GUWAHATI: The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Central), Delhi, held Emami Limited guilty of unfair trade practices and misleading advertisements for its "Fair and Handsome" fairness cream. This order was passed on Monday, December 9.
ALSO READ: SC Dismisses PIL On POSH Act For Political Parties, Suggests Approach To ECI
The Commission, led by President Inder Jeet Singh and member Rashmi Bansal, found the company's claims of delivering fair skin within three weeks to be deceptive and unsupported by evidence.
The case originated from a complaint by Nikhil Jain, who purchased the product for ₹79 and alleged that it failed to provide the promised results, including fairness and other benefits. Jain sought corrective advertising, ₹19.9 lakh in punitive damages, and ₹10,000 in litigation costs.
Emami argued that the product was scientifically tested, complied with regulatory standards, and was designed for specific purposes such as UV protection and improving skin quality for users aged 16–35. The company also contended that Jain lacked sufficient proof of purchase and failed to provide expert opinion on the product's effectiveness.
However, the Commission dismissed these defences, stating that the product's packaging and advertisements were misleading. It highlighted that the cream was marketed with incomplete instructions, creating a false impression that fairness could be achieved within three weeks, even though the conditions required for such results were inadequately communicated.
“The opposite party adopted this strategy to promote sales, knowing that the claimed results would not materialise. This amounts to a misleading advertisement and an unfair trade practice,” the Commission stated.
Emami has been ordered to withdraw all deceptive advertisements and packaging immediately. The Commission also imposed punitive damages of ₹15 lakh, directing ₹14.5 lakh to be deposited with the Delhi State Consumer Welfare Fund and ₹50,000 to be paid to the complainant.
Additionally, the company has also been ordered to pay ₹10,000 in litigation costs.
