• ABOUT ASCI
  • COMPLAINTS
  • CONSUMER
  • INDUSTRY
  • ASCI UPDATES
  • CONTACT US
Advertising with a Conscience

Select Month :

 
ASCI Recommendations
 

COMPANY:"Aerobok Shoes Pvt Ltd"
PRODUCT:"Aqualite"

COMPLAINT:

"1. India’s Most Trusted Brand - Consumer Validated 2016 2. Asia's Most Promising Brand 3. World's Greatest Brand Asia & Gcc 4. India's Selected No.1 Brand - India 2016"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"ASCI had forwarded the complaint to the advertiser with a request for their response to address the objections raised in the complaint. The Advertiser had not sent any response prior to the prescribed due date. Accordingly, the matter was examined by the CCC on the basis of the available materials , and an exparte decision arrived at. On receiving the CCC’s recommendation, the advertiser sought a Review. The Advertiser stated in their Review application, that the “India's Most Trusted Brand” award was conferred to their trademark 'AQUALITE"" in 2016 by M/s International Brand Consulting Corporation, USA; that the “Asia's Most Promising Brands” award was conferred to their trademark AQUALITE in 2016 by M/s World Consulting & Research Corporation which had partnered with the concern 'Ibrands 360' for the purposes of research and evaluation; that the “Worlds' Greatest Brand Asia & Gcc” award was conferred to their trademark AQUALITE in 2015 by M/s URS INTERNATIONAL ASIA ONE which had partnered with United Research Services' for purposes of research and evaluation and that the “India's Selected No. 1 Brand-India 2016” award was conferred to the advertiser’s trademark AQUALITE in respect of 'India's Best Footwear category' in 2016 by M/s International Brand Consulting Corporation, USA. As claim support data, the advertiser provided copies of the above recognitions/awards, and copy of the Aqualite survey data. The claim support data was reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. The CCC viewed the advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response as well as the opinion of the Technical expert, both of which were presented in the meeting. The CCC observed as follows in this matter: Regarding the Claim, “India’s Most Trusted Brand – Consumer Validated 2016”: The questionnaires used and the survey responses for the Most Trusted Brand and India’s No.1 Brand for the footwear category was reviewed. There is an indication in the questionnaire that if the survey participant wished to vote for more than 1 brand, the form could be filled up multiple times. The reward for the survey participants was a chance to win in a lucky draw for a 2- night holiday package in Bangkok. As this could have acted as a strong incentive for the same person to fill up multiple firms, the validity of this survey methodology was questionable. Further, since both the surveys refer to the footwear category, having two very different top competing brands as the most trusted brand and as India's no.1 brand is a little confusing. Taking all these aspects into consideration, the CCC opined that these surveys do not appear to have been done with sufficient rigour to merit consideration and be the basis of any claims that can be used in advertising. Regarding the Claim “Asia’s Most Promising Brand”: This award was conferred by one M/s World Consulting & Research Corporation (WCRC). It is seen that WCRC claims to be “India's leading Brand Ratings and Listing, Consulting, Research and Knowledge Firm”. According to M/s Aerobok, WCRC had partnered with M/s‘ibrands 360’ for the purposes of research and evaluation. However, it is seen that the WCRC web site indicates that ‘ibrands 360’ is a unit of WCRC. Further, the letter of M/s Aerobok does provide some detail on Research Methodology as: “a comprehensive in depth primary survey which was conducted pan India”. However, it was felt that this level of detail is insufficient to judge the comprehensiveness and the statistical rigour of the primary survey. Regarding the Claim “World's Greatest Brand - Asia & GCC”: This award was conferred by one M/s URS International, which partnered with United Research Services for the purposes of research and evaluation. M/s Pricewaterhouse Coopers (PwC) has been mentioned as the Process Reviewer. The advertiser had provided details on the Research Methodology; however, Phase 1 refers to secondary research and has a reference to online surveys (without mentioning sample coverage or response rates). Other Phases of research refer to in-company audit questionnaires and jury and editorial scrutiny questionnaires, but do not speak about any independent consumer evaluation. Regarding the Claim, “India's Selected No.1 Brand - India 2016”: This award was conferred by International Brand Consulting Corporation in respect of ‘India’s Best Footwear Category’. The attachment focuses on the date of the Awards event and has absolutely no detail whatsoever on the basis for awarding the recognition on Aqualite footwear. Based on the above information and inputs, the CCC concluded that the claims, “India’s Most Trusted Brand - Consumer Validated 2016”, “Asia's Most Promising Brand”, “World's Greatest Brand Asia & Gcc”, and “India's Selected No.1 Brand - India 2016”, were inadequately substantiated and are misleading. The advertisement accordingly contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. Therefore, the CCC concluded that its earlier recommendation of the Complaint being UPHELD, STANDS ON REVIEW."

