Back to the archive

The encyclopedia · Advertising & PR · Marketing decision · 2023

Orión gel promised to kill 99.9% of germs — Indecopi found it couldn't prove any of it

May 2023: Indecopi fined Yomar S.A.C. S/388,575 — its Orión gel said 'kills 99.9% of germs'; the claim was false, and the gel lacked its alcohol permit.

Yomar S.A.C. · 2023-05

What happened

The packaging of Yomar S.A.C.'s 'Gel Sanitizante', brand Orión, carried the promise 'Mata el 99.9 % de los gérmenes' — it kills 99.9% of germs. Read at a shelf, that is total protection. Peru's Indecopi asked the obvious question: which germs, and where is the proof?

The answer was: none. The unfair-competition commission found the claim false — the gel was not effective against all germs or bacteria as the packaging implied — and fined Yomar 78.5 UIT, S/ 388,575, in Resolution Nº 069-2023/CCD-INDECOPI of 30 May 2023. Indecopi also found the company marketing the gel without the mandatory ethyl-alcohol registry, and ordered commercialization halted until the permit was obtained.

The double finding made the case a reference point: a superlative efficacy claim needs substantiation before it is printed, and a product sold without its licence compounds the deception. '99.9%' is a number that implies a laboratory; without one, it is decoration.

Why it happened

  • '99.9% of germs' implies total protection — and the company could not prove efficacy against all germs at all.
  • The packaging claim was treated as what it functioned as: a promise about the product's core efficacy, not puffery.
  • Selling the gel without the mandatory alcohol registry compounded the case: the regulator halted the sales, not just the claim.
What it costS/388,575 fine; sales haltedcostly

The lesson

A percentage is a promise: 'kills 99.9% of germs' demands proof of which germs, measured how. Without substantiation the number is deception — and licensing gaps make it worse.

Aftermath

The order demanded the definitive cessation of the 99.9% claim and of sales until Yomar obtained the alcohol registry; the decision was open to appeal. The case sits in Peru's hygiene-claim jurisprudence beside the later Mr. Músculo ruling.

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 →