According to the court, the defendant omitted to mention material information which the average consumer needs to take an informed transactional decision.
In the view of the court, the lack of information regarding the sugar content and the fact that the comparison was made between the old and new versions of the recipe and not with competitors' products, was likely to cause the average consumer to make a decision of purchase that he/she would have not made otherwise.
As a result, this practice was considered misleading by omitting material information which the consumer needs to make an informed transactional decision.