admin
February 14, 2026
This episode of theUpStreamlife is a freewheeling conversation between Vishal Krishna and Devangshu Dutta, founder of Third Eyesight, with insights into the growth of modern retail and consumption in India, brand building and M&A, the balance of power between brands and retailers/platforms, sustainability vs growth and many other aspects, and is well-suited for founders and teams who want to be building for the long run in India.
admin
December 3, 2025
Pooja Yadav, Exchange4Media
3 December 2025
Over the last few months, India’s e‑commerce and quick‑commerce ecosystem has undergone a wave of structural regulatory and tax reforms. Be it the Goods and Services Tax Council (GST Council) formally bringing “local delivery services” under the tax net with an 18% levy, or the newly implemented labour and social-security reforms expanding obligations for gig workers on aggregator platforms like Swiggy and Zomato, the cost and compliance landscape for delivery and fulfilment is shifting significantly.
The latest GST clarification, delivery fees, packaging charges, and logistics surcharges are now creating a ripple effect across pricing, platform margins, and seller compliance requirements.
The past few months have already shown concrete signals that platforms are revising their incentives, delivery promises, and fee structures. Following the GST clarification, major food‑delivery players have raised their platform fees, for instance, Zomato reportedly increased its per‑order fee from ₹10 to ₹12 (pre‑GST), while Swiggy also raised fees in select markets. Some quick‑commerce arms are also reworking free‑delivery thresholds or fee waiver conditions. Swiggy Instamart also recently updated its free‑delivery threshold to orders above ₹299, with handling and surge fees applying below that level, per reports.
Meanwhile, some platforms seem to be signalling a de‑emphasis on “ultra‑fast for every order” as universally viable; free or fast delivery now appears increasingly tied to higher order values or subscription/membership perks.
It looks like these pressures are forcing platforms to reconsider long-standing quick-commerce levers such as ultra-fast delivery, first-order free offers, zero delivery fees, and flash discounts — which have historically driven customer acquisition and retention.
While Zomato did not comment directly, it referred to the Code on Social Security, 2020 (CoSS), noting that the platform is prepared for gig-worker obligations and does not expect the rules to negatively impact long-term business sustainability.
According to Kapil Sharma of Amazon Ads, “The e‑commerce landscape will continue to evolve, but some fundamentals remain constant such as delivering value to consumers and providing advertisers with meaningful ways to engage. Our full-funnel ad solutions allow brands to focus on objectives such as new product launches, brand building, or promoting larger pack sizes, ensuring campaigns remain relevant and effective even as the ecosystem adapts to changing costs and regulations.”
e4m reached out to Swiggy, Meesho, Zepto and BigBasket for comments, but did not receive responses until the time of publishing.
Several experts told e4m that the economic model of quick commerce, built on heavily subsidised delivery and small-ticket frequent orders, is under pressure. Platforms will need to find sustainable levers to retain customers without eroding margins. The industry has started to see a strategic recalibration where speed is increasingly becoming a hygiene factor rather than a differentiator, free delivery is becoming conditional, and platforms are nudging consumers toward larger baskets, subscription models, curated bundles, and scheduled deliveries. Brands, in turn, are also shifting focus from mass discounting to premiumisation, value-led messaging, and precise cohort-based targeting.
Will Free Delivery Become Rare?
With the new social‑security obligations for gig workers under India’s labour reforms, and the added cost burden of delivery services now subject to GST, the economic logic underlying “free delivery” as a marketing lever is coming under stress. Chetan Asher, Founder and CEO of Tonic Worldwide, echoes this view, noting that quick-commerce platforms previously operated on thin contribution margins and heavily subsidised small-ticket, frequent orders. With rising delivery costs and mandatory social-security contributions, universal free delivery is becoming increasingly unsustainable.
Industry analysts point out that the new social-security mandates and GST on delivery fees have lifted per-order costs noticeably. Most quick-commerce platforms already operate at low single-digit contribution levels, making blanket “free delivery” hard to justify. It may continue, but only as a conditional incentive tied to higher basket values, subscription memberships, or flexible delivery slots, rather than as a universal subsidy.
Shradha Agarwal, Co- Founder & Global CEO, Grapes Worldwide, added from an advertising standpoint, “It’s already happened, brands like Zomato, Swiggy, Amazon and Flipkart, who know we are going to buy from them, have shifted from ‘buy now’ tactics to ‘stay with me’ strategies. Those days are gone when platforms were giving blanket discounts, now brands are the ones tightening their offers.” Citing an example she mentioned how offline pricing is ₹235, but online it is sold at ₹185, with online adding to top-line rather than bottom-line.
