AGL 38.50 Decreased By ▼ -0.06 (-0.16%)
AIRLINK 200.98 Decreased By ▼ -6.79 (-3.27%)
BOP 10.10 Increased By ▲ 0.04 (0.4%)
CNERGY 6.51 Decreased By ▼ -0.57 (-8.05%)
DCL 9.46 Decreased By ▼ -0.53 (-5.31%)
DFML 40.06 Decreased By ▼ -1.08 (-2.63%)
DGKC 96.91 Decreased By ▼ -6.55 (-6.33%)
FCCL 34.99 Decreased By ▼ -1.36 (-3.74%)
FFBL 86.00 Decreased By ▼ -5.59 (-6.1%)
FFL 13.89 Decreased By ▼ -0.71 (-4.86%)
HUBC 131.43 Decreased By ▼ -8.00 (-5.74%)
HUMNL 14.00 Decreased By ▼ -0.10 (-0.71%)
KEL 5.61 Decreased By ▼ -0.36 (-6.03%)
KOSM 7.25 Decreased By ▼ -0.61 (-7.76%)
MLCF 45.20 Decreased By ▼ -2.08 (-4.4%)
NBP 66.38 Decreased By ▼ -7.38 (-10.01%)
OGDC 221.00 Decreased By ▼ -1.66 (-0.75%)
PAEL 38.60 Increased By ▲ 0.49 (1.29%)
PIBTL 8.88 Decreased By ▼ -0.39 (-4.21%)
PPL 198.50 Decreased By ▼ -7.35 (-3.57%)
PRL 39.01 Decreased By ▼ -0.84 (-2.11%)
PTC 25.30 Decreased By ▼ -1.32 (-4.96%)
SEARL 101.50 Decreased By ▼ -8.74 (-7.93%)
TELE 8.92 Decreased By ▼ -0.31 (-3.36%)
TOMCL 36.99 Decreased By ▼ -1.22 (-3.19%)
TPLP 13.69 Decreased By ▼ -0.08 (-0.58%)
TREET 25.19 Decreased By ▼ -1.26 (-4.76%)
TRG 58.10 Decreased By ▼ -2.44 (-4.03%)
UNITY 33.90 Decreased By ▼ -0.24 (-0.7%)
WTL 1.71 Decreased By ▼ -0.17 (-9.04%)
BR100 11,878 Decreased By -420.9 (-3.42%)
BR30 37,336 Decreased By -1541.1 (-3.96%)
KSE100 111,000 Decreased By -3860.2 (-3.36%)
KSE30 34,873 Decreased By -1323.3 (-3.66%)

ISLAMABAD: In a recent development, the Competition Appellate Tribunal (CAT) has dismissed the appeal filed by Eden Builders (Pvt) Ltd, upholding the decision of the Competition Commission of Pakistan (CCP) regarding misleading advertising claims about their housing project.

In 2018, the CCP imposed a penalty of PKR 2.5 million on Eden Builders for deceptive marketing campaigns related to their ‘Eden Life Islamabad’ project, violating Section 10 of the Competition Act, 2010.

The CCP determined that Eden Builders’ claims were misleading. Specifically, their advertisement featured an illegible disclaimer about additional development charges not included in the quoted price, which was held misleading and tantamount to an omission of material price related information, thus violating Section 10 of the Competition Act.

The allusion in the advertisement of approval by CDA was also held to be a false and misleading claim, as there was no such approval.

Eden Builders filed an appeal against the CCP’s order before CAT. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and upheld CCP’s order regarding Eden Builders’ violations of Section 10 of the Act.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2024

Comments

Comments are closed.