COMPANY:"Asian Paints (I) Ltd"
PRODUCT:"Asian Paints Royale Atmos"

COMPLAINT:

"“Royale Atmos - air purifying paint” “Activated carbon technology” “It destroys harmful pollutants, making the air inside your home purer than ever before”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"On receiving the CCC’s recommendation, the advertiser sought a Review of the same. The advertiser was given a personal hearing by the ASCI Secretariat, in which they made a presentation of their product’s features. Subsequently, they submitted their written response and confirmed that the said TVC has been withdrawn pending review recommendation. As claim support data, the advertiser provided a copy of the presentation, Atmos Slurry Batch Card, Dow Testing Certificate, and Chemical Reduction (Vashi Flat) Results. The claim support data was reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. The CCC viewed the TVC and considered the Advertiser’s response for Review as well as the opinion of the Technical expert, both of which were presented at the meeting. The CCC observed that: The Advertiser provided Test data for formaldehyde and additional pollutants like cigarette some, garlic odour, H2S, etc. However, the test methodology for formaldehyde abatement efficiency test is inadequate in view of the fact that control data for an unpainted chamber, or a chamber painted with ordinary paint has not been provided, as it was provided for some other pollutants. Furthermore, the data on longevity of the product effect was not adequate. Based on the above analysis, the CCC concluded that the claims, “Air purifying paint” and “It destroys harmful pollutants, making the air inside your home purer than ever before”, were inadequately substantiated and are misleading by exaggeration, and that the TVC contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI’s Code. Accordingly, it was held that the complaint being UPHELD in the first level, STANDS ON REVIEW. The Advertiser provided factory process sheets which shows that the formulation does indeed have activated carbon, in small quantities only for some colours, since the black colour of the carbon prevents it from being universally used for all colours. The CCC concluded that the claim, “Activated carbon technology”, was substantiated. This complaint is Not Upheld on Review."

COMPANY:"HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd"
PRODUCT:"HDFC life Cancer care"

COMPLAINT:

“1 in 8 Indian Men are likely to contract cancer at some point in their life.”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"“I found this HDFC life mailer misleading ..."" 1 in 8 Indian men are likely to contract cancer at some point of time"". 1. It means 1 in 8 Indians likely to suffer cancer?? 2. Is cancer a contagious disease?? 3. What is the scientific rationale behind likely t9 contract?? 4. Based on which epidemiological study advertiser arrived at number 1 out of 8?? 5. Is there any prevalence data exist to substantiate the claim??”"

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat, which they did not avail; However they submitted their written response. The CCC viewed the Ad - emailer and considered the Advertiser’s response. The Advertiser stated that the excerpts in the creative communication have been taken from a published source. The claim is being made on the basis of an article by the Tribune News Service dated May 19, 2016. The article has some of the revelations of Indian Council of Medical Research data. Further, as claim support data, the Advertiser provided a link to this article. The CCC opined that article authored by the Tribune News Service cannot be considered as credible and authentic scientific reference in this regard. The CCC concluded that the claim, “1 in 8 Indian Men are likely to contract cancer at some point in their life”, was not substantiated with authentic supporting evidence, and is misleading by exaggeration exploiting consumers’ lack of knowledge. The Ad - emailer contravened Chapters I.1, I.4 and I.5 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly, UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"ALS Satellite Education Private Limited - ALS Satellite Education"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"1. India's Largest IAS Coaching Institution 2. All India 1st Rank for 3 times 3. 2208+ Selections in last 15 years 4. 180+ Selections in 2016 Exam"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"ASCI forwarded a copy of the complaint to the advertiser, and requested the advertiser for their response to the objections raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat, which they did not avail . The CCC further noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the advertisement. In the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claims, “India's Largest IAS Coaching Institution”, and “All India 1st Rank for 3 times”, were not substantiated with any verifiable, authentic, and comparative data vis-a-vis other similar institutes in the same category, or, reports of any third party validation or research to prove these claims. The Claims “2208+ Selections in last 15 years”, and “180+ Selections in 2016 Exam”, were not substantiated with verifiable claim support data, and are misleading by exaggeration and implication. The advertisement was therefore considered to have contravened the “Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs”, as well as Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was hence UPHELD."

