Nurofen Specific Pain Case

Relevant Facts:
Nurofen, the pain-relief medication is made by Reckitt Benckiser Australia, a multinational company. The company was found misleading customers for all its specific range that contained the same active ingredient ibuprofen lysine 342mg and was seen to have same effect. The product was advertised the products as been targeting back pain, period pain and tension headaches. The Company was fined $1.7m for misleading customers on range of ‘specific pain’ relief contravening Australian Consumer Law has been brought forward by ACCC. The ACCC had asked federal court to impose $6 million fine. Various representations on website were found too which lead in misleading representation. The customers were misleading to buy the more expensive

On addition, had to pay the ACCC’s costs.

Primary stakeholders: o Health professionals and buyers who have been informing and guiding parents and children on responsible use of the medication would affected the most. The Specific pain case would have resulted in losing trustworthiness and honesty between the health professionals and the patients. The buyers in situation would have lost faith in the company and might prefer choosing another brand. Thus, giving the competitor a way to overtake them. o Shareholders were affected by the case as the prices of the shares would have fall affecting the shareholder’s Return on investment. Due to fall in share price, the investor would get hesitated while buying the shares of the company in the future. o Employees of the company would lack trust among themselves as well as will lose sense of community. o Community was misloaded by the company to treat the pain specified on the packaging relevant to that product. This would have resulted in going against the Corporate social responsibility that the company needs to follow. The Corporate Social Responsibility of the company is responsible for the welfare of society. The company did not think about the community. Thus, the company had to face the title of being unethical resulting in losing its

This situation creates an identity of the company as being fake and acting against the community. The company is going against the theory of Utilitarianism which is concerned with making decisions that promote human welfare. The Company’s bad consequences were more than good consequences making it an unethical decision which resulted in a fine of $7 million.
The company was charging more price for the specific range which contained the same active ingredient breaching the theory of justice and fairness which supports the idea of fairest overall distribution of