FCFA to FCCPC: punish fake promos, don't license every ad

The Foundation for Consumer Freedom Advancement (FCFA) has submitted its comments to the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) on the Draft Sales Promotion (Amended) Regulations, 2026, ahead of the 20 October consultation deadline.

Where we agree with the Commission

The draft contains genuine anti-fraud protections, and FCFA supports them. Promised prizes must actually exist and be under the promoter's control when advertised, and must be awarded as described. The odds of winning must be disclosed. Paid endorsements must say they are paid. Bait marketing, advertising goods at low prices without the stock to back it up, is prohibited. And no consumer may be signed up for another product or mailing list without their consent.

These rules protect consumers without telling them what to buy. They punish deception, not commerce. That is the right approach, and the Commission should keep it.

Where we disagree

The problem is the draft's reach. As written, it would require the Commission's prior permission before a business may run almost any promotion:

• Every discount and advertisement would need approval. The draft defines "prize" to include a discount and "promotional activities" to include advertising itself. On a plain reading, a shop advertising a weekend sale would need the Commission's permission first. That is a permission slip for commercial speech.
• Every chatbot would need to be registered. Any business using a chatbot, virtual influencer or automated messaging tool would have to register the software with the Commission and keep two years of records on how it was built. For a small business running a WhatsApp chatbot, that is a reason not to use the technology at all.
• Only qualified professionals could speak. No influencer or brand ambassador could publish anything about health, finance or legal products without a professional qualification, and platforms would have to check credentials before anything is published. A mother paid by a bed-net brand to share how she protects her children from malaria would need a health qualification to speak from her own experience.
• Everyday discounts could become illegal. The ban on "differential pricing" would, read literally, outlaw student discounts, loyalty prices, early-bird offers and regional pricing. These are the discounts that benefit price-sensitive shoppers most.
• Websites could be blocked without a court order, platforms would be automatically liable for ads they host, and foreign sellers would need a local representative in Nigeria, raising costs that get passed to Nigerian consumers.

The heaviest costs of all of this would fall on small businesses and the low-income consumers the Commission exists to protect.

How the Commission could strengthen consumer choice

FCFA's submission asks the Commission to:

• Limit registration to prize draws and raffles, where winners are chosen by chance and fraud bites hardest, not every discount or advertisement.
• Exempt small promotions automatically, without forcing a market trader running a modest giveaway to hire an accountant and an auditor.
• Approve applications on time, with registration deemed granted if the Commission does not decide within 21 working days.
• Publish the missing fee schedule, so businesses can see what compliance will actually cost, and assess whether the regime's benefits outweigh its costs.

If the Commission goes the other route, the result will be fewer promotions, higher prices and less choice, and a Nigeria where advertising requires a regulator's permission first.

"Nigerian consumers deserve protection from fraudulent promotions, and much of this draft provides it," said Olumayowa Okediran, Chairman of FCFA. "But protection should not come at the price of requiring the Commission's permission before a business may advertise a discount."