|
Title of the Case
|
Brief of the Case
|
Date of Order
|
Download File
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
In matter Of Suerte Cosmetic Science
|
This CCPA ruling tackles Suerte Cosmetic Science's misleading ads for their La'Bangerry skin whitening lotion on Meesho. The company got caught promising "skin whitening within one minute" with dramatic before-and-after photos, but couldn't back up these claims with any science. Despite pulling the ads and pleading ignorance about consumer laws, the CCPA wasn't buying it and slapped them with a ₹50,000 fine. The case shows how India is cracking down on cosmetic companies that make wild promises without proof, protecting shoppers from being duped by too-good-to-be-true skin products.
|
20-Feb-2025
|
|
|
In matter Of Foxy Beauty
|
The CCPA came down on Foxy Beauty for hyping up their "Latibule SPF PA 50" skin whitening lotion on Flipkart with bogus before-and-after photos. The company sold about 100 units with claims of dramatic skin transformation in 3 months, but couldn't back it up with any actual science. Though they pulled the ads and played the "we didn't know better" card, regulators weren't impressed. Since Foxy Beauty had already been fined ₹1 lakh twice for similar stunts with other products, they got off with a warning this time - but the CCPA made it clear that one more false move could ban them for 3 years and cost them up to ₹50 lakhs.
|
20-Feb-2025
|
|
|
In matter Of Offer Word
|
The CCPA cracked down on Offer Word for pushing "Sandarbh Beauty" skin whitening cream on Meesho with bogus claims. The company promised users would "look as young as U Feel" and claimed the cream would magically zap away dark spots and pimples – all without a shred of scientific evidence. They sold about 200 units before getting caught. When confronted, owner Sharad Mavani admitted to swiping images from the internet and played the "we didn't know any better" card. Since Mavani had already been fined ₹1 lakh twice for similar stunts with other products, the CCPA let him off with a stern warning – one more false move could get him banned for 3 years and slapped with penalties up to ₹50 lakhs.
|
20-Feb-2025
|
|
|
In matter Of Mars Night
|
This case involves the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) taking action against Mars Night for misleading ads about their "Whitening Body Lotion Cream" on Meesho. The company made false skin-lightening claims with dramatic before/after pictures but offered zero scientific proof or ingredient information. While Mars Night tried to excuse themselves by claiming they didn't know the rules, the CCPA wasn't buying it. The authority found clear violations of consumer protection laws and ordered Mars Night to stop all misleading ads. They didn't impose new penalties this time since Mars Night had already pulled the ads and paid fines for similar past violations, but warned of potential future fines up to 50 lakhs if they mess up again.
|
20-Feb-2025
|
|
|
In matter Of IITian’s Prashikshan Kendra Pvt. Ltd. (IITPK)
|
The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) has taken action against IITian’s Prashikshan Kendra Pvt. Ltd. over allegedly misleading advertisements about student achievements and success rates. Claims like “1384 IIT ranks” and a “61% success ratio” were found to be unsubstantiated, with no clear data to back them. The use of bold rank indicators and topper titles in ads was seen as potentially misleading. As a result, the CCPA has called for a detailed investigation under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
|
20-Feb-2025
|
|
|
In matter Of Vision IAS
|
The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) took suo-moto action against Vision IAS for a potentially misleading ad that claimed “10 in Top 10 selections in CSE 2020.” The ad showcased toppers but didn’t mention which specific courses they had taken at the institute. Since this information helps students make informed choices, CCPA found the ad to be lacking transparency. With no supporting evidence provided, a detailed investigation was ordered under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 to look into the accuracy of the claims.
|
22-Jan-2025
|
|
|
In matter Of Edge IAS
|
Edge IAS landed in trouble after a UPSC topper, Sachin Jain, complained that the institute used his name and photo in their promotional material without permission. This sparked an investigation by the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA), which found that Edge IAS had featured several successful candidates in their ads without clearly stating what kind of courses those students had taken—if any. When asked for proof, the institute couldn't fully back up its claims with proper enrollment records or consent. The CCPA concluded that this was a case of misleading advertising under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and recommended corrective steps to ensure transparency going forward.
