Background of the case:

The Commission received a complaint from M/s Unilever Pakistan Ltd (the “Complainant”) alleging that M/s Reckitt Benckiser Pakistan Ltd (the “Respondent”) was airing and releasing in print and electronic media a misleading, deceptive, unsubstantiated and unethical advertisement campaign with respect to its product “Dettol Soap”.

The advertisement in question related to the capacity of Dettol Soap to kill germs (the advertised claim was that it could kill up to 99.9% of germs) and hours of protection (24 hours protection from germs / cold and flu).

The Commission thereafter initiated an enquiry to probe into the matter, wherein, it was concluded that the Respondent had failed to substantiate the claims it made in its advertisements and had therefore, undertook deceptive marketing practices in contravention of Section 10 of the Act.

Furthermore, the enquiry further elaborated that the Respondent had been involved in distributing false and misleading information that was capable of harming the business interests of other undertakings in terms of section 10(2) (a) and distribution of information to consumers that lacked reasonable basis with respect to the characters, properties and quality of its products in terms of section 10(2) (b) of the Act.

Issues:

i) Whether the Enquiry Committee has acted with mala fide by forwarding the privileged documents to the Complainant for their comments and making the Test reports part of the Enquiry Report?

ii) Whether the Respondent has violated the provisions of Section 10 of the Act through its marketing campaign vis-à-vis the Dettol Soap?

Foreign Judgments:

i) Pfizer, Inc., 81 F.T.C. 23 (1972)

ii) Epand, Inc. and Ayman A. Difrawi 2016, Case No: 6:16 – cv – 714 – Orl – 41TBS

Order:

The Commission stated that the onus to prove and provide reasonable basis for any claim is on the seller / manufacturer and not on the consumer or any third party. The test reports submitted by the Respondent were found insufficient to substantiate the claims made by the Respondent in its advertisement claim.

The Commission held that the Respondent had failed to substantiate the claims made in the advertisement of Dettol Soap with reference to character, properties, suitability for use and / or quality of use and in fact had disseminated false and misleading information to the consumers through its advertisements. It was also observed that to prove conduct under Section 10(2) of the Competition Act, it is not necessary to show actual harm to competitors, and it is sufficient to show the existence of a deceptive marketing practice that has the potential to harm the business interests of the competitors.

The Commission noted that a lenient view with regard to the actions of the Respondent could not be granted as the Respondent in the past had filed complaints against other undertakings for similar nature of claims. Hence, a penalty of Rs. 30,000,000/- (Rupees Thirty Million Only) was imposed on the Respondent for violation of Section 10 of the Act.

Current Status:

The Respondent in the instant matter filed an appeal before the Competition Appellate Tribunal, pursuant to which the Commission order in the instant matter was suspended.