CCP enforcement: deceptive-marketing orders under Section 10

Section 10 of the Competition Act 2010 prohibits deceptive marketing practices. Its reach is wider than the label suggests: it covers the distribution of false or misleading information capable of harming another undertaking's business interests, false or misleading information to consumers — including as to price, character, place of production, properties or suitability of goods — false comparisons in advertising, and the fraudulent use of another's trademark, firm name or product labelling [SUBSECTION TEXT TO BE VERIFIED BY REVIEWING LAWYER]. The Commission's Section 10 docket has grown into its most active enforcement stream, and further penalty orders have issued in recent months [2026 ORDERS, PARTIES AND AMOUNTS TO BE VERIFIED]. This alert describes what the orders penalise and how companies walk into them.

What changed

The enforcement pattern is settled and the recent orders confirm it. The Commission proceeds against advertising in every medium — packaging, broadcast, print, and increasingly digital and social campaigns, including claims made through third-party marketers. The recurring targets are familiar. Property developments marketed before the underlying approvals exist. Discount and price claims that do not reflect real prior prices. Superiority and comparison claims — "number one," "fastest," "purest" — made without a substantiation record. Health, safety and performance claims for consumer products that testing does not support. And the use of another business's mark, trade dress or name, which gives brand owners a regulatory route against imitators that runs alongside, and often faster than, an infringement suit. Penalties are imposed under Section 38 on the same parameters as other violations [PARAMETERS TO BE VERIFIED], and the Commission routinely orders corrective steps — withdrawal of the campaign and public clarification — in addition to the fine.

What it means

Two features of Section 10 practice matter most. First, the test is objective. The question is whether the information is false or misleading and capable of deceiving, not whether the company intended to deceive [FRAMING TO BE VERIFIED AGAINST CURRENT APPELLATE AUTHORITY]. Good faith and agency error are mitigation at best; the undertaking whose product is marketed answers for the claim. Second, the burden of proof sits, in practice, on the advertiser. When the Commission issues a show-cause notice, the company must produce the substantiation — the test reports, the survey, the pricing history, the approval documents — and a file assembled after the notice reads exactly like what it is. The commercial consequences travel beyond the fine: an order finding a company deceived its customers is public, quotable, and durable, and competitors use it. For businesses on the receiving end of a rival's false claims, the same machinery is an underused remedy: a complaint to the Commission is often cheaper and quicker than a civil injunction, and the Commission can order the conduct stopped.

What this means for you

Institute a claim-substantiation file as a condition of every campaign: for each factual claim — price, performance, composition, origin, approvals — a document that supports it, assembled before launch and retained after it. Route superiority and comparison claims through legal review, and keep the evidence current; a test report from 2021 does not carry a 2026 campaign. Treat digital and influencer marketing as your own speech — brief agencies in writing, approve final copy, and contract for the right to pull content immediately. For regulated products and real-estate projects, hold the marketing until the approval the advertisement implies actually exists. If a show-cause notice arrives, treat it as litigation: preserve records, respond on the evidence, and consider whether withdrawal and correction now will shape the penalty later. And when a competitor's campaign misstates facts about your product or uses your name, put Section 10 on the list of remedies — it exists for exactly that case.