By Adedapo Adesanya
The Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) has urged the Competition and Consumer Protection Tribunal to dismiss Coca-Cola Nigeria Limited’s (CCNL) amended appeal against the N186,666,666.67 penalty imposed for its labelling and marketing practices.
According to a statement shared by the consumer protection agency, the FCCPC had previously imposed a N186 million penalty on CCNL.
This is after formally accusing Coca-Cola Nigeria Ltd and its sister company of misleading trade descriptions and employing unfair marketing tactics in their products, Original Taste and Less Sugar.
However, CCNL appealed the commission’s decision, describing the penalty as “outrageous” and alleging that the FCCPC lacked jurisdiction to impose and enforce such orders.
The company argued that the FCCPC had assumed judicial powers that should be exercised by the tribunal.
In a statement on its official X (formerly Twitter) handle, the FCCPC alleged that Coca-Cola Nigeria Ltd and NBC deceived the public by describing the variant Coca-Cola Original Taste, Less Sugar as identical to Coca-Cola Original Taste in terms of formulation.
“Furthermore, Coca-Cola and NBC, after regulatory intervention, failed to take appropriate steps to address their misleading behaviour. This demonstrates that the companies intentionally misrepresented Coca-Cola Original Taste, Less Sugar as Coca-Cola Original Taste as part of a deliberate business strategy,” the commission added.
Coca-Cola, through its counsel, Mr Gbolahan Elias SAN, approached the tribunal, citing 15 legal grounds against the FCCPC’s decision.
CCNL also claimed that the FCCPC acted as complainant, investigator, prosecutor, and judge, thereby violating the company’s constitutionally guaranteed right to a fair hearing.
In its formal reply to CCNL’s amended appeal dated October 22, 2024, FCCPC lawyer Abimbola Ojenike raised 13 opposing grounds against the brand’s request to quash the penalty and accusations.
The FCCPC argued that Coca-Cola’s claims of procedural unfairness and bias are baseless. It emphasized that the company was provided with extensive opportunities for a fair hearing, including participation in investigations, written submissions, and multiple consultative meetings.
It claimed that Coca-Cola allegedly admitted to regulatory violations and pledged remedial actions but failed to differentiate its Coca-Cola Original from Coca-Cola Less Sugar.
The FCCPC also maintained that it has the statutory authority to issue and enforce orders, and nothing in Section 6 of the 1999 Constitution invalidates the administrative penalties or directives issued under the FCCPA.
The commission asserted its authority to investigate consumer and competition issues related to misleading branding and labelling practices under several sections of the FCCPA, 2018.
FCCPC stated that its findings on Coca-Cola’s products are valid, legally justifiable, and supported by evidence in its final investigative report and maintained that its findings are factual and verifiable, based on due process.
The FCCPC also denied making any conclusive findings on CCNL’s abuse of market dominance.