THE Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) has urged the Competition and Consumer Protection Tribunal to dismiss Coca-Cola Nigeria Limited’s amended appeal against the N186,666,666.67 penalty imposed for its labeling and marketing practices, among other issues.
This was revealed in the Commission’s written reply to the amended appeal. It was previously reported that the FCCPC had imposed a N186 million penalty on Cocal Cola, formally accusing Coca-Cola Nigeria Ltd and its sister company of misleading trade descriptions and employing unfair marketing tactics in their products, claiming less sugar.
However, Coca Cola appealed against 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 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” and “Less Sugar” as Coca-Cola Original Taste, as part of a deliberate business strategy”, the Commission added.
It was also reported that Coca-Cola, through its counsel, approached the tribunal, citing 15 legal grounds against the FCCPC’s decision. Among other arguments, it claimed that the FCCPC acted as complainant, investigator, prosecutor and judge, thereby violating the company’s constitutionally guaranteed right to fair hearing.
In a formal reply to Coca Cola’s amended appeal, FCCPC 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 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 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 labeling practices under several sections of the FCCPA, 2018. It stated that its findings on Coca-Cola’s products are valid, legally justifiable and supported by evidence in its final investigative report.
The FCCPC maintained that its findings are factual and verifiable, based on due process. The Commission denied making any conclusive finding on CCNL’s abuse of market dominance.
