CCPA fined Asus ₹5 lakh for advertising VG259QR monitor as G-Sync compatible; Karnataka High Court notes enforcement action

The petitioner purchased an ASUS VG259QR gaming monitor, alleging that it had been represented as NVIDIA G-Sync compatible but did not meet his expectations.

ASUS issued a “defect on arrival” certificate referring to the G-Sync compatibility issue and later provided a credit note for the purchase price.

The District Consumer Forum also allowed the petitioner’s complaint and awarded him ₹60,000 in compensation, which ASUS paid.

The petitioner then sought, among other reliefs, an inquiry and recall of the monitors, an investigation into alleged unfair trade practices and misleading advertisements, and penalties under the applicable legislation.

During the writ proceedings, the respondents produced a Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) order dated 22 March 2024, imposing a ₹5,00,000 penalty on ASUS for misleading advertisements; ASUS stated that it had paid the penalty.

The petitioner nevertheless sought to pursue the interests of other consumers.

1. Whether the petitioner’s prayers concerning the complaint before the CCPA required further orders after the CCPA had conducted an inquiry and imposed a penalty.

2. Whether the petitioner could pursue the cause of other similarly situated consumers through this writ petition.

The petition invoked Sections 19 and 20 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, concerning inquiry and recall-related relief, and Section 21, under which the CCPA imposed a penalty for misleading advertisements.

It also sought penalties under Sections 18 and 36 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009.

The Court did not interpret these provisions or state a broader substantive rule; it disposed of the petition on the basis that the CCPA had already acted on the complaint and that any further proceedings to espouse other consumers’ interests should be initiated through appropriate proceedings or remedies available in law.

The Court noted that the petitioner’s individual grievance had been addressed through the consumer forum’s compensation award and ASUS’s payment, while the CCPA had separately investigated the advertising complaint and imposed a penalty, which ASUS had paid.

In light of those subsequent developments, the Court held that the prayer relating to the CCPA complaint had spent itself.

As to the petitioner’s attempt to pursue the interests of other consumers, the Court did not determine the merits of that claim; it directed the petitioner to pursue any appropriate proceedings or alternative remedies available in law rather than continue through this petition.

The petitioner remained at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings in the manner known to law, if so advised.