Introduction

“100% Pure” sounds reassuring. For a consumer, it may suggest that a product is natural, completely pure and free from anything that might compromise its quality. But in advertising law, absolute claims invite close scrutiny: can the advertiser substantiate the claim, and is the overall consumer impression accurate? These questions came before the Delhi High Court in a dispute between Dabur India Limited and the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI).

What makes the case particularly relevant for brand owners and advertising counsel is the tension between two concerns: protecting consumers from potentially misleading claims and ensuring that regulatory action follows fair process.

The Dispute

In an Advisory dated May 27, 2025, FSSAI directed food business operators to discontinue ambiguous “100% claims” on product labels unless they were demonstrably true. According to the regulator, such expressions could give consumers an impression of absolute purity, naturalness or superiority.

This concern is linked to the Food Safety and Standards (Advertising and Claims) Regulations, 2018, which require food claims to be truthful, unambiguous, meaningful and not likely to mislead consumers. FSSAI issued an improvement notice to Dabur on April 4, 2026 and subsequently passed the impugned order on August 3, 2026.

The order restricted the sale of several Dabur products, including honey, cow ghee, apple cider vinegar, coconut water and various oils, because they carried the disputed claims, and required Dabur to submit an Action Taken Report within 15 days.

Dabur’s Objection

A significant part of Dabur’s objection concerned the manner in which FSSAI acted. The company questioned the absence of a specific show-cause notice and an opportunity of being heard before prohibitory action was taken, invoking audi alteram partem, a basic principle of natural justice. The company also questioned whether restricting the sale of the products was a proportionate response. If the objection was primarily to the wording of the claims rather than the safety of the products themselves, could the same objective have been achieved through less drastic measures, such as changing the labels or providing a reasonable compliance period?

Delhi High Court’s Decision

On 7 August 2026, the Delhi High Court stayed the operation of FSSAI’s order. In granting interim relief, the Court took note of the fact that Dabur has been manufacturing and selling its products for several decades and has established a substantial business. At the interim stage, Dabur was able to make out a prima facie case warranting protection from the immediate consequences of FSSAI’s order.

Our Analysis

The Dabur dispute is best understood against a broader tightening of scrutiny over absolute advertising claims in India. The legal position is not that expressions such as “100%”, “pure” or “natural” are invariably prohibited. Rather, the more absolute the representation, the greater the evidentiary burden on the advertiser to ensure that the claim conveys an accurate consumer impression and can be substantiated.

At the general level, the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 prohibits misleading advertisements, including representations that falsely describe a product or are likely to mislead consumers regarding its nature, substance, quantity or quality. The CCPA’s Guidelines for Prevention of Misleading Advertisements and Endorsements for Misleading Advertisements, 2022 supplement this framework, while the ASCI Code similarly requires objectively verifiable claims to be capable of substantiation.

For food businesses, however, the regulatory position has become more specific. The Food Safety and Standards (Advertising and Claims) Regulations, 2018 require claims to be truthful, unambiguous and not misleading. FSSAI has progressively taken a stricter view of “100%” terminology.

The Delhi High Court’s interim stay should therefore not be read as an endorsement of “100%” claims or as holding FSSAI’s regulatory position invalid. The Court’s interim intervention was particularly concerned with procedural fairness and the absence of a show-cause notice and prior opportunity of hearing and not concentrated on absolute claims and labelling of food products. The merits of that question remain open.

For advertisers and brand owners, the immediate takeaway is practical: absolute terminology should now trigger a heightened substantiation review before a product is launched or its packaging approved. Brands should consider not merely whether a statement is literally defensible, but whether the unqualified impression conveyed to an ordinary consumer can be supported across the product as advertised. In the food sector particularly, continued use of “100%” terminology carries an increased regulatory risk.