On promo hooks like ‘₹0 delivery’, ‘first-order free’ or ’10-minute delivery’, Agarwal said, “As labour codes, compliance costs, and social-security contributions kick in, platforms will have less room to burn cash on promos that don’t create sustainable value. Consumers care more about convenience than freebies.”
On ad spend shifts, she noted, “Offer-driven campaigns will weaken, while value-driven storytelling will rise. ATL and influencer campaigns will strengthen, and performance marketing will become more strategic. Retail media will become non-negotiable.”
From a brand perspective, Asher pointed out that quick-commerce spends are increasingly evaluated against contribution margin rather than sheer GMV growth. Discounts and zero-fee offers are losing bite as customer acquisition costs rise. First-party data, replenishment journeys, and sharper cohort-based offers are gaining importance, ensuring that incentives remain ROI-focussed rather than mass-oriented. Similarly, speed claims such as “0 delivery” or “10-minute delivery” are becoming less differentiating in top cities, where most players already deliver within 15–20 minutes. Consumers now respond better to reliable ETAs, fair fee structures, and transparent pricing than aggressive speed promises.
Adding her viewpoint, Pooja Dhamdhere, Commerce Lead at Starcom India, said, “Incentives like free delivery or first-order offers are likely to evolve rather than disappear, and platforms will explore strategies such as tiered benefits, curated bundles, or differentiated pricing for specific cohorts.”
According to serial entrepreneur Alok Chawla and Founder at Kiko Live, added that while platforms may continue absorbing delivery costs in the short term, the long-term economics will require charging for ultra-fast or low-value orders. “Once platforms pass the actual delivery costs to consumers, we expect order frequency and small-cart behaviour to change, with many users shifting to larger baskets or neighbourhood retailers offering free delivery,” he noted.
Alternative Consumer-Incentive Models
Devangshu Dutta, founder and chief executive of Third Eyesight, who is an expert in the consumer and modern retail sector, stated, “I think platforms will pass a significant portion of the new 18% GST burden on delivery to end-consumers, either through higher delivery charges or repackaged platform fees. Some of this cost may also be clawed back from restaurant partners and quick-commerce brands via revised commissions, slotting fees or mandatory participation in marketing programmes, especially in categories where the platform has stronger bargaining power. Overall, I expect higher minimum-order thresholds and a tighter margin environment for restaurants and small D2C brands that rely heavily on third-party platforms.”
Analysts highlight strategies such as minimum-order thresholds, where free or lower-fee delivery applies only above a certain cart value, nudging consumers to order larger baskets rather than frequent small-ticket items. Subscription and membership-based models are also gaining prominence, offering benefits like waived or discounted delivery, priority fulfilment, and access to exclusive promotions in exchange for a fixed fee.
Scheduled or batch delivery windows are being used to optimise logistics, reduce cost pressure on ultra-fast last-mile fulfilment, and improve operational efficiency. Meanwhile, curated bundles and value packs, including weekly or monthly combos, allow consumers to plan purchases while enhancing per-unit economics for platforms. These levers also enable brands to maintain margin integrity without over-reliance on short-term discounting.
From a marketing perspective, this shift is prompting agencies and creative-first firms to move toward value-led messaging, premiumisation, and cohort-based targeting. Dhamdhere explained, “Platforms are optimising assortments by surfacing premium SKUs, nudging higher average order values, and using search optimisation to strengthen profitability. Brands are now focusing on aspirational consumers with curated bundles, subscriptions, and value-led propositions, rather than mass discounting. Performance campaigns will continue, but clarity of value and sustainable margin-led offers are becoming key for acquisition and retention.”
2026: Will regulatory pressure force a recalibration?
As 2026 approaches, the combined impact of GST on delivery services and mandatory social-security contributions for gig workers is forcing a fundamental rethink of quick-commerce economics. With blanket discounts, zero delivery fees and ultra-fast delivery no longer viable as mass levers, platforms are shifting toward basket-building, subscriptions, curated bundles and conditional incentives. The growth thesis is evolving from “habit formation at any cost” to protecting contribution margins through reliable ETAs, transparent pricing and premium assortments rather than aggressive subsidies.
