The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) on Sunday imposed penalties of Rs 1 lakh each on Storia Foods and Beverages Pvt Ltd and Mrs. Bectors Food Specialities Ltd, the maker of English Oven bread, for misleading consumers through food advertisements that used the expression “100%” on products that did not fully support the company’s advertised claims.
The authority has also directed both companies to immediately remove the disputed claims from product packaging, official websites and the company’s social media handles across platforms.
Why the ‘100%’ claim matters
According to the CCPA, “100%” is not a casual marketing phrase. It is a precise numerical claim and must match the actual composition of the product.
The authority has also directed both companies to immediately discontinue the disputed claims from product packaging, official websites and digital platforms.
At the centre of the order is a simple consumer question: when a product says “100%”, what is a buyer expected to understand?
According to the CCPA, the expression is not a loose marketing slogan. It is an absolute numerical claim and must accurately match the actual composition of the product.
In the absence of any statutory definition allowing a qualified interpretation, the term has to be understood in its plain and literal sense by an ordinary consumer, the authority said.
What CCPA found against Storia
The CCPA took suo motu cognisance of Storia’s claims such as “100% Tender Coconut Water” and “100% Juice” for products including pomegranate, mixed fruit, mango and guava chilli.
These claims appeared on product packaging, the company’s website and e-commerce platforms including Amazon, Flipkart, BigBasket, Blinkit, JioMart and Zepto.
In the case of Storia’s tender coconut water, the authority found that the product was made from water and coconut water concentrate of 9.6%, reconstituted to be “equivalent” to 100% coconut water.
The word “reconstituted” appeared only in fine print in the ingredient panel and was not prominently disclosed alongside the main claim.
The product also contained Class II preservative INS 202. The CCPA said this made the concurrent claim of “100% Natural” untrue.
What CCPA found against English Oven’s atta bread claim
The CCPA also examined English Oven advertisements across a newspaper, its website, YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn and product packaging.
The claims included “100% Atta Bread”, “100% Whole Wheat Bread”, “Naturally rich in whole grains with 100% whole-wheat flour” and “The taste of 100% Wholesome Happiness”.
Videos carrying these claims had together recorded more than 50 lakh views as of April 23, 2026.
During proceedings, Mrs Bectors admitted that the bread products contained 87% whole wheat flour. The CCPA held that this could not be reconciled with the “100%” claim.
The authority also flagged the simultaneous use of “100% Whole Wheat Bread” and “Zero Maida”, saying the two claims together created a false impression that the product was composed entirely of whole wheat flour.
Company argument rejected
Mrs Bectors argued that “100% Atta” was meant to convey that wheat flour was the only grain source used, not that the entire bread was made only of atta.
The CCPA rejected this defence. It said advertisements must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable consumer. Technical explanations offered by advertisers cannot override the impression created on buyers.
The authority also said that if a representation is capable of misleading consumers, the advertiser’s intent is not relevant.
What consumers should take away
The case is a reminder that front-of-pack claims can shape buying decisions, especially in food categories where consumers often choose quickly on the basis of words such as “100%”, “natural”, “whole wheat” or “zero maida”.
The order matters because “100%” is one of the most powerful claims used on packaged food labels. For a consumer quickly choosing between products online or in a store, such a claim can signal purity, health, quality or absence of additives.
The CCPA’s position is that companies cannot rely on fine print to soften a headline claim that appears absolute. If the main claim creates a misleading impression, the advertiser’s intention is not the deciding factor.
This is especially important in fast-moving consumer categories such as juices, breads, breakfast foods and snacks, where shoppers often make decisions in seconds and may not read the full ingredient panel.
For consumers, the safest approach remains to read the ingredient list carefully, especially when a product makes strong claims about composition, purity or nutrition.