Delhi HC reserves order in HUL Beco advertising dispute

MUMBAI: The ad war is now waiting on a court call. The Delhi High Court on Monday reserved its order on Hindustan Unilever Ltd’s (HUL) plea seeking to restrain home-care startup Beco from running advertisements claiming that some of its products, including Vim and Surf Excel, can cause skin irritation and allergies.

The dispute centres on Beco’s ‘#WarOnWhatsHidden’ campaign, which names HUL products and draws attention to ingredients including Benzisothiazolinone (BIT) and Linear Alkylbenzene Sulfonate (LAS).

HUL has argued that while brands are free to highlight the strengths of their own products, portraying a competitor’s products as physically harmful crosses the line into unlawful defamation. Its counsel told the single judge that Beco had gone beyond permissible comparative advertising by presenting HUL products as harmful and urging consumers to switch.

The latest hearing follows a jurisdictional tussle that was settled earlier this month. On September 2, a Division Bench rejected Beco’s objection to the case being heard in Delhi. Beco had argued that both companies were registered in Mumbai and that the disputed hoarding had been installed there.

The court, however, noted that Beco had also installed hoardings in Delhi and held a GST registration in the capital. The matter was consequently sent back to Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani for hearing on its merits, with the Division Bench making it clear that the territorial jurisdiction issue could not be raised again.

Founded in 2019 by Aditya Ruia, Akshay Varma and Anuj Ruia, Beco sells eco-focused home and personal-care products including dishwashing liquid, floor cleaner, laundry liquid, tissues and bamboo toothbrushes.

The legal fight comes as ingredient and product-safety claims become an increasingly sharp-edged marketing battleground. Newer consumer brands are using health, sustainability and formulation claims to distinguish themselves, while established FMCG players are facing closer scrutiny over how competitors characterise their products.

Amid the dispute, HUL Managing Director and CEO Priya Nair has defended the safety of the company’s products, while declining to comment in detail because the matter is sub judice.

Speaking at HUL’s Capital Markets Day 2026, Nair said the company’s products meet applicable safety requirements and are developed in line with Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) requirements as well as HUL’s own consumer-safety standards.

“As you know, the matter is sub judice,” Nair said, adding that she would not comment in detail on the legal dispute. She nevertheless stressed that HUL’s products are safe and meet both BIS requirements and the company’s internal consumer-safety standards.

The court’s forthcoming order will determine whether Beco’s campaign can continue in its current form, adding another chapter to the wider debate over how far comparative advertising can go when a brand’s marketing message turns from product comparison to claims about a rival’s safety.