Brands are recalibrating alongside this shift. Premiumisation, value-led propositions and sharper cohort-based targeting are taking precedence over broad discounting, and campaigns are increasingly evaluated on ROI, repeat behaviour and lifetime value rather than raw GMV. Tiered memberships, scheduled deliveries and subscription-led conveniences are emerging as key retention tools, while short-form video, influencer ecosystems and retail media help articulate value in a tighter cost environment.
Chawla said platforms will have to move beyond “₹0 delivery”, “first order free” and “10-minute delivery” as core propositions because the delivery cost burn far exceeds margins on small-ticket orders. Many consumers currently place multiple micro-orders a day simply because delivery is free, but once fees come into play, behaviour will likely shift toward clubbing orders or reverting to neighbourhood retailers, who themselves are rapidly digitising through partners like Kiko Live.
In the next phase, he adds, free instant delivery will only be sustainable for larger baskets, whereas scheduled delivery may become the default for free delivery, with paid instant delivery as an optional upgrade. Subscriptions may drive loyalty, but only up to a point, since the heaviest users would consume more deliveries than the subscription fee can realistically subsidise, making it difficult for platforms to make the model profitable.
This points to a clear playbook for 2026. “Free delivery” and mass discounting are expected to fade, giving way to conditional, tier-based formats that reward higher basket values, subscriptions or specific cohorts. Brand platform partnerships will also move toward profitability rather than promotional burn, with campaigns designed to protect margins instead of fuelling discount-led spikes.
Taken together, the signs suggest that 2026 will not mark the end of convenience, but the end of convenience that is subsidised blindly. The real test now is who absorbs this new cost of convenience, platforms, brands, or consumers. And as that battle plays out, another tension is already emerging: whether small and regional advertisers can survive the rising cost of visibility in India’s digital economy.
(published in Exchange4Media)
admin
November 26, 2025
Aakriti Bansal, Medianama
November 26, 2025
MediaNama’s Take: The Central Consumer Protection Authority’s (CCPA) decision to publish 18 self-declarations confirms only a partial picture of its dark pattern(s) identifying exercise. The authority has stated that 26 platforms have filed their declarations, but it has made only 18 of them public. This gap means the public still cannot see what eight major platforms submitted or whether those filings contain any meaningful detail. Moreover, even among the published declarations, several are one-paragraph statements that offer almost no insight into the scope or accuracy of the companies’ internal audits.
LocalCircles’ new survey adds further complications, reporting that 21 of the 26 platforms that submitted declarations still display at least one dark pattern. This finding suggests that the CCPA’s reliance on voluntary self-assessment may not be enough to shift platform behaviour at scale. It also raises questions about what the unpublished declarations contain and whether the missing submissions are similarly sparse or incomplete.
Notably, the CCPA has not clarified how it plans to verify the accuracy of any of the declarations, whether published or unpublished. If filings remain unverified for months, compliance risks turning into a box-ticking exercise rather than a meaningful regulatory process. Therefore, the next phase matters far more than the publication of select declarations, because the current approach raises more questions than it answers.
What’s the News
The CCPA has made 18 dark pattern self-declarations public, despite stating that 26 platforms have filed their compliance letters. The publication follows an RTI filed by MediaNama that revealed which companies had submitted their declarations, and pointed out that none of the filings had been available to the public at the time.
These declarations stem from the Ministry’s June 5 advisory, which required e-commerce and quick commerce companies to conduct internal audits under the 2023 Guidelines for Prevention and Regulation of Dark Patterns and submit compliance letters within 90 days.
For context, Moneycontrol reported that Amazon has still not filed its declaration and has asked for additional time. A senior government official told the publication that the government “has done what it had to” and does not plan further discussions.
The official also said that any punitive action would depend on consumer complaints routed through channels such as the national consumer helpline. This indicates that the enforcement approach continues to be reactive rather than compliance-driven.
What Did The CCPA Ask Platforms To Do?
The June 5 advisory set out a simple compliance framework for digital platforms. It asked every e-commerce and quick commerce company to complete a self-audit of its website and mobile app within 90 days and check their interfaces for the 13 dark patterns listed in the 2023 guidelines. Platforms were required to file a self-declaration confirming compliance once this internal review was complete.
