Beco's chemical-fear ads against Vim and Surf Excel were pulled by the Delhi High Court

Beco, a Mumbai sustainable home-care startup founded in 2018, launched its #WarOnWhatsHidden campaign on August 14, 2026 — timed to its Independence Day sale. Hoardings and social reels showed Beco products next to Hindustan Unilever's Surf Excel Matic Liquid and Vim Dishwash Gel, claiming NABL-accredited lab tests had found Benzisothiazolinone (BIT) and Linear Alkylbenzene Sulfonate (LAS) in them, chemicals that 'can cause skin irritation & allergic reactions', and urging consumers to 'Switch to BECO'. The reels crossed 5.6 million views before HUL filed suit.

HUL moved the Delhi High Court for an interim injunction, alleging commercial disparagement, trademark infringement and passing off. Before Justice A.J. Bhambhani, senior advocate Amit Sibal argued Beco had only tested for the presence of the chemicals and never ran the prescribed safety test on the finished formulations, so the harm claims were unproven — and that LAS is a standard grease-cutting ingredient used across the industry, not a Vim-specific hazard. HUL also noted the launch was timed to a national holiday, so the FMCG giant could not reach a court before the sale.

On September 10, 2026 the court granted the injunction: Beco had to pull down, remove and recall every offending advertisement — hoardings, YouTube, Instagram, influencer posts and its website — within one week, then file an affidavit of compliance. Even factually accurate ingredient claims, the court held, cross from comparative advertising into commercial disparagement when the overall message tells an average consumer that a rival's product would cause redness, itching or eczema — and pairing the health scare with 'SWITCH TO BECO' revealed the campaign's commercial motive.

Every hoarding, reel and post ordered pulled within a week, with a compliance affidavit; the campaign died at the peak of its Independence Day sale push

The campaign's economics depended on fear: a small D2C brand with a 'natural' story could not outspend HUL, so it made the incumbent's chemistry the villain.

Beco relied on lab reports of isolated ingredients and a 'can cause' qualifier, but courts weigh the overall impression on an average consumer, not the literal claim.

The call to action — switch to Beco — converted a safety warning into a comparative sales pitch, which is exactly where Indian courts draw the disparagement line.

Launching on a holiday against a far larger advertiser signalled the timing was tactical, and the incumbent's scale meant an urgent injunction was worth pursuing immediately.

Truth is judged through the average consumer's eyes, not your footnotes: an accurate ingredient fact becomes disparagement when the ad implies harm. Fear-based comparison invites an injunction.

Beco's co-founder Aditya Ruia said the brand would comply while 'considering the appropriate next steps', and claimed partners were pulling hoardings under pressure from 'a much larger advertiser with far greater commercial weight'. The ruling landed mid-jurisdictional fight: a Division Bench had found the suit maintainable in Delhi — Beco has a Delhi GST registration and Delhi hoardings — leaving the territorial question open for trial. Inc42 noted the case could set the precedent for how India's D2C brands make comparative safety claims against incumbents.