Consumer protection body fines VLCC ₹3 lakh for misleading ads on fat-loss treatment

The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) on August 8 imposed a penalty of ₹3 lakh on VLCC Limited for publishing misleading advertisements about its Lipolaser and CoolSculpting fat-loss treatments.

The CCPA found that VLCC had not shown any scientific studies to back up its claim that clients could lose “up to 6cm and 400g in one session” with Lipolaser treatments.

“The lack of regulatory approvals for the Lipolaser machine suggests a failure to meet safety standards, putting consumers at risk,” the CCPA added.

It proceeded to slap a ₹3 lakh fine on VLCC for its misleading ads on Lipolaser, after noting that the company had a significant market presence, and a turnover of over ₹35 crores in 2022-23 and 2023-24, and considering the misleading impact of its advertisements on consumers.

"Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the factors enumerated in section 21(7) of Act [factors to be considered while imposing penalty] to this case, the ССРА finds it necessary that opposite party shall pay a penalty of3,00,000 for publishing false and misleading advertisement claims that affected the consumers as a class," it held.

The ruling was passed by the CCPA's Chief Commissioner Nidhi Khare and Commissioner Anupam Mishra.

Further, the CCPA found that the effects of the CoolSculpting treatment -advertised by VLCC as a treatment that could help clients “drop 1 size in one session” - had only been tested on 57 participants in a foreign clinical trial, comprising Caucasians, Hispanics, and African Americans.

This was part of a clinical trial submitted by Zeltiq Aesthetics before the US Food and Drug Administration, and did not involve any Indian or Asian participants. However, VLCC failed to disclose this aspect in its advertisements.

To correct this, the CCPA has ordered VLCC disclose prominently in its CoolSculpting advertisements, or in separate disclaimers, various details about the effect and limits of such treatment, including the areas of the body it targets for fat loss, that it works only for people with a Body Mass Index (BMI) of 30 or less, and the demographic on which its effectiveness has been tested.

The CCPA also questioned VLCC's practice of making customers sign a declaration that "lack of results will not be construed as a deficiency of service."

"The declaration which the consumer is made to sign, negate the proclamations in the advertisements of VLCC. These clauses should have been added as a disclaimer in the advertisement. The clauses in the consent form raise serious doubts about the efficacy of the treatment as claimed in the advertisement," CCPA observed.

It went on to order VLCC to stop this practice.

"The opposite party shall discontinue the practice of making the consumers agree to clauses which are unfair and prejudicial to consumer interest with an unfair motive to escape legal liability and accountability for the claims advertised," the consumer rights watchdog said.

The case against VLCC was initiated based on a complaint by Hyderabad resident, Ajay Gupta, who raised concerns about a misleading VLCC ad on fat loss, including through the use of a CoolSculpting machine.

The CCPA noted that the company had made false and unsubstantiated claims in advertisements for its CoolSculpting and Lipolaser treatments.

On finding that there was a prima facie case, the CCPA issued VLCC a show cause notice in September 2023. An inquiry by the Director General, Investigation (DG-Investigation) concluded that VLCC may have violated Section 2(8) (prohibition of misleading advertisements) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

VLCC, meanwhile, agreed to discontinue the CoolSculpting advertisements complained of but denied having misled its customers.

The CCPA, in its final ruling, however, concluded that VLCC had violated consumer rights.

"The opposite party (VLCC) has violated the provisions related to misleading advertisements ... The right of the consumers have also been violated either by misleading advertisement and withholding important information regarding the product and services of VLCC," it held.

Advocate Dhruv Wahi and Legal Manager Piyush Agarwal appeared for VLCC.

[Read Order]