COMPANY:"St. Bonnie White College of Nursing"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“100% Scholarship.”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not opt to avail , and submitted their written response post the prescribed due date. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. The Advertiser stated that they admit eligible candidates under 100% free scholarship, those who met the criteria such as candidates belonging to below poverty line / or being orphans, and secure more than 95% marks in their Higher Secondary Examination. They further stated that they had already admitted 4 candidates from the House of Peace Orphanage, two of them being in the 3rd year, and two in lst year of B.Sc (Nursing) course. They are pursuing their education with 100% scholarship.. The CCC noted that the Advertiser’s response had only assertions of the scholarship being offered by them, but they had not provided any supporting data for the claim. In the absence of claim support data, the CCC concluded that the claim, “100% Scholarship”, was not substantiated with authentic supporting data such as evidence of 100% scholarships availed by any of their students; and that the claim was misleading by exaggeration and ambiguity regarding the amount of scholarship and the total number of scholarships offered. The advertisement was therefore considered to have contravened the “Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs” as well as Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"IT Champs Software Pvt. Ltd"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"“1. Free Internships provided with Assured Placements. 2. Assured Placements for Candidates enrolling in SAP S4 HANA Certification”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"ASCI approached the advertiser for their response to the objections raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat, which they did not avail. . The CCC also noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date. The CCC viewed the advertisement. In the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claims, “Free Internships provided with Assured Placements”, and “Assured Placements for Candidates enrolling in SAP S4 HANA Certification”, were not substantiated with verifiable claim support data and were therefore misleading by exaggeration; and that the advertisement contravened the “Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs” as well as Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"British Fort Foundation"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"1. “The Most Awarded CBSE School” 2. “The Most Awarded International CBSE School”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"ASCI forwarded the complaint to the advertiser and requested their response to the objections raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail. The CCC also noted that no response was received from the advertiser on the complaint prior to the prescribed due date. The CCC viewed the advertisement. The advertiser had not provided any details of the process in which the School was selected for the award, such as the survey methodology, parameters considered, questionnaires used, criteria for evaluation, names of other schools that were also surveyed, outcome of the survey, and a copy of the award/certificate. In the absence of any of the above details from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claims, “The Most Awarded CBSE School”, and “The Most Awarded International CBSE School”, were not substantiated with any supporting evidence and were misleading by exaggeration. The advertisement was considered to be in contravention of the “Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs” as well as Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Motion Education Pvt. Ltd."
PRODUCT:"Rao Classes"

COMPLAINT:

