Chapter VII - Offences and Penalties
Section 89
Section 89: punishment for false or misleading advertising
Section 89 concerns a manufacturer or service provider that causes a false or misleading advertisement prejudicial to consumers' interests.
On this page
Need advice on Section 89?
This article is for general information. Refer to the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 official text for the official provisions. If you need professional advice for your situation, contact Bizeneed.
Statutory text
Bare law
Any manufacturer or service provider who causes a false or misleading advertisement to be made which is prejudicial to the interest of consumers shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees; and for every subsequent offence, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine which may extend to fifty lakh rupees.
Introduction
For a first offence, the provision sets imprisonment up to two years and a fine up to ₹10 lakh. For every subsequent offence, the maxima rise to five years and ₹50 lakh. The statutory ingredients, prosecution and finding matter; the listed maxima are not automatic.
This criminal provision has a different target and process from the CCPA's directions and administrative penalties under section 21.
Key takeaways
Manufacturer or service provider
The section expressly targets a manufacturer or service provider who causes the prejudicial false or misleading ad to be made.
First and subsequent offences differ
The first-offence maxima are two years and ₹10 lakh; later offences have maxima of five years and ₹50 lakh.
Separate from CCPA directions
Section 21's administrative direction and penalty powers should be analysed separately from section 89's offence.
Identify who caused the ad
Keep campaign briefs, approvals, substantiation, agency instructions and final creatives. Identify the manufacturer or service provider's role in causing publication.
Test falsity and consumer prejudice
Examine the claim, evidence supporting it and why it might prejudice consumers. Do not infer a section 89 offence merely because an ad was challenged.
Distinguish the enforcement route
A section 21 order and a section 89 criminal allegation involve different statutory powers. Follow the applicable notice or prosecution process and preserve records.
Hypothetical example
A service provider approves an advertisement claiming a guaranteed result without supporting evidence. After a consumer-prejudicial misleading-ad allegation, it preserves the approval trail and substantiation while the statutory offence ingredients are assessed.
Official sources
Practical checklist
Do
- Approve material ad claims against evidence.
- Retain ad versions and decision records.
- Investigate and correct a material error promptly.
Avoid
- Do not treat the statutory maximum as a fixed sentence or fine.
- Do not assume section 89 applies identically to every endorser or publisher.
Frequently asked questions
Is this the same as section 21?
No. Section 21 concerns CCPA directions and administrative penalties; section 89 is an offence provision for a manufacturer or service provider causing a prejudicial false or misleading advertisement.
Does every endorser face the section 89 offence?
Section 89 names a manufacturer or service provider who causes a prejudicial false or misleading advertisement to be made. Endorser consequences under section 21 have a separate statutory route.
Need help applying this provision to your situation?
Contact BizeneedLast updated 10 October 2026