Delhi Commission finds Emami guilty of misleading ads, orders ₹15 lakh fine

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Delhi's Central District has found Emami Limited guilty of unfair trade practices and misleading advertising related to its 'Fair and Handsome' fairness cream. The decision, made by President Inder Jeet Singh and member Rashmi Bansal, followed a review of claims made by the company that the product would provide fair skin within three weeks, a promise deemed misleading and unsupported by sufficient evidence.

The Commission stated that Emami’s claims were deceptive, citing that the product's packaging provided minimal and incomplete instructions for use, giving the impression that fairness would be achieved within three weeks even though additional requirements were necessary for the claimed results. This, the Commission ruled, constituted an unfair trade practice aimed at boosting product sales through misleading advertising.

In its order, the Commission directed Emami to cease using deceptive packaging and advertising for the 'Fair and Handsome' cream and to withdraw any related materials, whether featuring the brand's ambassador or otherwise. The company  was also ordered to pay ₹15 lakh in punitive damages, ₹14.5 lakh to the Delhi State Consumer Welfare Fund and ₹50,000 to the complainant, Nikhil Jain. An additional ₹10,000 was to be paid as litigation costs, with all amounts to be settled within 45 days of the order.

This ruling marks the second time the Commission has addressed the case. The first decision in 2015 had favoured the complainant, but an appeal led the State Commission to overturn the decision in 2017. The case was remanded to the District Commission for a fresh hearing and a thorough review of evidence from both parties.

Jain, who had purchased the cream for ₹79 and used it according to the provided instructions, claimed that the product did not deliver the promised benefits. He argued that this made the cream defective and sought relief in the form of corrective advertisements for a year, punitive damages of ₹19.9 lakh, and litigation costs.

In its defence, the company denied all allegations, asserting that 'Fair and Handsome' had been scientifically tested and complied with regulatory standards. The company argued that Jain’s complaint lacked merit and failed to provide sufficient proof, such as a valid purchase receipt and expert testimony regarding the product’s effectiveness. Emami maintained that the cream was designed for users aged 16–35, providing benefits like UV protection and skin improvement.

However, the Commission dismissed these arguments, noting that the product’s packaging and advertising were misleading in promising fairness within three weeks without mentioning the necessary conditions to achieve this result. The Commission emphasised that such claims constituted an unfair trade practice.

The punitive damages were set at ₹15 lakh, intended to act as a deterrent against future violations. The Commission stated that the financial penalty should be substantial enough to 'pinch' the defaulter and discourage similar conduct by others.

Advocate Paras Jain represented the complainant, reinforcing that the decision underscored the importance of truthful and transparent marketing practices.