective lies or twisted truths. With digital content, it becomes easier to push narratives at scale," Gupta said.

He advocated a tougher enforcement framework involving substantial financial penalties and personal accountability for decision-makers.

"There are only two ways to control it — heavy fines and holding executives, agencies and creators involved in such campaigns accountable. Guidelines and advisories do not have the desired impact. Real change happens when legal consequences become meaningful," he said.

Compliance emerges as boardroom priority

The CCPA's orders against Storia and English Oven are part of a broader regulatory trend that is placing greater responsibility on brands to substantiate advertising claims before they reach consumers.

For consumer-facing companies, particularly in food and beverage, healthcare and fintech sectors, legal experts say the ruling serves as a reminder that qualifiers such as "100%", "guaranteed", "completely", or "zero" are likely to attract heightened scrutiny.

The larger question for policymakers now is whether stronger enforcement of existing provisions will be enough to change corporate behaviour or whether India will eventually move towards a framework where deliberate misleading advertisements carry direct criminal consequences.

For now, regulators appear focused on making one point clear: when it comes to consumer claims, "100%" must mean exactly that.