Synopsis : The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) has imposed a Rs 1 lakh penalty on United Biscuits Private Limited, formerly known as Pladis India, over what it termed a misleading “wholewheat” claim on McVitie’s Wholewheat Marie Biscuits. The regulator found that the product contained only 19.5 per cent whole wheat flour, while refined wheat flour, or maida, accounted for 52 per cent of the product. The authority has also directed the company to discontinue the misleading advertising and modify the packaging of the product.
The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) has imposed a Rs 1 lakh penalty on United Biscuits Private Limited in connection with the marketing of McVitie’s Wholewheat Marie Biscuits. The action follows an investigation into whether the product’s prominent “wholewheat” branding could create a misleading impression about its actual composition.
According to the CCPA’s order dated August 28, 2026, the authority took suo motu cognisance of a social media article that raised concerns about the product’s claims and ingredients. The article had highlighted the way the biscuits were being promoted and questioned whether the product’s branding accurately represented what consumers were buying.
Following this, the CCPA examined the product’s packaging and online listings. The regulator found that the ingredient declaration showed whole wheat flour at 19.5 per cent, while refined wheat flour accounted for 52 per cent of the product. Based on these findings, the authority concluded that the prominent use of the term “wholewheat” could lead an average consumer to believe that the biscuits were predominantly made from whole wheat.
The matter was subsequently investigated by the Directorate General (Investigation), which submitted its report to the CCPA on July 16, 2026. The investigation noted that the product was being marketed under the name McVitie’s Wholewheat Marie Biscuits even though the actual proportion of whole wheat flour was considerably lower than what the prominent product name could suggest.
United Biscuits defended the product during the proceedings, arguing that “McVitie’s Wholewheat Marie Biscuit” was a registered trademark and that the term was being used primarily as a brand identifier. The company also pointed to a disclaimer printed on the front of the package stating that the term was only a trademark and did not represent the product’s true nature.
The company further argued that the word “wholewheat” was intended to distinguish the product from regular Marie biscuits and products made using refined wheat flour. It maintained that the name had been adopted as a way of differentiating the product from its other offerings.
However, the CCPA rejected the company’s trademark defence. The authority said that trademark protection cannot be treated as permission to make a misleading representation on a food product’s packaging. According to the regulator, the fact that a particular expression is registered as a trademark does not prevent it from being examined under consumer protection laws when its use could mislead consumers.
The CCPA also rejected the company’s reliance on the disclaimer printed on the package. The authority observed that the disclaimer appeared in a comparatively smaller font and was positioned below the main product claim. It therefore held that a disclosure that is technically present but difficult for consumers to notice cannot effectively neutralise a prominent representation.
The regulator also disagreed with United Biscuits’ argument that “wholewheat” was merely being used to distinguish the biscuits from other products. According to the CCPA, when such a term forms part of the product’s name and is prominently displayed, consumers are likely to treat it as an important representation about the nature and composition of the product.
The authority said that such claims must be assessed from the perspective of an average consumer rather than through a narrow technical interpretation adopted by the manufacturer. In this case, the CCPA concluded that the “wholewheat” description could create the impression that the biscuits were substantially or entirely made from whole wheat, despite whole wheat flour accounting for only 19.5 per cent of the ingredients.
The regulator consequently held that the representation amounted to misleading advertising and an unfair trade practice. Along with the Rs 1 lakh penalty, the CCPA directed United Biscuits to immediately discontinue the use of the allegedly misleading advertisement across print, electronic and social media platforms.
The company has also been directed to modify the packaging of fresh products and remove the use of the claim that the authority considers false or misleading. United Biscuits had earlier offered to revise the packaging by removing the word “wholewheat” from the registered trademark and had sought a nine-month transition period to use its existing packaging. The CCPA’s directions now require the company to comply with the regulator’s order.
The authority has further asked United Biscuits to submit a compliance report within 15 days of the order. The case highlights the increasing scrutiny being placed on food and FMCG companies over product descriptions, health-related representations and packaging claims, particularly where prominent branding may create a different impression from the actual composition of a product.
For consumers, the action also underlines the importance of looking beyond prominent claims displayed on food packaging and checking the detailed ingredient declaration before assessing what a product actually contains.
Disclaimer : This article is based on information available in the CCPA order and the details provided. The regulatory action and allegations mentioned above should not be interpreted as a final determination that all products manufactured by United Biscuits are unsafe or that the company has engaged in wrongdoing beyond the specific matter described. Readers should refer to official regulatory documents and company disclosures for complete details.
.jpg)