Back to the archive

The encyclopedia · Advertising & PR · Marketing decision · 2025

Lau & Tan Pharmacy priced a product RM89.90 and charged RM91.90 — fined RM50,000

A Lau & Tan Pharmacy outlet showed RM89.90 on a goat's-milk product but charged RM91.90 at the counter. A Malaysian court fined it RM50,000.

Lau & Tan Pharmacy · 2025-05-28

What happened

At a Lau & Tan Pharmacy outlet in Pusat Komersial Cabang Tiga, Kuala Terengganu, a goat's-milk product was displayed with a price tag of RM89.90, but customers were charged RM91.90 at the counter.

The discrepancy occurred on 25 May 2022 and the company was prosecuted under Section 12(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act 1999 for misleading consumers on pricing.

The Kuala Terengganu Sessions Court fined the pharmacy RM50,000, with a default jail term on non-payment. The judge ruled the inaccurate pricing was a serious infringement of consumer rights that had caused confusion, noting it was not the company's first offence and that the misrepresentation had continued over a reasonable time frame without corrective action.

The fine was handed down on 28 May 2025.

Why it happened

  • A two-ringgit gap between the tag and the till is trivial to a pharmacy and a broken promise to the buyer
  • Repeating the practice while knowing about it turned one mistake into a pattern
  • A regulator willing to treat a small discrepancy as a serious breach changes the math on sloppy pricing
What it costFined RM50,000 by the Sessions Courtembarrassing

The lesson

The price on the product is the price quoted. A small overcharge costs next to nothing per sale and a lot when it is a repeat offence — the court treated it as a serious breach of consumer rights.

Aftermath

The Kuala Terengganu Sessions Court fined Lau & Tan Pharmacy RM50,000 under Section 12(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act 1999 for charging RM91.90 for a product tagged at RM89.90. The judge called the inaccurate pricing a serious infringement of consumer rights that had caused confusion, noted it was not the company's first offence, and observed the misrepresentation had continued without corrective action.

Sources

spotted an error? The club wants to know.

Comments · 0

    Sign in to join the comments.

    More like this

    Somewhere, someone solved the problem this company failed at. 2nd Opinion →