However, the advisory did not specify how the audit should be conducted. Companies were free to choose any methodology, and the CCPA did not prescribe a standard format, a uniform checklist, or a minimum evidence requirement. Also, the advisory did not require independent audits or third-party validation.
Furthermore, there was no explanation of how the CCPA planned to verify whether the declarations were accurate or complete. In effect, the responsibility for defining the scope, depth, and rigour of the audit rested entirely with each platform.
What the CCPA Has Done With the Declarations
As mentioned before, the CCPA has now published 18 self-declarations on its website. The release confirms that companies submitted their compliance letters, but it does not indicate whether the authority evaluated the accuracy or depth of the filings.
Several platforms submitted very short statements that simply assert compliance without describing any checks or findings. BigBasket, Zomato, Blinkit and Swiggy were among the companies that filed especially minimal disclosures. The CCPA has not explained why these filings were accepted or whether any follow-up questions were asked. Therefore, asking for and disclosing self-declarations shows some administrative progress, but it does not reflect any regulatory scrutiny.
This lack of verification aligns with concerns raised by Devangshu Dutta, Founder of business consulting firm Third Eyesight. He told MediaNama that self-declarations “do not change things much” when regulators do not audit submissions or impose consequences.
Further, Dutta remarked that most companies comply at the minimum level required if their claims are not examined and are not made public in full. According to him, revenue-driving design choices such as forced add-ons, confusing checkout flows or misleading scarcity claims will not be voluntarily removed sans oversight.
What Independent Evidence Shows
LocalCircles’ latest audit presents a sharply different picture from the companies’ filings. The organisation found that 21 of the 26 platforms that submitted “dark pattern free” declarations still use one or more manipulative design practices. The assessment relied on feedback from more than 250,000 consumers across 392 districts along with AI-assisted testing.
The most common violations include forced action, subscription traps, bait and switch, basket sneaking, interface interference and disguised advertisements. In practice, these dark patterns respectively mean that users are pushed into steps they did not choose, face hidden or hard-to-cancel subscriptions, see offers change during checkout, encounter fees added at the last moment, get nudged toward platform-favoured choices, and come across ads that appear as regular listings.
LocalCircles also identified drip pricing (gradually adding mandatory fees during the checkout process) on 11 of the 26 companies, including Flipkart, Myntra, Cleartrip, MakeMyTrip, BigBasket, Zomato and Blinkit, among others. The organisation said that many platforms appear to misunderstand what qualifies as drip pricing, which has led to incomplete corrections.
Trust Can Erode Due To Gap Between Declarations And User Experience
Sachin Taparia, Founder of LocalCircles, said that the problem begins with the absence of any verification. “Our understanding is that CCPA is wanting that companies submit a self-declaration at the earliest. However, there is no cross checking of claims that is being done by the CCPA, and as a result the companies are not being as thorough with their dark-pattern detection and resolution,” he said.
Taparia added that discrepancies between declarations and user experience could harm trust. “LocalCircles has found dark patterns on 21 of the 26 platforms submitting self-declarations. If this exercise is not done with high accuracy, both platforms doing so and CCPA could see consumer trust being impacted,” he said.
Importantly, Dutta echoed this concern, saying that the absence of penalties or reputation-related consequences allows companies to self-declare compliance while keeping revenue-generating patterns intact. He described the current process as “more an administrative formality [rather] than a behaviour-changing regulatory tool”.
Why This Matters
The gap between self-declarations and independent audits in the true sense of the word brings the real enforcement question into focus. What should the next phase of regulation look like?
In this context, Dutta said that regulators need to move beyond self-certifications and mandate detailed user experience (UX) audit reports that map every user journey, including pop-ups, onboarding, search, checkout, cancellations and returns.
He explained that regulators should reinforce this by demanding substantive evidence instead of brief compliance letters. This evidence can include screenshots and screen recordings of key flows, version histories that show how an interface changed over time, and product design documents or A/B testing results that reveal why specific nudges were introduced. To explain, A/B testing is essentially a method for comparing two versions of something to see which one performs better.
Furthermore, Dutta noted that platforms already collect extensive data on user complaints and drop-off points, which can help identify harmful or confusing design choices. He also said that independent third-party attestations, similar to security or accessibility audits, can provide a credible external check and increase the cost of non-compliance.