|
24-Dec-2024
|
|
|
In matter Of StudyIQ IAS
|
The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) looked into StudylQ IAS after it made misleading claims in its ads on platforms like YouTube, Facebook, and LinkedIn. The ads included statements like "120+ selections in UPSC CSE 2023" and "Success Pakka Offer," but failed to disclose key details about the courses attended by successful candidates. Although StudylQ IAS argued that "Success Pakka" referred to the quality of support, not a guarantee of success, the CCPA found these claims unproven and potentially misleading. As a result, the CCPA requested a thorough investigation into the matter under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
|
23-Dec-2024
|
|
|
In matter of Shubra Ranjan IAS
|
The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) has taken action against Shubhra Ranjan IAS for misleading advertisements on its website and social media platforms. The ads claimed that several students ranked in the Top 100, 200, and 300 of the UPSC Civil Services Exam 2023, but failed to mention which courses those students actually took. While the institute provided a list of successful candidates, it didn’t include important documents like enrollment forms and fee receipts. The CCPA found this lack of transparency misleading and has requested a full investigation into the matter under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
|
19-Dec-2024
|
|
|
In matter Of Vajirao & Reddy Institute
|
The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) has taken action against Vajirao & Reddy Institute for misleading advertisements about their UPSC coaching results. The institute claimed 617 out of 933 students were selected in UPSC CSE 2022, and also marketed itself as the top coaching center in India. However, they didn’t provide enough proof to back up these claims. Despite repeated requests for details on the courses, fees, and student information, the institute failed to comply. After reviewing the case, CCPA has decided to launch a full investigation into the matter.
|
22-Nov-2024
|
|
|
In matter Of Indira IVF and Hospitals Pvt. Ltd.
|
The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) took suo-motu action against Indira IVF for running a misleading ad featuring a model dressed like a doctor, promoting free infertility consultation. The ad lacked proper disclaimers and supporting data, which could easily mislead viewers. Although Indira IVF claimed it was an awareness film, the CCPA found the portrayal deceptive and marked it as an unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The case was forwarded for further investigation.
|
18-Oct-2024
|
|
|
In matter Of Alternative Learning Systems (ALS IAS)
|
The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) took up a case against ALS IAS for allegedly making exaggerated and unverified claims in its UPSC coaching ads—like having the "IAS Rank 1 four times" and being "India’s largest coaching network." While ALS shared some documents, they couldn’t back up several claims with solid proof like student IDs or verified testimonials. The CCPA found enough ground to believe the ads were misleading and has now referred the case for a deeper investigation.
|
17-Oct-2024
|
|
|
Swiggy Limited
|
The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) has stepped in after receiving numerous complaints about Swiggy's failure to process refunds and deliver quality service. Over 580 unresolved issues were reported, including stale food, wrong deliveries, and overcharging. Swiggy acknowledged the complaints, explaining that many issues stem from its third-party merchants, but promised to improve its refund process and customer support.
|
16-Oct-2024
|
|
|
Zomato Media Private Limited
|
The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) has launched a suo-motu case against Zomato Media Private Limited after multiple consumer complaints about unpaid refunds and poor service. From April 1 to April 30, 2024, 731 complaints remained unresolved. Despite requests, Zomato failed to provide updated grievance details or contact information for customer support. The CCPA has directed the company to submit a report on the grievances within 15 days and ordered an investigation into the matter, with a report due within 30 days.
|
16-Oct-2024
|
|
|
In matter Of Havells India Limited
|
The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) is looking into a misleading ad by Havells India Limited about its Alkaline Water Purifier. The complaint, forwarded by the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI), questions the health claims made by the company. Although Havells provided supporting research, both the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) and the Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences (CCRAS) found no solid evidence backing the claims. CCPA has allowed Havells to submit a response before the next hearing in the case.
|
10-Oct-2024
|
|
|
In matter Of Drishti IAS
|
The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) took action against Drishti IAS for misleading ads about their UPSC-2021 results, where they claimed over 150 selections without clarifying which programs the students enrolled in. The ads lacked evidence to back up these claims. Despite Drishti IAS providing some responses and clarifications, CCPA found the advertisements misleading and referred the case for further investigation.
