CCPA fines Pladis Rs 1 lakh over Wholewheat claim
The CCPA fined Pladis India Rs 1 lakh over a Wholewheat claim on a biscuit that was 19.5 percent whole wheat flour and 52 percent maida, and held that a small disclaimer did not save it.
- The CCPA fined Pladis India Private Limited, formerly United Biscuits Private Limited, Rs 1 lakh over the Wholewheat claim on McVitie's Marie biscuits.
- The product contained 19.5 percent whole wheat flour and 52 percent refined wheat flour, so the front-of-pack claim was judged against the actual composition.
- The authority stated that a prominent Wholewheat label could not be justified by a small disclaimer or trademark status.
- Pladis was ordered to file a compliance report within 15 days, and separately sought a nine-month transition period for existing stock.
The Central Consumer Protection Authority has fined Pladis India Private Limited, formerly United Biscuits Private Limited, Rs 1 lakh over the Wholewheat claim carried on McVitie’s Marie biscuits.
The composition is the whole case. The product contained 19.5 percent whole wheat flour and 52 percent refined wheat flour, or maida. The CCPA held that a prominent Wholewheat claim on that composition could mislead consumers into believing whole wheat was the main ingredient.
The authority stated that a prominent Wholewheat label “could not be justified by a small disclaimer or trademark status.” No individual is named, so the finding sits with the authority rather than with any official.
That sentence is the part to circulate internally. It closes the two defences brands most often reach for when a front-of-pack word runs ahead of the recipe: a qualifier printed somewhere else on the pack, and the argument that the word is part of a registered mark rather than a claim about content. Neither one carried here.
The orders are to discontinue the misleading advertisements across all media, modify fresh packaging to remove the claim, and submit a compliance report within 15 days. The company agreed to stop ordering packaging with the old branding and sought a nine-month transition period for existing stock.
That nine-month request is the number to read twice. It is what the company asked for to clear stock already made, and it is the closest thing in this order to a price on a claim change. Printed film, cartons and units already sitting with distributors do not turn over on a regulator’s timetable. The fine is Rs 1 lakh. The stranded packaging behind a front-of-pack rewrite is a different order of magnitude, and that cost lands whether or not anyone is fined.
Storyboard18 reports the action under consumer protection regulations and does not cite a specific provision, and the order covers Pladis India and this pack. What travels beyond it is the test that was applied: the prominence of the claim was measured against the actual ingredient proportions, and what the back of the pack disclosed did not rescue the front.
Zane’s analysis draws on original reporting by Storyboard18. Read the original report.