Multiple Annual Audits For Apps that Change Interface Frequently
Notably, Dutta stressed that most dark pattern categories appear across e-commerce, quick commerce and Direct-to-Consumer (D2C) websites, which means regulators can create a baseline audit standard that works across sectors instead of relying on platform-specific interpretations. He also suggested that audits should occur at least once a year, and companies that frequently modify their interfaces may need to report two or three times annually.
The larger concern now is whether the CCPA plans to move toward such a structured framework. Without independent verification and clear audit expectations, companies can continue declaring compliance even when manipulative designs remain embedded in their interfaces.
(Published in Medianama)
admin
May 3, 2024
SAYAN CHAKRABORTY, Nikkei staff writer
Bengaluru, 2 May 2024
India’s packaged spice manufacturers MDH and Everest are under regulatory scrutiny in several countries after their products were allegedly found to contain carcinogenic elements, barely a year after cough syrups made in the South Asian nation were linked to the deaths of over 140 children in Africa.
Countries like Australia, New Zealand and the U.S. are weighing investigations into the packaged spices made by the companies after Hong Kong authorities raised a red flag over their quality. This isn’t the first time that the two — among the largest such companies in India — have faced these kinds of issues, with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ordering a recall of Everest spice mixes in 2023 and some MDH products in 2019, both due to salmonella contamination.
The Centre for Food Safety (CFS) in Hong Kong said in a statement on April 5 that it found ethylene oxide (ETO), a pesticide that can cause cancer if consumed in large amounts, in three types of packaged spices manufactured by MDH and one made by Everest. The products were taken off the shelves and recalled, the CFS said.
Taking its cue from the Hong Kong authorities, the Singapore Food Agency (SFA) a couple of weeks later recalled the Everest Fish Curry Masala product, saying in a statement that consumers who had purchased it were “advised not to consume it.”
The SFA also said, “As the implicated products [in Hong Kong] were imported into Singapore, the SFA has directed the importer to recall the products.” The agency clarified that “although there is no immediate risk to consumption of food contaminated with low levels of ethylene oxide, long-term exposure may lead to health issues.”
India’s Spice Board, a government agency that oversees spice exports, said that the limit for ETO varies between countries, from 0.02 milligram per kilogram of spices in places like the U.K. and Norway to 7 milligram per kilogram in Canada and the U.S.
Pesticides are widely used in agriculture in India, often leaving traces in food products. According to Indian government estimates, the cultivated area where chemical pesticide is used grew 33.4% from the fiscal year ending March 2019 to fiscal 2023, reaching 108,216 hectares. That was about seven times the area cultivated with biopesticides in 2023.
“We tend to look critically at the end product, but even more rigor is needed at the level of the ingredients,” said Devangshu Dutta, CEO at consultancy firm Third Eyesight, referring to the use of pesticides in cultivation. “Otherwise, we will end up kind of catching the product at the last point of control, which is not enough.”
Hong Kong and Singapore did not disclose the amount of ETO content in the recalled products. MDH and Everest had not responded to requests for comment by the time of publication.
Authorities elsewhere have also taken note of the allegations. “Food Standards Australia New Zealand is working with our international counterparts to understand the issue with federal, state and territory food enforcement agencies to determine if further action is required in Australia, e.g., a food recall,” the agency told Nikkei Asia in an email statement on Wednesday.
The regulatory scrutiny in the U.S., Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong and Singapore, raises questions over an export market worth about $700 million, research firm Global Trade Research Initiative (GTRI) said in a report on Wednesday.
“Swift investigations and the publication of findings are essential to re-establish global trust in Indian spices,” GTRI said, adding that the “lack of clear communication [from government agencies] is disappointing.”
Indian food has been under scrutiny in Europe as well. The European Commission Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed estimates that since the beginning of 2023, Indian food products were deemed to pose “serious” risks in 166 instances. These included nine cases of ethylene oxide found in food supplements and spices in countries including Sweden, Greece and Italy.
Chinese food imports were found to pose serious risks on 115 occasions and those from the U.S. on 152 occasions.
The recalls come at a time when New Delhi is rolling out incentives to support local manufacturers and exporters in transforming India into a $5 trillion economy. India is the world’s largest exporter of spices with shipments worth $3.9 billion in 2023, followed by Vietnam and Mexico, according to data provider Tendata. Those figures give India a market share of 37.2%, with Vietnam at 28.1% and Mexico at 9.6%.
