Pakistan’s competition regulator fined two frozen dessert makers Rs. 35 million for marketing products as “ice cream” despite standards that classify them as frozen desserts.
What the CCP decided and how much was recovered
Pakistan’s Competition Commission (CCP) has enforced penalties against two frozen dessert manufacturers for what it called misleading advertising. The regulator recovered Rs. 35 million in penalties after finding that the companies marketed frozen desserts as “ice cream,” a term that carries a specific meaning under local standards.
The case involved two well-known brands, Magnum Ice Cream Company and Omore, and centered on how products were described in advertisements across television and social media. The CCP said the advertising created a false impression for consumers by presenting items as ice cream when, under applicable standards, they fell into the “frozen dessert” category.
The enforcement is notable because it shows the CCP is not only issuing orders but also ensuring that penalties are actually recovered. In consumer markets like packaged foods, enforcement matters as much as the initial decision because advertising practices change only when the cost of non-compliance becomes real.
How the complaint started and what the inquiry found
The case began with a complaint by M/s Pakistan Fruit Juice Company (Private) Limited, the makers of “Hico” ice cream. The complainant alleged that M/s Unilever Pakistan and M/s Friesland Campina Engro were falsely advertising their frozen desserts as ice cream, which could mislead buyers and distort competition in the category.
After a formal inquiry under the Competition Act, 2010, the CCP concluded that the companies disseminated false and misleading information. The regulator said the advertising claims breached competition rules because they affected consumer decision-making and gave an unfair advantage by using a label associated with dairy-based ice cream.
The CCP had originally imposed penalties of Rs. 75 million on each company. In addition, Unilever Pakistan faced an extra Rs. 20 million fine for a specific claim that its frozen dessert was healthier than dairy-based ice cream. Health comparisons can be sensitive in advertising because they shape buyer choices, especially for families who are trying to make “better” food decisions.
Why ‘ice cream’ vs ‘frozen dessert’ matters under Pakistani standards
At the center of the dispute is the legal and regulatory distinction between “ice cream” and “frozen dessert.” The CCP’s decision referenced standards set by the Pakistan Standards and Quality Control Authority (PSQCA) and the Punjab Pure Food Regulations 2018.
These standards draw a clear line: ice cream is generally made from milk, cream, or other dairy ingredients, while frozen desserts may include edible vegetable oils instead of, or alongside, dairy fat. For consumers, this difference matters because product names signal ingredients, nutrition expectations, and value.
When a product that is technically a frozen dessert is marketed as ice cream, it can mislead buyers into thinking they are purchasing a dairy-based item. It can also disadvantage companies that comply with the standards and label their products accurately. From a competition perspective, the CCP treats this as a market fairness issue: accurate labeling helps consumers compare products properly and helps brands compete on honest terms.
What the companies were ordered to do next
Beyond financial penalties, the CCP also issued corrective directions. Both companies were told to immediately stop presenting frozen desserts as ice cream. They were instructed to remove misleading advertisements and disclose accurate product information going forward.
The regulator also required the companies to submit compliance reports within the stipulated timeframe. This is important because compliance reporting creates a paper trail and gives the CCP a way to verify whether advertising has actually changed, not just promised to change.
The Competition Appellate Tribunal (CAT) upheld the Commission’s findings, reinforcing the CCP’s authority in protecting consumer rights and ensuring fair competition. When an appellate forum upholds a regulator’s decision, it generally strengthens the signal to the wider market that the rules will be applied consistently.
What it means for consumers and the wider food advertising market
For consumers, the decision is a reminder to read product labels and not rely only on advertising language. In Pakistan, the difference between ice cream and frozen dessert can reflect different fat sources and ingredient profiles, and those differences can matter for preference, dietary needs, and perceived quality.
For brands, the case sets a clear warning: category terms are not just marketing words. When standards define a product class, companies are expected to align their packaging and promotions with that definition. Claims that sound small—like using “ice cream” loosely—can become costly when regulators view them as misleading.
The decision may also push companies to be more careful with comparative health claims. Saying one product is “healthier” than another can require strong evidence, clear context, and compliance with food and advertising rules. In competitive FMCG markets, there is always pressure to differentiate, but regulators typically draw the line at claims that could mislead or confuse the public.
Overall, the CCP’s enforcement shows a stronger approach to consumer protection and truthful advertising. If follow-up monitoring stays active, shoppers may see clearer labeling and fewer category-stretching claims, especially in foods where standards are already defined.
