CCPA fines Storia Foods, Mrs Bectors ₹1 lakh each over ‘100%’ claims
The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) imposed the following penalties: ₹1 lakh each of Storia Foods and Beverages Pvt. Ltd and Bayan Bectors Food Specialties Ltd for allegedly misleading consumers by using “100%” claims on food products, the ministry of consumer affairs, food and public distribution said in a statement on Sunday.
The consumer watchdog also ordered both companies to immediately stop the disputed claims on product packaging, websites and digital platforms.
“The term ‘100%’ is a precise and absolute numerical expression and must correspond exactly to the actual composition of the product,” the regulator said in the statement.
The action was taken under the Consumer Protection Act 2019 and the Prevention of Misleading Advertising and Approval of Misleading Advertising Guidelines 2022.
Storia Foods sells a range of packaged drinks including coconut water, juices, milkshakes and protein drinks, while Mrs Bectors Food Specialties markets bread and bakery products under the English Oven brand and biscuits, sauces and condiments under the Cremica label.
The CCPA issued its decision against Storia Foods on 18 June 2026, while it issued its decision against Ms Bectors Food Specialties Ltd on 9 June 2026.
MintQuestions sent by e-mail to Storia Foods and Bayan Bectors Food remained unanswered. The story will be updated if the companies respond.
Claims and reality
The latest action forms part of the regulator’s broader crackdown on exaggerated and unverifiable claims in the food and consumer goods sector. The authority reiterated that claims regarding composition, quality, nutrition or health benefits must be accurate, verifiable and not deceptive.
“The decision reinforces the principle that objective claims in advertising must be provable. The CCPA has raised the compliance threshold for advertisers making compositional claims by recognizing that the term ‘100%’ is an absolute representation rather than mere promotional puffery,” said Manish K. Shubhay, partner at The Precept-Law Offices.
sou moto action
The case against Storia came after a suo motu review of advertisements for products containing “100% Soft Coconut Water” and various variations of “100% Fruit Juice” such as pomegranate, mango, mixed fruit and guava pepper.
The CCPA said the “100% Soft Coconut Water” product is made using coconut water concentrate reconstituted with water, while the product’s reconstituted nature is disclosed only in fine print on the ingredients panel.
The authority also noted that the product contained the preservative INS 202, making the accompanying “100% Natural Coconut Water” claim untenable.
Similarly, it found that products marketed as “100% Fruit Juice” contained varying amounts of water, fruit concentrate and pulp, rather than consisting entirely of the fruit specified in the product name.
In the Ms. Bectors case, the CCPA examined claims such as “100% Atta Bread” and “100% Whole Wheat Bread” on product packaging, advertisements, and social media platforms.
In the statement made by the Ministry, it was stated that during the lawsuit, the company admitted that its bread products contained 87 percent whole wheat flour.
The official stated that a product containing 87% whole wheat flour cannot be advertised as “100% Atta Bread” or “100% Whole Wheat Bread”, adding that the simultaneous use of the words “100% Whole Wheat” and “Zero Maida” creates the impression that the product consists entirely of whole wheat flour and does not contain any other additives.
Ms Bectors argued that the purpose of the term “100% Atta” was to convey that the sole source of grain used in bread was wheat flour. However, the regulator rejected the statement, stating that advertisements must be evaluated from a reasonable consumer perspective and that after-the-fact comments cannot invalidate the impression created by the marketing message.