The issue with food products follows an outcry over the quality of medicines manufactured in India. Since 2022, the World Health Organization has linked the deaths of at least 141 children in Gambia, Uzbekistan and Cameroon to cough syrups made by India’s Maiden Pharmaceuticals, Marion Biotech and Riemann Labs that it alleged contained toxins.
But while the pharma companies are small local players, MDH and Everest made revenues of $260 million and $360 million respectively, in the fiscal year ended March 2023.
Poor food quality in India stems from a general lack of awareness about food safety and insufficient resources to track ingredients, among other reasons, said U.S.-based food and beverage consultancy AIB International in a report in October.
The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India found 16,582 samples unsafe in the fiscal year 2022, the latest such data available. That was a threefold jump from the previous year.
“Most of the food and beverage manufacturers in India are focused on reducing costs to make their product affordable to the public,” the report said. “As a result, many cannot prioritize food safety as a pillar of their business because it could prevent them from meeting their profit margins.”
“Food manufacturing and processing facilities can lack the resources to maintain proper hygiene,” it noted, adding that food-borne illnesses in India is estimated to top 100 million every year.
(Published on Nikkei)
admin
April 24, 2024
Mumbai, 24 April 2024
Sharleen Dsouza, Business Standard
With the Supreme Court cracking down on Patanjali over misleading advertisements, the advertisement industry is concerned. While industry players acknowledge that some degree of exaggeration in claims is common, the Supreme Court’s firm action signals an impending shift.
On Tuesday the SC said that its interest was not limited to Patanjali but all those Fast-Moving Consumer Goods (FMCGs) and drug companies that mislead consumers through their advertisements.
And Patanjali is not the first one to have crossed the line of puffery. There have been many cases in the past, like Horlicks Ltd versus Zydus Wellness Products where the former sought for a permanent injunction against Zydus for the broadcast of false advertisement.
Similarly, in Rajendra versus Union of India, the Bombay High Court restrained any good or service sale claiming it had supernatural and miraculous powers.
“Puffery in advertising is as old as advertising. There is always an element of exaggeration. Over the years, the government has looked the other way. Guys on the ground should take companies and brands to task and have largely been in cahoots with most of the brands,” said Sandeep Goyal, chairman and managing director of Rediffusion Brand Solutions.
Goyal believes that the SC coming down heavily on Patanjali would be a deterrent for other brands. “Puffery or not is for someone to figure out. In most food products, FSSAI doesn’t care. Who is to identify these ads? I think the SC has done something. This won’t deter other brands and get them to make claims which are within the realm of what is correct,” Goyal said.
A question of ethics
Industry experts point out that the primary objective of advertisement is to stimulate desire in the consumer’s mind. This happens by hook or by crook.
“Misleading a consumer has become inherent in advertising to a certain extent. I think this is dangerous when it comes to food, as it is basic nutrition. If you are embedding misleading information or mis-stating facts in ads then it has a real impact on whoever the customer or consumer is of that product. It is good that the issue has been highlighted,” said brand expert Devangshu Dutta, founder of Third Eyesight.
Then there is the Advertising Standards Council of India and discussions about ethical standards within the industry.
But Dutta believes there is a clear disconnect between what advertisements should say and what actually transpires. “I hope it gets acted upon from the government’s side as well. Self-regulation doesn’t seem to work. We all wish that it works, but it doesn’t. If it becomes more stringent, then it will be good overall,” he said.
While FMCG players are concerned about the stringent action of the Supreme Court, they believe that this will lead to improved advertisement regulation.
Ensuring compliance
Speaking on condition of anonymity, a senior executive of a leading FMCG company said, “The industry is already disciplining itself due to the growing consumer awareness, stringent ASCI guidelines and the impact of influencer marketing. This will further ensure that misleading ads will be few and far in the future.”
Some companies also ensure that their ads adhere to ASCI guidelines before launching them. “We run our ads with ASCI before we release them. This practice has worked in our favour,” said another executive on condition of anonymity.
In its hearing, the SC had said, “We are of the opinion that the issue relating to implementation of the relevant provisions of the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act and the Rules, the Drugs and Cosmetic Act and the Rules, and the Consumers Act and the relevant rules needs closer examination in the light of the grievances raised by the petitioner…not just limited to the respondents before this court but to all similarly situated/ placed FMCGs who have… misleading advertisements, and (are) taking the public for a ride… affecting the health of babies, school going children and senior citizens who have been consuming products on the basis of the said misrepresentation.”
(Published in Business Standard)