“The Most Trusted Institute for Pre Engineering, Medical, Foundations.”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"ASCI had forwarded the complaint to the advertiser with a request to respond to the objection raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat, which they did not avail. The CCC also noted that response on the complaint was not received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date. The CCC viewed the advertisement and in the absence of any comments from the Advertiser, it concluded that the claim “The Most Trusted Institute for Pre Engineering, Medical, Foundations” was not substantiated with any verifiable, authentic comparative data for this institute vis-à-vis other similar institutes in the same category, or through any third party validation; and was therefore misleading by exaggeration. The advertisement was also considered to be in contravention of the “Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs” as well as Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Vijayam Educational Institutions- Vijayam Coaching Centre"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“No.1 Institution in Chittor since 16 years”, “Pay one time fees, coaching up to acquiring job”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat, which they did not avail; The advertiser however submitted their written response. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. The Advertiser stated that in Chittoor town most coaching centers started only in 2015. The Advertiser’s institute started in 2000, and they have been running the same till date with the good feedback from their students. The Advertiser further stated that since most of their students were from rural background with no access to the libraries and internet, they assure them the facility of paying one-time fees and availing their coaching, library and computer lab facility with internet. The CCC viewed the advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC noted that the advertiser’s response had only assertions about the performance of their institute, without any supporting data for their claims. The CCC did not agree with the advertiser’s contention that by being the first to establish in Chittoor town, they are No.1. In the absence of claim support data, the CCC concluded that the claim, “No.1 Institution in Chittor since 16 years”, was not substantiated with any verifiable, authentic comparative data of the advertiser’s institute vis-à-vis other similar institutes in that area, or with any third party validation. Further, the CCC concluded that the Claim, “Pay one time fees, coaching up to acquiring job”, was also not substantiated with supporting evidence of any students who had availed of such facility, for verification. The claims were hence considered to be misleading by exaggeration and implication; and the advertisement to be in contravention of the “Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs” as well as Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"V Rahul Coaching "
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“SBI P.O's 100% Job Guarantee or Fees returned.”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"ASCI forwarded the complaint to the advertiser and requested their response to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat, which they did not avail. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the advertisement, and in the absence of any response or comments from the Advertiser, it concluded that the claim, “SBI P.O's 100% Job Guarantee or Fees returned”, was not substantiated with supporting evidence such as detailed list of students who have succeeded in SBI PO’s recruitment after having received training in the Advertiser’s Institute, contact details of such students for verification, enrolment forms and appointment letters received by the students from SBI, etc, or any independent audit or verification certificate regarding the same. Further, the advertiser had also not provided any supporting evidence of unsuccessful candidates being refunded with the fees. Hence, the claims were considered misleading by exaggeration, and the advertisement considered to be in contravention of Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"OJB Herbals Pvt Ltd."
PRODUCT:"Oshea Sun Block SPF 40"

COMPLAINT:

"UVSHIELD ‐ A skin friendly, gentle Sun Protection for every skin tone under the sun. 1. 5 IN ONE SOLUTION SPF 40. 2. 5‐in 1 effects - Skin lightening - Prevents tanning & ageing 3. MATTIFYING SUNBLOCK CREAM SPF‐40 4. Other SPF Range: ‐ UVSHIELD SPF‐ 50 ‐ SUN BLOCK FORMULA ‐ Broad Spectrum Protection (HEVL) All skin type 5. UVSHIELD SPF‐30 ‐SUN BLOCK CREAM ‐ Enriched with Almond All skin type 6. UVSHIELD SPF‐25 ‐ SUNSCREEN ‐ Fairness Lotion ‐ All skin type 7. UVSHIELD SPF‐20 ‐ SUNBLOCK GEL ‐ Enriched with Alovera Normal to Oily skin."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat, which they did not avail; The advertiser, however, responded to the request for comments in the complaint, post the prescribed due date. The Advertiser referred to their earlier correspondence of August 2016 submitted with regard to a past complaint (1607-C.828) against their print advertisement of “Oshea Herbals – Oshea Sunblock Cream SPF 40”. As this complaint was processed for a different creative, ASCI requested the advertiser to submit claim support data specific to product depicted in the current advertisement. No response was received from the Advertiser within the prescribed due date for being placed in the meeting. In the absence of any claims support data, the CCC concluded that the claims, “5 In One Solution SPF 40”, “Skin lightening”, “Prevents tanning & ageing”, and SPF values for their product range - Other SPF Range: ‐ UVSHIELD SPF‐ 50 ‐ SUN BLOCK FORMULA ‐ Broad Spectrum Protection (HEVL) All skin type”, “UVSHIELD SPF‐30 ‐SUN BLOCK CREAM ‐ Enriched with Almond All skin type”, “UVSHIELD SPF‐25 ‐ SUNSCREEN ‐ Fairness Lotion ‐ All skin type”, “UVSHIELD SPF‐20 ‐ SUNBLOCK GEL ‐ Enriched with Alovera Normal to Oily skin” , were not substantiated with evidence of technical evaluation for measurement of SPF factor in each product and proof of product efficacy, and were therefore misleading. Accordingly, the advertisement was considered to have contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code, and the complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Fit N Slim Fitness Centre"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“Instant Result (100% Result)”, “Reduce 2‐3 inch in 1 sitting”, “5 ‐7 Kg in a month”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"Newspaper ad for ENFAGROW A+ The ad claims to help brain development in children. Brain development depends on multiple factors including training, observation, nutrition, etc. Natural milk contains all the required nutrients."

