Misleading Representation of Quality under Japan’s Premiums and Representations Act

Overview

Misleading representation of quality refers to a representation that causes general consumers to believe that the quality, standard, content or other features of a product or service are significantly better than they actually are. It is one type of unfair representation prohibited under Japan’s Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations, commonly referred to as the Premiums and Representations Act.

In the food sector, this issue often arises in statements emphasizing ingredients, country of origin, manufacturing method, quality, functionality, safety or health benefits. The review should not be limited to the package label. Product pages, online advertisements, social media posts, flyers, catalogues and in-store POP materials may also be subject to review.

Food Advertising Claims That Often Cause Problems

In food advertising, expressions such as “highest quality,” “completely additive-free,” “made only from natural ingredients,” “doctor recommended,” “scientifically proven,” “industry-leading standard,” or “the only product in Japan” require careful confirmation of the supporting evidence.

Claims such as “just drink this to become healthy,” “improves your physical condition in a short period,” “prevents disease,” or “improves the body’s internal environment” may create problems not only as misleading representation of quality under the Premiums and Representations Act, but also as false or exaggerated health claims under the Health Promotion Act or as drug-like efficacy claims under the PMD Act.

Representations concerning country of origin, raw materials, manufacturing process, nutrition, functionality or comparison with other products may also be problematic if they give consumers an impression that is better than the actual product.

Practical Points for Imported Foods

For imported foods, product descriptions, advertising copy and package claims prepared by overseas manufacturers may not be suitable for use in Japan without modification. A simple Japanese translation of the overseas marketing materials may create issues under Japanese advertising and labeling rules.

Even if health-related claims or quality expressions are acceptable in the exporting country, they should be checked in Japan from the viewpoints of the Food Labeling Act, Health Promotion Act, PMD Act and Premiums and Representations Act. Particular care is required for supplements, health foods, natural foods, premium foods and products emphasizing functional benefits.

Importers and sellers should not use overseas manufacturers’ promotional wording automatically. They need to consider how Japanese consumers would understand the overall message created by the wording, images, charts, rankings and sales presentation.

Relationship with the Unsubstantiated Advertising Rule

For misleading representation of quality, reasonable evidence supporting the claim is essential. Under Japan’s advertising regulation, the Consumer Affairs Agency may request the business operator to submit documents showing reasonable grounds for representations concerning the effect or performance of a product or service.

This mechanism is often referred to in practice as the unsubstantiated advertising rule, or the substantiation rule for advertising claims. If the business operator cannot submit documents within the required period, or if the submitted documents are not regarded as reasonable grounds supporting the claim, the representation may be treated as an unfair representation.

Examples of supporting documents may include certificates of analysis, test results, product specifications, manufacturing process documents, certificates of origin, third-party evaluations and market track record data. However, the mere existence of documents is not enough. The scope of the evidence must match the actual claim being made.

Relationship with Comparison Claims

When using comparison claims such as “better than competitors’ products,” “industry-leading standard,” “Japan’s first,” “the only product in Japan,” or “significantly improved from the previous version,” the comparison target, comparison conditions, survey method and supporting evidence must be clear.

If the basis of comparison is unclear, or if similar products actually exist despite a claim suggesting uniqueness or superiority, the claim may be considered misleading. This is especially important in online sales, ranking-style advertisements and product comparison tables.

Difference from Misleading Representation of Advantage

Misleading representation of quality concerns the quality, standard, content or other features of a product or service. In contrast, misleading representation of advantage concerns price, discount rate, transaction terms or other commercial advantages.

In food sales, claims about quality, ingredients, country of origin, manufacturing process, functionality or health benefits are usually reviewed as potential misleading representation of quality. Claims about price, discount rate, campaign conditions, limited quantity or limited period are usually reviewed as potential misleading representation of advantage.

Practical Checklist

When reviewing possible misleading representation of quality, it is not enough to look only at the wording itself. The overall impression received by consumers must be compared with the actual product. Photographs, graphs, rankings, customer testimonials, expert comments, comparison tables and text embedded in images should also be checked.

Businesses handling imported foods should not use overseas advertising materials as-is. Before sales begin in Japan, the package label, product page, advertising copy, social media posts and campaign materials should be reviewed together.

In practice, the following points should be checked:

• whether the representation matches the actual product content, quality, standard, ingredients, country of origin and manufacturing method;
• whether there is reasonable evidence for health-related or functional claims;
• whether the wording may be regarded as drug-like or exaggerated under the PMD Act or Health Promotion Act;
• whether the comparison target, comparison conditions and survey method are clear when using comparison claims;
• whether the advertising expression is merely a translated version of the overseas manufacturer’s promotional material;
• whether the package label, e-commerce page, advertisement, social media post and in-store display are consistent.

Why This Matters for Overseas Suppliers and Export-Side Freight Forwarders

Overseas manufacturers, exporters, customs brokers and export-side freight forwarders may assume that advertising copy accepted in the exporting country can also be used in Japan. In practice, this assumption is risky. Japanese importers and distributors often require more cautious review because advertising, labeling and health-related claims are controlled by several different Japanese laws.

The key issue is not only whether the product itself is safe or high quality. The question is whether the wording, images and sales presentation create an impression that is stronger than what the evidence can support. Early review of advertising claims can reduce label corrections, sales delays, retailer objections, administrative risk and disputes after importation.