The Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine (AMCU) has imposed fines on two Ukrainian companies after determining that they disseminated misleading commercial information regarding the properties of their dietary supplements.
According to the AMCU’s findings, Vorwarts Pharma LLC placed on its packaging and online marketplaces claims about the properties of the dietary supplement “Zafacol IQ”, including statements suggesting it improves intestinal function.
Similarly, Ersel Pharma Ukraine LLC promoted claims regarding the dietary supplement “A-Keton”, including assertions that it eliminates the causes of acetone (ketone bodies) in children. These claims appeared on packaging, on websites owned by Ersel Pharma Ukraine LLC, and across the company’s social-media pages.
During the proceedings, the companies submitted, as evidence of the supplements’ purported properties, various publications describing characteristics of individual ingredients and/or articles discussing the use of dietary supplements in combination therapy with other medicinal products.
However, the Ministry of Health of Ukraine maintains that such publications do not constitute sufficient substantiation of the claimed properties of dietary supplements. Moreover, publications describing individual ingredients cannot confirm that these properties are present in the dietary supplement as a finished product.
Consequently, the information disseminated may be perceived by consumers as therapeutic claims, i.e., characteristics typical of medicinal products. This, in turn, may grant the manufacturers unlawful competitive advantages.
During the review of the case, Vorwarts Pharma LLC informed the Committee that it had ceased disseminating the disputed claims regarding “Zafacol IQ”—including on online marketplaces and its YouTube channel—and had taken measures to remove such information from the product’s packaging.
Ersel Pharma Ukraine LLC likewise halted the dissemination of misleading information about “A-Keton” on its websites and social-media pages.
At the same time, the AMCU established that neither company provided adequate confirmation that dissemination of the disputed information had ceased on the products’ packaging, which remains a central issue in the case.