“Products cannot be marketed as'BRAND headache', ‘BRAND backache’, ‘BRAND joint pain’ if they include the same active ingredients in the same quantity.”
Accordingly, I have now submitted a complaint to the CRP, TGA and ACCC alleging that the current promotion of Nurofen by Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Ltd is in breach of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (misleading and deceptive conduct) and also a number of sections of the Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code (2007).
Finally, I believe this case shows up major defects in the current complaint handling system. Sponsors can disagree with the independent CRP determination and continue to promote while the problem is referred to the TGA. TGA regulation 9 determinations are slow (and in this case legalistic and missing the wood by focusing on a tree); meanwhile promotion continues. The sponsor can advise they have complied (using a strict legalistic interpretation of words) but in fact, questionable promotion continues.
It is my view that promotion should cease once a CRP determination has been made and until such time as any review has exonerated the claims made. The current system is heavily weighted in favour of the sponsor and provides consumers with little protection.
http://theconversation.edu.au/tga-failure-gives-nurofen-consumers-a-headache-8762
