The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) has imposed a penalty of ₹1 lakh on Britannia Industries Ltd for a misleading advertisement that claimed “100% whole wheat bread” even though the product’s declared wheat content is just 62%.

In its order dated October 22, the CCPA, headed by Chief Commissioner Nidhi Khare, directed the company to discontinue the advertisement with immediate effect across all print and electronic media, including social media.

Britannia has also been asked to submit a compliance report within 15 days.

The regulator took suo motu cognisance of the matter after noticing that the packaging of the product declared a wheat content of 62%, despite the “100%” claim in its advertisements.

“In the present matter, the product admittedly contains only 62% whole wheat, while the remaining 38% comprises other ingredients, including rice bran and other constituents,” the order said.

It added that the claim, prefixed with “100%”, was prima facie misleading as it gives the impression that the product is made entirely of whole wheat.

During the investigation, the company accepted that its “100% whole wheat bread” contained only 62% wheat flour (atta). The CCPA observed that the company had nonetheless used the claim, “blatantly deceiving consumers”.

The regulator also pointed out that the Food Safety and Standards (Advertising and Claims) Regulations, 2018, make no provision for using the prefix “100%” before the term “whole wheat”. Falsely claiming a product to be “100% whole wheat” is therefore, misleading under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, it said.

The expression “100% whole wheat bread” clearly suggests to consumers that the product consists entirely of atta, with no additional ingredients, the CCPA said.

It noted that Britannia had, through multiple advertisements, prominently used the numerical expression “100%” as a central element of its promotional strategy.

“The use of such a precise and absolute numerical qualifier is neither incidental nor innocuous, rather, it is calculated to convey to consumers a clear and unequivocal impression and absence of any dilution or admixture,” the order said.

Rejecting the company’s explanation that the claims were meant merely to communicate wholesomeness, the CCPA called it “untenable” and said it could not justify a representation likely to deceive consumers.

“Accordingly, the CCPA concludes that the impugned claims constitute misleading advertisements and unfair trade practice within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and affect consumers as a class,” the order said.