Summary:

The order disposes off the proceedings arising out of the show cause notice issued to Reckitt after a CCP inquiry found it to be in prima facie violation of Section 10. CCP had initiated the enquiry into the matter after taking notice of a televised marketing campaign for the product ‘Dettol Surface Cleaner’ (‘Product’). The television commercial made four distinct claims with regards to the efficacy of the product, which are as follows: i)‘Phenyl is highly ineffective against germs’; ii) ‘Only Dettol Surface Cleaner can kill more germs than Phenyl’; iii) ‘Only Dettol Surface Cleaner can kill 99.9% of germs’; and iv) ‘Dettol Surface Cleaner can kill germs 10 times more than Phenyl’.

Order:

The order specifies that the claims are in violation of Section 10 (1) in terms of Section 10(2) (a), (b) and (c) of the Act.

With regards to the first claim, the order found that the Study did not substantiate it and it was thus capable of harming the business interests of all producers of phenyl.

In relation to the second claim, CCP found that in the absence of a comparison of phenyl with other surface cleaners available in the market, it would not be appropriate to say that ‘only’ the Product can kill germs more than Phenyl. No such comparison had been undertaken and the claim was therefore misleading. Regarding the third claim, the order found that the term ‘germs’ is generic and the Product has only been tested against three species of bacteria. Furthermore, the conditions required for the Product to achieve 99.9?ficacy in a laboratory are appreciably different from those present in common households. The claim is therefore misleading.

Concerning the fourth claim, the order found that the objections to the term ‘germs’ are again relevant, and furthermore that the Study was carried out against ordinary unbranded phenyl, rendering the claim misleading. Apropos the use of the term ‘phenyl’ in the claims, Reckitt has also carried out a false and misleading comparison of goods as the comparative study was carried out against ordinary unbranded phenyl.

Penalty:

Since M/s Reckitt Benckiser Pakistan Limited has made commitments to rectify three of the claims made, CCP has taken an extremely lenient view and imposed a token penalty of PKR Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand for each violation. If however, the undertaking fails to amend the outstanding claim within the time period stipulated, it will be liable to pay PKR Five Million for the violation relating to its claim ‘Kills 99.9% of Germs’. Reckitt has been reminded that deceptive marketing practices in the future may entail stricter penal consequences.

CURRENT STATUS:

Reckitt filed appeal before Competition Appellate Tribunal and the matter is pending before the Tribunal. The Tribunal disposed passed the order with the direction to Reckitt to comply with the directions of CCP. CCP filed appeal before SCP.