|
30-Sept-2024
|
|
|
In matter Of Anuj Jindal (M/s AJC Edutech Pvt. Ltd)
|
The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) took action against Anuj Jindal (M/s AJC Edutech Pvt. Ltd) over misleading ads about their coaching services. The ads claimed "180 selections in RBI Grade B exam 2023" and promoted a "winning formula" for exam success, but left out key details like which courses the successful candidates had taken. The CCPA found that the ads misled consumers by implying guaranteed results. As a result, the CCPA issued a notice to the company for unfair trade practices and misleading claims under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
|
30-Sept-2024
|
|
|
In matter Of Exide Industries Limited
|
The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) is looking into Exide Industries for a misleading claim about its Exide Inva Tubular Battery being "India's No. 1 Inverter Battery." The company failed to provide sufficient data or research to back up this claim. Exide explained that the statement was based on market research and sales data over the last five years but couldn't share the confidential report. The investigation is ongoing under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
|
27-Sept-2024
|
|
|
In matter Of Shankar IAS Academy
|
The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) has looked into Shankar IAS Academy for allegedly making misleading claims on its website. The academy advertised "336 selections out of 933" and "40 candidates in the Top 100" without providing proof or explaining which courses the successful candidates had taken. The CCPA found that important details were missing from the ads, making the claims seem deceptive. While the academy argued that students often attend multiple coaching centers, the CCPA believes these ads misled consumers, leading to a case under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
|
14-Aug-2024
|
|
|
In matter Of Hindustan Unilever Limited (Horlicks)
|
The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) has taken action against Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) over misleading advertisements for its Horlicks drink powder. These ads, shown across various platforms, made unproven claims about the product’s health benefits. CCPA has ordered HUL to provide detailed information about the clinical trials and evidence behind claims like improved height, bone strength, and cognitive function. HUL has contested the CCPA’s jurisdiction, pointing to ongoing proceedings under the Food Safety and Standards Act. The case is still under review.
|
02-Aug-2024
|
|
|
In matter Of Sriram's IAS
|
The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) took suo-moto action against Sriram’s IAS for running potentially misleading ads claiming over 200 UPSC selections in 2022 and calling itself “India’s No.1 Prestigious UPSC Coaching Institute.” The CCPA found that key details about the selected students and their courses were missing, with no solid proof provided. Sriram’s IAS later revised its claims and shared records of 171 selected students. The case has now been sent for a detailed investigation.
|
01- Aug-2024
|
|
|
In matter Of Vijay Sales (India Pvt Ltd)
|
The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) took action against Vijay Sales for showing a lower price on an Apple iPad in their online ads, which changed to a higher price when customers tried to buy it. A preliminary inquiry found this could mislead consumers. Vijay Sales said it was a technical glitch caused by Facebook's ad system and shared their ongoing communication with Meta. Despite this, the issue wasn’t fully resolved. The CCPA is still looking into the matter, focusing on protecting consumers from misleading pricing.
|
12- July-2024
|
|
|
In matter Of M/s Zoo Bee
|
The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) took action against Zoo Bee/Mowak for selling toys on Amazon without the required BIS certification. The seller claimed he was unaware of the rule and has since promised not to repeat the mistake. During investigation, several uncertified toys were found at his premises. The CCPA is closely watching to ensure compliance with the Toys (Quality Control) Order, 2020.
|
11-July-2024
|
|
|
In matter of M/s Hindware Home Innovation Ltd.
|
The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) has taken action against Hindware Home Innovation Ltd. for a misleading advertisement on its website, where it claimed a "LIFETIME WARRANTY#" on several chimney and sink products. The CCPA found that important details about the warranty were missing, potentially confusing consumers about the product's quality and warranty coverage. Hindware responded, clarifying that the lifetime warranty only applied to the motor, not the entire product, and was subject to proper usage. The case is ongoing as the CCPA looks into possible violations of consumer protection laws.
|
08- July-2024
|
|
|
In matter Of Argasia Education Pvt. Ltd. (Yojana & Plutus IAS)
|
The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) took action against Plutus IAS and Yojana IAS, both owned by Argasia Education Pvt. Ltd., for misleading ads about the Civil Service Examination (CSE) 2021 results. The ads falsely claimed top ranks for students without clarifying which courses they took and called themselves the "Best IAS Coaching" in multiple cities without proof. After investigating, CCPA found these claims misleading and unsubstantiated, leading to action under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Select 24 more words to run Humanizer.
|
05- July-2024
|
|
|
Yatra Online Limited
|
Yatra Online Limited recently updated the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) on its progress in handling pending refunds. As of June 2024, the company reduced the number of pending refunds from 36,276 in July 2021 to just 4,837. They’ve made extensive efforts, including partnering with a National Consumer Helpline (NCH)-linked agency to contact customers. While some airlines have denied refunds, Yatra has refunded 160 customers. Despite these challenges, the company remains committed to resolving the issue and plans to provide an updated status on refunds within a week.