Recommendation: UPHELD

"ASCI approached the concerned media entity (Sandesh) for their assistance in providing the contact details of the advertiser, or to forward the complaint to the advertiser. The CCC noted that no response was received from either the advertiser or the concerned media entity prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the print advertisement, and noted that the advertiser had not provided any details of the treatment procedure for weight reduction. In the absence of response from the concerned media entity or comments from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claims, “Instant Result (100% Result)”, “Reduce 2‐3 inch in 1 sitting”, and “5 ‐7 Kg in a month”, were not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence and data on the effectiveness of the treatment, and were hence misleading by exaggeration. The advertisement was therefore considered to have contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Abhivyakti"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“Complete Body Transformation Workshop”, “Body Sculpting Art & Posture Enhancement”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: NOT UPHELD

"ASCI could not identify the address of the advertiser from the advertisement, and hence approached the concerned Media entity (Dainik Bhaskar) for their assistance in providing the contact details of the advertiser, or to forward the complaint to the advertiser. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser or from the concerned media entity prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the print advertisement, and in the context of the advertisement for a workshop announcement, did not consider the claims, “Complete Body Transformation Workshop”, “Body Sculpting Art & Posture Enhancement”, to be objectionable. This complaint was NOT UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"ReeAge"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"1. Latest PRP Stem Cell Technology for Hair regrowth The before and after visuals in the ad appears to be misleading."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"ASCI forwarded the complaint to the advertiser and requested their response to the objections raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was also offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat, which they did not avail. The CCC also noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the advertisement, and noted that the advertiser had not provided any details of the treatment procedure for Hair regrowth through stem cell technology. In the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claims, “Latest PRP Stem Cell Technology for Hair regrowth”, was not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence, and with treatment efficacy data among patients. The CCC further opined that the efficacy of the above claim depicted via images of before and after the treatment is misleading by gross exaggeration, and that the advertisement was in contravention of Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Fit N Fine Body Care Services Pvt. Ltd."
PRODUCT:"Fit N Fine"

COMPLAINT:

"1. Instant Inch Loss Through Non‐surgical Liposuction. 2. Guaranteed 5 Kgs Weight Loss 3. Immediate visible Results ‐ Lose 6‐8 cms* Results within 60 minutes The visual in the ad appears to be misleading."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat, which they did not avail; but responded stating that they had not published any advertisement in the New Delhi edition of Times of India. Subsequently, ASCI informed the advertiser of the correct publication details. The CCC noted that no response was received from the Advertiser for the revised information, in time for the CCC meeting. The CCC viewed the advertisement and noted that the advertiser had not provided any details of the treatment procedure for weight reduction through Non‐surgical Liposuction. In the absence of claim support data, the CCC concluded that the claims, “Instant Inch Loss Through Non‐surgical Liposuction”, “Guaranteed 5 Kgs Weight Loss”, and “Immediate visible Results ‐ Lose 6‐8 cms* Results within 60 minutes”, were not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence, and treatment efficacy data; and are hence misleading by exaggeration. The CCC further opined that the efficacy sought to be depicted through an image purporting to be that of “after the treatment” was misleading by gross exaggeration. The advertisement was therefore considered to be in contravention of Chapters I.1and I.4 of the ASCI Code, and the complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Win –Medicare Pvt. Ltd"
PRODUCT:"Mederma Intense Gel"

COMPLAINT:

"1. Now get the flawless skin in just 8 weeks from Acne Scars. 2. USA's No.1 Doctor Recommended Scar Brand. 3. TRIPLE RESTORE ACTION 4. USA's #1 PHARMACIST RECOMMENDED SCAR BRAND. Packaging Claim (in advertisement): “Helps to reduce the appearance of OLD and NEW SCARS”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The advertiser was granted an extension of seven days to the prescribed due date to submit their reply in response to their request. Subsequently, the advertiser representatives were given personal hearing by ASCI at which time they submitted their written response. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. The Advertiser stated that study published in the “Journal of Clinical and Aesthetic Dermatology” concluded that the new proprietary onion extract gel improved the appearance of new scars. It showed scar appearance improvement from base line after two and four weeks of gel application; it reflected improvement in texture, redness and softness of scar. The claim, “Now get the flawless skin in just 8 weeks from Acne Scars”, is based on the clinical study which showed significantly reduced scar size and redness, improved texture and overall appearance of the Scars. As claim support data, the advertiser provided a copy of the clinical study published in “The Journal of clinical and Aesthetic Dermatology”, and Product Approval License from Regulatory Authority. The CCC reviewed the data and concluded that while the product did demonstrate benefit of reducing the appearance of scars, the claim, “Flawless” in the statement “Now get the flawless skin in just 8 weeks from Acne Scars”, was inadequately substantiated and was misleading by exaggeration. The advertisement was therefore considered to be in contravention of Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. This complaint was accordingly UPHELD. The CCC noted the advertiser’s willingness to remove the objected claim. The Advertiser further stated that the “US News and World Report”, OTC Guide June 2015, and an Article from the “Pharmacy Times” shows that Mederma has been named a #1 Pharmacist-recommended brand in the Pharmacy Times Annual Pharmacists. The advertiser further stated that the “IMS USA prescription Analysis” (MAT December 2015), revealed that Mederma is the No.1 Doctor -Recommended project in USA. As claim support data, the advertiser provided copy of IMS health data and link for article in Pharmacy Times. The claim support data for this complaint was reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. The CCC considered the Technical expert’s opinion, which was presented in the meeting. The CCC noted that based on the information provided by the Advertiser and in absence of any data contrary to the recommendation leadership claims, the CCC concluded that the claims, “USA's No.1 Doctor Recommended Scar Brand”, and “USA's #1 Pharmacist Recommended Scar Brand”, were substantiated. The claims “Triple Restore Action” was not considered to be objectionable. Accordingly, these complaints were NOT UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Hair Doc Hair Clinic"
PRODUCT:"Hair Doc Trichology Hair Clinic"

COMPLAINT:

"“Stop Baldness on time!”, “Honoured by 'Keshratna' Award” The before and after visuals in the ad appears to be misleading"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"ASCI forwarded a copy of the complaint to the advertiser with a request for their response in addressing the objections raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail. The CCC further noted that no response was received from the advertiser within the prescribed due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the advertisement and noted that the advertiser had not provided details of the treatment procedure for stoppage of Baldness. In the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claims, “Stop Baldness on time!”, was not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence as well as with treatment efficacy data among patients; and was therefore misleading by exaggeration. Further, the CCC opined that the Claim, “Honoured by 'Keshratna' Award”, was not substantiated with details, references of the award received such as the year, source, etc. and that the claim was misleading. Lastly, the CCC opined that the efficacy of the advertised treatment, depicted through images of “before and after the treatment” were misleading by gross exaggeration. The CCC accordingly concluded that the advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code, and the complaint was UPHELD."

 
 

COMPANY:"The Medinova Retreat"
PRODUCT:"MediSpa"

COMPLAINT:

"“Now reducing weight is very easy”, “Reduce 3 inches from tummy within 10 hours only*” The visual in the ad appears to be misleading"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"ASCI had forwarded a copy of the complaint to the advertiser with a request for their response in addressing the objections raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail. The CCC also noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the advertisement, and noted that the advertiser had not provided any details of the treatment procedure for weight reduction. In the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claims, “Now reducing weight is very easy”, and “Reduce 3 inches from tummy within 10 hours only*”, were not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence, as well as the data showing treatment efficacy among patients. The CCC further concluded that the claims and efficacy being depicted in the image of “after the treatment” was misleading by gross exaggeration. The advertisement was therefore considered to have contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Dr. Adityan Skin and Hair Laser Centre"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

""1. Permanent Treatment for Pimples. 2. Permanent Cure for Pimples The before and after visuals in the ad appears to be misleading""

