CCPA fines e-commerce platform for selling ‘ordinary’ sweets as Ram Mandir prasad

The CCPA said that it received a representation from the Confederation of All India Traders alleging that an e-commerce platform was “facilitating” dishonest trade practices by allowing the listing and sale of commercially produced sweets on its website under the misleading label of ‘Shri Ram Mandir Ayodhya Prasad’.

The traders body claimed that the religious sentiments of the devotees and consumers were being exploited for monetary gain as the sweets were being marketed as an exclusive offering connected to the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Mandir, Ayodhya, without any authorisation or endorsement from the temple or the Ram Janmabhoomi Trust.

According to the order, the “ordinary” sweets that were being mislabeled as prasad included, Raghupati Ghee Ladoo Khoya Khobi Ladoo, Ghee Bundi Ladoo and Desi Cow Milk Peda. The CCPA noted that all the sweets were categorized under ‘Grocery & Gourmet Foods’ and were available for nationwide delivery. It also came on record that the product listings used religious imagery, slogans referring to lord Ram and the city of Ayodhya on the packaging, and the ingredient column on all product listings declared the ingredient simply as “Ram Mandir Prasad”.

‘Widely anticipated religious event’

The CCPA stated that the particular concern was the timing of listing of the sweets on the website. The authority observed that “the products falsely claiming to be ‘Shri Ram Mandir Ayodhya Prasad’ were listed on the opposite party’s (e-commerce website) platform prior to the Pran Pratishtha (consecration) ceremony of the Shri Ram Mandir, Ayodhya, which took place on 22nd January 2024, one of the most significant and widely anticipated religious events in contemporary Indian history.”

According to the CCPA, the e-commerce website, which had automated monitoring systems and a dedicated seller compliance infrastructure, “cannot credibly contend that it was unaware of the heightened sensitivity surrounding any product carrying the name of the Shri Ram Mandir during this period.” Noting the “cooperative approach” taken by the e-commerce platform during the later part of proceedings and its “willingness” to implement a structured compliance framework, the CCPA held that the cooperation of the e-commerce platform could not erase the “gravity of the conduct”.

The CCPA further observed that the platform was “one of the largest e-commerce marketplaces operating in India, with an extensive user base spanning hundreds of millions of consumers. The scale and reach of the platform is precisely what amplifies the harm a deceptive listing on this platform carries an inherent legitimacy in the eyes of an average consumer by virtue of the platform’s size, visibility, and market dominance.”

Therefore, the e-commerce platform was directed to “ensure that no product falsely claiming to be prasad, prasadam, mahaprasad, bhog or any similar religious offering associated with the religious institutions” is available or advertised on the website without verifiable documentary proof of authorization from the concerned institution.

The seller was further ordered by the CCPA to “prominently display complete seller details including the name, address, customer care number, and grievance officer information on its platform” and imposed a penalty of Rs 1 lakh on the e-commerce platforms for publication of misleading advertisements on its website.

‘Only marketplace intermediary’

In its defence, the e-commerce platform, through its counsel M/s Saikrishna & Associates, submitted that on receiving the ‘show cause notice’ they acted “expeditiously” by taking down the disputed products from their website and had fully discharged its obligations under applicable law. The platform also claimed that it had not engaged in any unfair trade practice “prejudicial” to the interests of consumers and it only operated as a “marketplace intermediary,” playing no role in listing, pricing, describing, or selling products.

The platform also contended that all sellers were contractually bound to ensure listing compliance with applicable laws. The counsel also argued that the platform had never intended to be complicit with the sweet company and that it was not involved in the packaging of the products listed on its marketplace.