Celebrating 25 Years of Scoop
Special: Up To 25% Off Scoop Pro Learn More

Video | Agriculture | Confidence | Economy | Energy | Employment | Finance | Media | Property | RBNZ | Science | SOEs | Tax | Technology | Telecoms | Tourism | Transport | Search

 

Yoghurt Story fined for false claims

Issued 14 October 2016
Release no. 41

Yoghurt Story fined for falsely claiming its products are yoghurt


Yoghurt Story New Zealand Limited and Frozen Yoghurt Limited have been sentenced and fined in the Auckland District Court for misleading the public about the nature and characteristics of their frozen yoghurt products.

Yoghurt Story had around 22 frozen yoghurt stores throughout New Zealand when the Commission’s investigation started and about 10 are still operating. The Judge indicated that he would have fined the companies a total of $270,000, but because they are both in liquidation the fine was reduced to $35,000 each.

All charges were under the Fair Trading Act 1986. They relate to promoting frozen yoghurt products which did not contain yoghurt, and for making misleading claims about the product’s health benefits.

Yoghurt Story made a number of misleading claims on its website about the health benefits of eating frozen yoghurt, including that its product:
Increases your immune system
Lowers the risk of subsequent heart disease and diabetes
Prevents infections once your immunity is strong. You won’t catch colds, fever and all such nasty viral and bacterial communicable diseases.
Judge David Sharp agreed with the Commission that the Yoghurt Story product was not yoghurt as defined by the Australia New Zealand Food Standard, nor did it have the specific health benefits that were claimed. It was also not probiotic yoghurt as was claimed.

“The defendants’ conduct was a cynical attempt to take advantage of consumers’ desire to make healthier food choices. The defendants themselves considered the product to be more akin to an ice cream product, yet they decided to call their stores ‘Yoghurt Story’ because it was more attractive to consumers than calling it ’Ice Cream Story,” he said.

Advertisement - scroll to continue reading

Are you getting our free newsletter?

Subscribe to Scoop’s 'The Catch Up' our free weekly newsletter sent to your inbox every Monday with stories from across our network.

In sentencing Judge Sharp also said that the health claims were a “significant departure from the truth.”

“The product simply was not yoghurt. The samples taken showed the product provided rarely met with its description,” he said.

Commissioner Anna Rawlings said that this was an important case for the Commission because consumers rely on the information that they are provided by traders when they make decisions about the products they buy.

“Where health claims or claims about product composition are made, customers rely on these claims to be accurate because they are not in a position to test the claims themselves. In this case the health claims made by the companies were not supported by scientific justification and the product was not what it was marketed to be. Yoghurt Story’s conduct was misleading as a result.”

“Where any trader makes claims about the health benefits of a product, we expect they will have appropriate research to justify the claim. This is one of a number of cases that the Commission has taken which seeks to protect consumers from misleading information about the products they are buying,” she said.

ends

© Scoop Media

Advertisement - scroll to continue reading
 
 
 
Business Headlines | Sci-Tech Headlines

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Join Our Free Newsletter

Subscribe to Scoop’s 'The Catch Up' our free weekly newsletter sent to your inbox every Monday with stories from across our network.