Coca-Cola Nigeria Limited (CCNL) has filed an amended appeal with the Competition and Consumer Protection Tribunal, challenging the N186,666,666.67 penalty imposed by the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC). The fine was levied over allegations of misleading labeling and marketing practices related to Coca-Cola’s Original Taste and Less Sugar product variants.
In its 15-point appeal, CCNL argues that the FCCPC violated its right to a fair hearing, lacked jurisdiction to enforce orders against the company, and imposed an “outrageous, unwarranted, and unjustifiable” penalty. The soft drink giant maintains that it took sufficient steps to differentiate its product variants and that the labeling was approved by the National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC).
CCNL’s legal team, led by Professor Gbolahan Elias SAN, contends that there was no false representation or use of unfair tactics in the marketing of Coca-Cola products. They further argue that the company was not given an opportunity to address alleged consumer complaints and that the FCCPC abused its powers by requiring access to the company’s audited financial statements.
The appeal also challenges the FCCPC’s findings on Coca-Cola’s pricing model and the requirement to provide written assurances to refrain from further violations. CCNL maintains that there is no binding obligation until the appeal is determined by the tribunal.
In its appeal, CCNL argues that:
1. The FCCPC violated its right to a fair hearing by assuming the roles of complainant, investigator, prosecutor, and judge.
2. The FCCPC lacked jurisdiction to enforce orders against the company.
3. Coca-Cola’s product differentiation was approved by the National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC).
4. The company took sufficient steps to differentiate its product variants.
5. There was no false representation in the marketing of Coca-Cola products.
6. The company did not use unfair tactics in the marketing of its products.
7. CCNL was not given an opportunity to address alleged consumer complaints.
8. The FCCPC erred in its assessment of Coca-Cola’s pricing model.
9. The requirement to provide written assurances to refrain from further violations is unreasonably burdensome.
10. The FCCPC abused its powers by requiring access to the company’s audited financial statements.
11. The company took further steps to differentiate its product variants as a cooperative corporate citizen.
12. The FCCPC’s final order was made by an officer who did not participate in the investigation.
13. The company had taken sufficient steps to comply with the FCCPC’s requirements.
14. The penalty imposed is “outrageous, unwarranted, and unjustifiable.”
15. There is no binding obligation until the appeal is determined by the tribunal.
In a related development, the FCCPC has undertaken not to take any regulatory or enforcement action against Coca-Cola Nigeria pending the outcome of the appeal.
The tribunal has scheduled a hearing on the amended appeal for February 4, 2025.