|
27-Jun-2024
|
|
|
Interglobe Aviation ltd (IndiGo Airlines)
|
The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) took action against IndiGo Airlines over complaints related to unfair seat allocation, unclear communication, and unresolved customer grievances. IndiGo responded, explaining that preferential seating is optional, following DGCA guidelines, and clarified issues like "confirm shaming" on their app. They also stated that 813 grievances had been resolved. However, CCPA pointed out that IndiGo should improve how they communicate seat choices during web check-in. IndiGo has promised to address the concerns and enhance customer service moving forward.
|
19-Jun-2024
|
|
|
In matter Of Edu Tap Learning Solutions
|
The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) has launched an investigation into Edu Tap Learning Solutions for misleading advertisements about its success in the RBI Grade B exam 2023. The ads claimed 144 selections but failed to disclose key details about the courses the candidates were enrolled in, leading to concerns that the information was misleading. Edu Tap defended the claims, saying they weren’t intended to mislead. However, the CCPA has asked for a detailed investigation and a report within 15 days, citing potential unfair trade practices.
|
12-Jun-2024
|
|
|
In matter Of Budge Budge Refineries Ltd.
|
The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) took action against Budge Budge Refineries Ltd. for misleading ads promoting their "Doctor's Choice" edible oil. The ads falsely claimed that doctors recommend the oil and misrepresented it as heart-healthy by associating it with fried foods. Additionally, there was no disclaimer on the brand name, violating FSSAI rules. The company responded, backing up their health claims with FSSAI approval and committed to updating their ads with clearer information to avoid any confusion.
|
30-May-2024
|
|
|
In matter Of Havells India Limited
|
The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) is looking into Havells India Ltd. over claims made in an advertisement for their Alkaline Water Purifier. The ad suggested the purifier boosts immunity and enhances the taste of beverages, but these claims have raised concerns. While Havells provided research to support the benefits of alkaline water, the CCPA found the evidence lacking. Further scrutiny by the Ministry of Aayush and the Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences questioned the validity of the claims. Havells now has to provide more scientific proof before the next hearing on June 10, 2024.
|
30-May-2024
|
|
|
In matter Of Maluka IAS
|
The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) has taken action against Maluka IAS for misleading ads claiming "120+ selections in UPSC CSE 2022" and offering "Guaranteed Prelims & Mains." The CCPA found that the institute didn’t mention key details about the courses chosen by successful candidates, making the advertisement misleading. While the institute defended itself and made changes to the ad, the investigation revealed inconsistencies, suggesting violations of consumer protection laws. The case is still under review, with further steps needed to ensure fair practices for consumers.
|
28-May-2024
|
|
|
In matter Of Saraf Furniture
|
The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) is looking into Saraf Furniture for unfair trade practices after receiving numerous complaints. Customers have reported delays in delivery, poor after-sales service, and unprocessed refund requests. Over 130 complaints have been filed, with the company failing to fully address the issues or attend hearings. Saraf Furniture claims some complaints are false, but hasn't provided sufficient proof. The CCPA has issued a show-cause notice and scheduled another hearing to further investigate the matter.
|
15-May-2024
|
|
|
Kaya Limited
|
The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) has taken up a case against Kaya Limited over ads promoting its CoolSculpting treatment. The complaint says the ads could mislead customers by showing dramatic fat loss results and using terms like “easy inch loss.” Kaya claims the procedure is FDA-approved and only meant for fat reduction—not weight loss. However, CCPA believes there’s enough reason to investigate further. The case puts the spotlight on how beauty treatments are advertised and whether they’re truly honest with consumers.
|
18-Mar-2024
|
|
|
Yatra Online Limited
|
The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) took suo moto action against Yatra Online Ltd. over delays in refunding cancelled flight tickets during the COVID-19 lockdown. Out of 1.44 lakh affected bookings, over 1.13 lakh have been refunded. However, nearly 23,000 refunds are still pending—either due to delays from airlines or missing customer bank details. CCPA has asked Yatra to reach out to customers, keep their information secure, and make the refund process easy to find and follow on their website.
|
14-Feb-2024
|
|
|
In matter Of Idle Brain e-Tail
|
The Central Consumer Protection Authority took action against Idle Brain e-Tail for selling pressure cookers without the required ISI mark. After several notices, the company admitted to selling 9 non-compliant units on Amazon and agreed to recall the products and compensate affected customers. They clarified that the 465 units reported on Flipkart were not sold by them, but by another seller. The company confirmed that they stopped all sales after receiving the initial notice and promised to fully comply with the legal standards.
|
19-Jan-2024
|
