Claro, the Peru unit of América Móvil, ran ads on social media and billboards with two claims: 'la red móvil más rápida del Perú' (Peru's fastest mobile network) and 'Cámbiate a la red móvil más rápida del Perú' (switch to it). Competitor Entel Perú filed a complaint, and in October 2025 Indecopi's Comisión de Fiscalización de la Competencia Desleal ruled the claims deceptive advertising under Resolution 185-2025/CCD-INDECOPI, fining América Móvil Perú 34.98 UIT — S/ 187,143.
Claro had submitted evidence: faster 4G download speeds in 2023. The commission found it did not carry an absolute claim — nothing on upload speed, nothing on latency, nothing on 2G, 3G or 5G. An unqualified superlative implied superiority on every indicator and every technology, and the message 'no reflejaba de manera veraz la realidad del servicio ofrecido' — it did not truthfully reflect the service offered.
Indecopi ordered the immediate and definitive cessation of the campaign and entered América Móvil Perú in the Registro de Infractores, the commission's registry of offenders. A superlative that took years of 'fastest' branding came down because the evidence was one dimension narrower than the claim.
Indecopi fined Claro S/187,143 because its 4G download data couldn't support an unqualified superlative, ordering campaign cessation and registry entry.
The superlative was absolute and the proof partial — 2023 4G download data cannot carry a claim of the fastest network across all indicators and technologies.
A competitor filed the complaint: rivals are the party with the incentive and the data to test a superlative against Indecopi's veracity principle.
Cessation plus entry in the Registro de Infractores means one unproven claim costs the campaign and compounds the next infraction.
A superlative claim needs evidence as wide as the claim itself — 'fastest' unqualified means every parameter and every technology, and regulators read it that broadly.
Indecopi ordered the campaign's immediate and permanent cessation and listed América Móvil Perú in its Registro de Infractores. Peruvian coverage of the ruling framed it as the standing reminder of the principio de veracidad: objective claims must be substantiated before they run, not after the complaint.
FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE