Amazon, Zepto & 3 other platforms face FSSAI's penal action over misleading claims: Which products did it flag?

The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) has launched a sweeping enforcement drive against several of the country’s biggest e‑commerce platforms, citing a range of food‑safety violations that include misleading product claims and the sale of prohibited items. The regulator’s latest action, announced on 23 September 2026, underscores a broader shift in India’s food‑policy landscape, where digital marketplaces are being held to the same standards as traditional brick‑and‑mortar retailers. This development carries significant implications for online retailers, food manufacturers, and the regulatory apparatus that seeks to protect Indian consumers from unsafe or misbranded food products.

Scope of the crackdown: platforms and products under the scanner

The FSSAI’s notice names five major e‑commerce platforms – Amazon, Swiggy Instamart, BigBasket, Flipkart India and Zepto – as being subject to penal proceedings. The regulator’s social‑media post framed the action as a “major crackdown on e‑commerce platforms” for “regulatory non‑compliances”. While the agency has not disclosed the exact penalties pending, the initiation of formal proceedings signals a clear intent to enforce compliance across the online food‑sale ecosystem.

Specific products flagged in the regulator’s order fall into three distinct categories. First, the snack brand Happilo’s “Premium Date Bites – Zesty Orange” was cited for alleged misleading claims, prompting proceedings against all five platforms that listed the product. Second, a suite of dairy items from Milky Mist – namely Fresh Low Fat Cream, Farm Fresh Curd and Greek Yoghurt – attracted scrutiny for non‑compliant information displayed on Swiggy Instamart and BigBasket. Finally, the sale of Datura (Dhatura) fruits and seeds – classified as prohibited or potentially poisonous under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 – was found to be in violation on Amazon Seller Services, Swiggy Instamart and BigBasket.

Regulatory basis: the legal provisions invoked

The FSSAI’s actions draw on several statutory provisions. For the Datura fruits and seeds, the regulator cited violations of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, which governs the sale, listing and offering of food products deemed unsafe. In the case of the Happilo snack and Milky Mist dairy items, the authority pointed to “misbranding and potentially misleading representations”, indicating breaches of labeling and advertising standards that require factual accuracy and clarity for consumers.

These provisions are part of a broader legal framework that includes Regulation 4(2) of the Food Safety and Standards (Foods for Infant Nutrition) Regulations, 2020, and Section 3 of the Infant Milk Substitutes, Feeding Bottles and Infant Foods (Regulation of Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 1992. Although those sections were invoked in a separate case against Nestlé India, their mention highlights the regulator’s willingness to apply the same rigorous standards across product categories, from infant nutrition to everyday snacks.

Impact on e‑commerce business models

The enforcement action forces online platforms to reassess their product‑listing and verification processes. Platforms such as Amazon and Flipkart, which operate vast third‑party seller ecosystems, will need to implement tighter vetting mechanisms to ensure that listed items comply with FSSAI norms before they reach consumers. For aggregators like Swiggy Instamart and BigBasket, the findings suggest a need for more robust internal checks on brand‑supplied data, especially where nutritional or health claims are involved.

From a business‑strategy perspective, the crackdown could accelerate the adoption of automated compliance tools that cross‑reference product claims with approved labeling standards. It may also prompt platforms to renegotiate contracts with sellers, embedding stricter compliance clauses and penalties for non‑conformity. In the short term, the heightened scrutiny could lead to the temporary delisting of certain products, affecting sales volumes and inventory turnover for both the platforms and the manufacturers involved.

Consumer protection and public health considerations

The regulator’s emphasis on “misleading claims” and “prohibited or poisonous food products” reflects a growing public‑health focus on the digital supply chain. Consumers increasingly rely on online marketplaces for grocery purchases, and the presence of unsafe items like Datura seeds – known for their toxic properties – raises serious safety concerns. By publicly announcing enforcement actions, the FSSAI aims to raise consumer awareness and deter sellers from exploiting gaps in online oversight.

Moreover, the scrutiny of dairy products such as Milky Mist’s low‑fat cream, curd and Greek yoghurt underscores the importance of accurate nutritional information. Misrepresentation of fat content, protein levels or other nutritional attributes can mislead health‑conscious shoppers, potentially influencing dietary choices and health outcomes. The regulator’s focus on these claims aligns with broader national objectives to improve nutrition labeling and empower consumers with reliable data.

Parallel enforcement: the Nestlé India case

While the primary story concerns e‑commerce platforms, the FSSAI’s recent actions against Nestlé India provide context for the regulator’s overall enforcement posture. The agency launched legal proceedings over three infant nutrition products – NAN Excella Pro Stage 1, Lactogen Pro 1 and a follow‑up formula – citing violations of promotional claim restrictions under the 2020 infant‑nutrition regulations and the 1992 Infant Milk Substitutes Act.

Specific concerns included claims about “5HMOs” and “Whey Protein” in the NAN Excella Pro Stage 1 product, and a description of whey protein as “easy to digest” in Lactogen Pro 1. Laboratory testing also revealed that the follow‑up formula’s biotin content fell short of the prescribed standard, prompting a referral for re‑analysis. Nestlé’s response emphasized that its labels were approved by the FSSAI expert committee and that the company had submitted detailed scientific evidence to support its claims. The parallel case illustrates the regulator’s willingness to pursue both manufacturers and online platforms when product claims cross the line of permissible advertising.

Policy implications for the Indian food‑regulatory ecosystem

The FSSAI’s actions signal a tightening of the regulatory net around the rapidly expanding online food market. Historically, food safety oversight in India has focused on physical supply chains – manufacturers, distributors and retailers – but the digital shift necessitates new enforcement tools. By leveraging social media to announce actions and by targeting the platforms that host third‑party sellers, the regulator is adapting its outreach to match consumer purchasing habits.

In the longer term, the crackdown may prompt legislative refinements that explicitly address e‑commerce responsibilities. Potential policy measures could include mandatory pre‑listing compliance certifications, real‑time monitoring of product claims, and clearer liability frameworks for platform operators. Such steps would align India’s food‑safety architecture with global trends where digital marketplaces are increasingly treated as co‑responsible actors in product safety.

Looking ahead: what retailers and consumers can expect

For retailers, the immediate priority is to audit existing product listings for compliance with FSSAI standards, particularly regarding health claims and the inclusion of prohibited items. Platforms are likely to issue internal guidelines to sellers, mandating documentation of claim substantiation and requiring that all nutritional information be sourced from verified laboratory analyses.

Consumers, on the other hand, can anticipate greater transparency in product descriptions and labeling on e‑commerce sites. The regulator’s public disclosures serve as a warning that non‑compliant products may be removed from listings, thereby reducing the risk of exposure to unsafe foods. However, shoppers should remain vigilant, cross‑checking claims against official FSSAI resources and reporting suspicious listings through the authority’s grievance channels.

Overall, the FSSAI’s decisive move against Amazon, Swiggy Instamart, BigBasket, Flipkart India and Zepto marks a pivotal moment in India’s food‑safety enforcement, bridging the gap between offline and online markets. As the digital food economy continues to expand, the regulator’s actions set a precedent for rigorous oversight, ensuring that consumer health remains at the forefront of India’s evolving food policy framework.

This article was produced with AI-assisted research and editorial support. Reporting is based on the source material cited below. Sources: Livemint; livemint.com; Global1.News (24 September 2026).

By Dr. Raj Patel, Staff Writer