Editor’s Note
This article details a consumer complaint regarding product quality and subsequent customer service issues. It highlights the importance of transparent corporate communication and effective complaint resolution mechanisms.
The complaint was initially filed in August 2021 after a user purchased different packages of Kotex panty liners in March and May of that year at a pharmacy of the Mifarma chain. The buyer detected that the products had visible anomalies such as yellowish and rust-like orange stains. Consequently, she contacted the company through social media and email to report the problem but received evasive or insufficient responses.
After several weeks without clear solutions from Kimberly-Clark, the complainant formally filed a claim with the Citizen Service Office (SAC) of Indecopi, highlighting that the manufacturer did not have a virtual complaint book, which aggravated the situation by limiting formal complaint channels.
After making the initial public complaints, Kimberly-Clark offered the customer the replacement of two additional boxes of the same product. However, these also showed stains similar to the previous ones, which reinforced concerns about product safety. In response to the user’s insistence on obtaining guarantees, the company assured that the samples would be subjected to laboratory analysis to determine the cause of the stains and confirm whether they represented any health hazard.
However, this commitment was not fulfilled. The complainant received only an envelope containing a document that did not correspond to the promised results. This generated additional frustration for the consumer, who sought clarity and certainty about the safety of the purchased products.
During the procedure, Indecopi requested that Kimberly-Clark present the laboratory results and internal protocols regarding reports of defects in its products. However, the company stated that it had not conducted these analyses, arguing that the stains were due to the use of different types of cellulose in the manufacture of the panty liners, which, according to the company, was harmless. The authority considered these explanations insufficient as they were not supported by conclusive scientific studies or concrete evidence.
Furthermore, Kimberly-Clark attempted to defend itself by alleging that it was the complainant’s responsibility to demonstrate the risk of the products. Indecopi rejected this argument based on the theory of the dynamic burden of proof, affirming that the company, having direct control and knowledge of its production processes, was the one who had to prove that its products were safe.
Finally, Indecopi decided to impose a total fine of 11 Tax Units (UIT), of which 10 UIT corresponded to the unjustified risk to health and 1 UIT for failing to deliver the promised report. Additionally, the company must refund the full cost of the defective panty liners, including legal interest, cover the expenses generated during the procedure, and register this infraction in the Indecopi Register of Infractions and Sanctions (RIS).
In addition to these sanctions, Indecopi ordered the initiation of a new administrative sanctioning procedure due to Kimberly-Clark’s non-compliance in not presenting its internal protocol for handling complaints about product defects. Similarly, the entity will analyze whether an additional ex officio procedure is warranted to determine if there are other consumers affected by similar situations with Kotex products.