| Featured Legal Services |
|---|
| Latest Library Content |
|---|
| Ribena's Purple Prose Penalty | | Print | |
| Written by Mike Clarke | |
| Friday, 30 March 2007 | |
|
Ribena-gate began with a blackcurrent juice drink named Ribena, some amazing claims by GlaxoSmithKline about the drink's Vitamin C content, and a couple of enquiring school girls who discovered through a school science lab project that Ribena products had little or no Vitamin C. They informed the manufacturer, GlaxoSmithKline. It took little notice.
It ended with GlaxoSmithKline copping a fine of A$201,000. For GlaxoSmithKline, that court-imposed penalty for its Vitamin C purple prose is most likely to be only the start of its woes with the brand damage yet to be fully realised.
This week, arising from action taken by the Competition Commision of New Zealand, GlaxoSmithKline pleaded guilty in the Auckland District Court that the Vitamin C claims were misleading under the Fair Trading Act 1986 (NZ). This all follows on from the work of the two schoolgirls. In Australia their penance is somewhat lighter, and includes GlaxoSmithKline placing notices (presumably such as this one on their website) in retail outlets advising consumers of the allegedly misleading information at the ACCC's request. Again, one would imagine this won’t exactly boost sales. Such (black)current events serve to remind those in the food and drink industry of the perils of making false or misleading claims on product labels or in advertising and marketing materials. Clearly, the key message to be learned from Ribena’s folly is that any statements, claims, slogans, trademarks, testimonials, comparisons or any other device used on labels and in promotional materials must not be misleading or deceptive.
Beyond this general mantra, a few further specific compliance issues are:
The effects of not keeping your own house in order can be disastrous. A colleague and shattered Ribena drinker probably summed it all up when he said that whilst he probably won’t abandon drinking Ribena altogether, it will definitely not be the “habit” it once was. To avoid a similar fate, you must immediately implement a comprehensive compliance program for your products or review existing measures to ensure they are adequate. Don’t put it off because you never know - some dedicated schoolgirls with curiosity and too much time on their hands might just end up bringing your entire brand down.
Footnotes:
(1) Byers & Ors v. Dorotea P/L (1987) ATPR 40-760
(2) Budget Rent A Car System P/L v Dewhirst & Ors (1984) ATPR 40-485 [appeal dismissed (1986) ATPR 40-648]
(3) Janssen Pharmaceutical Pty Limited v Pfizer Pty Limited (1986) ATPR 40-654
(4) Stuart Alexander & Co. (Interstate) P/L & Anor. v. Blenders P/L (1981) ATPR 40-244.
Related Dilanchian Materials
|
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
| Main Menu | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Free Tools |
|---|
| Registered Users | |
|---|---|
|


