HUL to withdraw ‘disparaging’ sunscreen ads after legal challenge by Honasa Consumer

Legal Battle Erupts Over Alleged Mimicry in Sunscreen Advertisements

Hindustan Unilever Ltd (HUL), one of India’s largest FMCG companies, has agreed to withdraw and alter components of its ongoing sunscreen advertising campaign following a legal dispute initiated by Honasa Consumer, the parent company of personal care brand Mamaearth. The dispute arose from allegations that HUL’s ad campaign was designed to mislead consumers by mimicking the packaging and marketing cues of Honasa’s The Derma Co. sunscreen range. During a Delhi High Court hearing on April 17, HUL committed to removing online advertisements within 24 hours and physical hoardings within 48 hours.

HUL has further agreed to change the packaging imagery used in the ad, shifting from an orange colour scheme to a light yellow variant to reduce visual similarities with Honasa’s product. In addition, the company will replace the phrase “online bestseller” with a less definitive term—“some sellers”—to prevent any insinuation that the product depicted in the ad was a reference to The Derma Co. or any of Honasa’s brands.

Highlights:

• HUL to remove online ads within 24 hours, hoardings within 48 hours.

• Ad packaging colour to change from orange to light yellow.

• “Online bestseller” phrase to be replaced with “some sellers”.

• Action follows legal petition filed by Honasa in Delhi High Court.

Honasa Accuses HUL of Misrepresentation and Product Defamation

The legal face-off gained momentum following a public post by Honasa co-founder Ghazal Alagh on April 14, where she indirectly accused HUL of mimicking Honasa’s sunscreen packaging and undermining consumer trust through indirect comparisons. The contested ad for Lakme sunscreen allegedly featured a rival product that resembled The Derma Co.’s orange-coloured sunscreen tube and bore the label “online bestseller”. Alagh’s post underscored her concern over what she perceived as deliberate visual imitation and disparagement by a legacy brand.

During proceedings before Justice Amit Bansal, Honasa’s legal counsel Amit Sibal argued that while product comparison is legally permitted, it must be rooted in factual evidence and not be framed in a manner that misleads or vilifies competitors. Sibal emphasized that HUL’s campaign crossed the line by portraying rival sunscreen products as both ineffective and deceptive, thereby maligning the reputation of Honasa.

Highlights:

• Honasa accused HUL of copying product aesthetics and spreading misinformation.

• Allegedly mimicked The Derma Co.’s packaging with “online bestseller” tag.

• Ghazal Alagh criticized the ad campaign via social media on April 14.

• Legal counsel argued comparative ads should not mislead or defame.

HUL Cites In-Vivo Testing, Denies Malintent Amid Court Scrutiny

In response to the allegations, HUL defended its campaign by citing ISO-validated in-vivo testing of its sunscreen range conducted over the past decade. The company issued a public statement suggesting that some brands topping online bestseller lists made SPF claims not supported by lab-tested outcomes. HUL alleged that these competitors’ products, when sampled from the market, delivered SPF 20 despite claiming SPF 50 protection.

However, during the initial hearing on April 16, the Delhi High Court expressed preliminary concern over the nature of the advertisement. The bench stated that while businesses are free to compare products, they are not permitted to disparage rival goods or create consumer confusion in the process. The court has asked HUL to formally respond to the charges while acknowledging that the ad may be construed as disparaging.

Highlights:

• HUL cited decade-long in-vivo testing to defend SPF claims.

• Claimed some online bestsellers delivered lower SPF than advertised.

• Delhi High Court deemed the ad “disparaging” during preliminary hearing.

• Court emphasized that product comparison should not lead to defamation.