Misleading Advertising and Deceptive Marketing Practices under Consumer Protection Act 2019

Misleading advertising and deceptive marketing practices are major issues addressed under various consumer protection laws, such as the Consumer Protection Act 2019, which defines these practices and outlines the responsibilities of manufacturers and advertisers to ensure truthful information dissemination. Under this act, consumers are entitled to accurate information about goods and services, and have the right to seek redress for misinformation, including refunds, replacements, or compensation, as stated in Sections 17 and 34 of the Act.


Recent judicial developments have shown a trend towards increased penalties for misleading practices. For instance, in 2020, a major U.S. telecom company faced over $200 million in fines for misleading claims about "unlimited" data plans that had undisclosed restrictions, as per the case Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T. Moreover, class action lawsuits have become more prevalent, such as the 2019 case against Vita Coco (Schneider et al v. Vita Coco), where the company was sued for unsupported health benefit claims about its beverages.


The rise of digital marketing has brought additional challenges and scrutiny, highlighted by the 2021 Federal Trade Commission action against Sunday Riley Skincare, LLC, for deceptive Instagram marketing practices. E-commerce platforms are also under closer regulatory scrutiny; for example, in 2022, Amazon was penalized in the EU for misleading pricing practices during a sale (European Commission v. Amazon). Additionally, a 2021 decision by the European Court of Justice emphasized the need for clear labeling of product efficiency, enforcing standards across the EU (European Court of Justice, Case C-123/19).


These cases and legal provisions demonstrate a global shift towards stricter enforcement and harmonization of laws to protect consumers from misleading and deceptive practices in both traditional and digital marketplaces.




STAY Connected:

Kapeesh Law Chambers 

Lawyers Chamber Block-II,

Delhi High Court, New Delhi-110003

admin@kapeeshlawchambers.com

www.kapeeshlawchambers.com









Location: Delhi, India

Popular posts from this blog

Removing the Corporate Veil: An Analysis of Recent Precedents and Judgments

  Introduction   The doctrine of separate legal entity is a cornerstone of corporate law. Established in the landmark case of Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd (1897), this principle dictates that a company is distinct from its shareholders and directors. However, there are situations where courts "pierce" or "lift" the corporate veil to hold individuals accountable for the company’s actions. The concept of removing the corporate veil is a legal remedy invoked in circumstances involving fraud, malfeasance, or where justice demands it.   This article delves into the modern evolution of this doctrine, analyzing recent cases and judicial trends that shed light on when and how the corporate veil can be lifted.     The Principle of Corporate Veil   In Salomon v Salomon, the House of Lords reinforced the notion that a company enjoys a distinct legal identity. Mr. Salomon, a boot manufacturer, transferred his business to a newly formed company in wh...
Read more

Ignorance of Law is No Excuse: A Detailed Analysis with Reference to Recent Supreme Court Judgments

Introduction The Legal maxim " Ignorantia juris non excusat” or “Ignorance of law is no excuse” is a fundamental principle in Indian jurisprudence, ensuring that ignorance of the law does not exempt individuals or entities from legal liability. This doctrine is crucial for the maintenance of the rule of law, ensuring uniform application and enforcement. Concept The principle that ignorance of the law does not excuse wrongdoing has its origins in Roman law and is firmly embedded in common law traditions. The assumption is that laws are publicly accessible and that all individuals have a responsibility to inform themselves about the legal requirements governing their actions. In India, this principle is a cornerstone of the legal system, upheld consistently across various legal forums, including the Supreme Court. Recent Supreme Court Judgments A notable reaffirmation of this principle came in the Supreme Court's decision in M/s. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Union of ...
Read more

Framing of Charges in Criminal Proceedings: An Overview and Remedies Available to the Accused for Dismissal (with BNSS Provisions)

Introduction In criminal jurisprudence, the framing of charges represents a critical stage of a trial. This process is a formal declaration by the court outlining the specific accusations made against the accused. It ensures that the accused knows the charges they face, which enables them to prepare an appropriate defense. The objective is to maintain fairness and transparency within the legal framework. The recent enactment of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) introduces certain new provisions that aim to make the process more efficient and less cumbersome.     What is the Framing of Charges?   Framing of charges occurs after the investigation is complete and the prosecution has submitted its charge sheet to the court. If the court finds prima facie evidence, it frames charges against the accused. This marks the beginning of the formal trial, where the accused can plead guilty or contest the charges.   Under the new framework of the BNSS, pro...
Read more