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat, which they did not avail; however, the advertiser submitted their written response in the matter. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. The Advertiser stated that it has been mentioned in the website of the ""American Academy Of Dermatology"", that 85% of acne patients can be permanently cleared after a single course of Isotretinoin Therapy; hence, the claim is backed by standard scientific evidence. As claim support data, the advertiser referred to a website link of American Academy Of Dermatology’s article on “Isotretinion: Treatment for severe acne”. The CCC considered this data to be inadequate as it refers to cure of only 85% of acne patients and not 100%. The CCC concluded that the claims, “Permanent Treatment for Pimples”, and “Permanent Cure for Pimples”, are absolute claims which were inadequately substantiated with clinical evidence, and are misleading by exaggeration. The CCC also opined that the claims of efficacy depicted through images of “before and after” the treatment were misleading by gross exaggeration. In view of the foregoing discussion, the CCC concluded that the advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "BusinessEx.com"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"“India's # 1 Business Broking Company”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"ASCI forwarded a copy of the complaint to the advertiser and requested their response in addressing the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail. The CCC further noted that response was not received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the advertisement, and in the absence of comments from the Advertiser, concluded that the claim, “India's # 1 Business Broking Company”, was not substantiated with any verifiable, authentic comparative data with other similar companies; or any third party validation or research to prove this claim, and was misleading by exaggeration. The advertisement was hence considered to be in contravention of Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "VSS Health and Wellness Center"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"1. 100% Guarantee of weight loss or money back. 2. Reduce upto 5 Kg weight and get more upto 5 kg free. 3. Reduce upto 10 Kg weight and get more upto 10 kg free"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI forwarded a copy of the complaint to the advertiser with a request for their response on the same. The Advertiser was also offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail. The CCC further noted that response was not received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the advertisement, and noted that the advertiser had not provided any details of the treatment procedure for weight reduction. In the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claims, “100% Guarantee of weight loss or money back”, “Reduce upto 5 Kg weight and get more upto 5 kg free”, and “Reduce upto 10 Kg weight and get more upto 10 kg free”, were not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence, and with treatment efficacy data among patients, and that they were misleading by exaggeration. The CCC further noted that, the advertiser had not provided any supporting evidence of customers to whom the money was refunded. The advertisement was therefore considered to have contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code, and the complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Oliva Advanced Hair and Skin Clinic"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"1. Treatment of Hair Loss and Hair Fall by using Platelet cells. 2. Treatment without side effects 3. New permanent solution can be got from baldness."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"ASCI had forwarded a copy of the complaint to the advertiser with a request for their response on the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail. The CCC further noted that response was not received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the advertisement and noted that the advertiser had not provided any details of the Platelet Cell treatment procedure for Hair loss. In the absence of any comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claims, “Treatment of Hair Loss and Hair Fall by using Platelet cells”, “Treatment without side effects”, and “New permanent solution can be got from baldness”, were not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence, and with treatment efficacy data among patients, and are misleading by exaggeration. The advertisement was therefore considered to have contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code, and the complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Lotus Herbals Limited"
PRODUCT:"Lotus Whiteglow Range of Products"

COMPLAINT:

"1. LOTUS WHITEGLOW ‐ it comes enriched with saxifrage extracts and milk enzymes that help Lighten, Whiten your skin in 7 days*. 2. Visible results in 7 days* ‐ WHITEGLOW is the only natural fairness range that can deliver visible results in 7 days* of regular use. 3. Clinical Trials show that the following ingredients lighten, whiten & brighten the skin in 7 days* of regular use: SAXIFRAGA EXTRACTS ‐ Act as antioxidants & prevent damage from UV radiation. 4. WHITEGLOW HAND & BODY LOTION ‐ ‐ SPF 25 ‐ PA+++ 5. WHITEGLOW FACIAL FOAM ‐ 3 in 1 DEEP CLEANSING. ‐ Whitens ‐ Blocks Melanin Production 6. WHITEGLOW SERUM + MOISTURISER ‐ UPTO 2X SKIN WHITENING & BRIGHTENING POWER 7. WHITEGLOW Skin Whitening and Brightening Gel Creme‐ SPF 25 ‐ PA+++."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"ASCI had forwarded a copy of the complaint to the advertiser with a request for their response on the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail. The CCC further noted that response was not received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the advertisement, and in the absence of comments from the Advertiser, it concluded that the claims, “LOTUS WHITEGLOW ‐ it comes enriched with saxifrage extracts and milk enzymes that help Lighten, Whiten your skin in 7 days*”, “Visible results in 7 days* ‐ WHITEGLOW is the only natural fairness range that can deliver visible results in 7 days* of regular use”, “Clinical Trials show that the following ingredients lighten, whiten & brighten the skin in 7 days* of regular use: SAXIFRAGA EXTRACTS ‐ Act as antioxidants & prevent damage from UV radiation, claim of SPF value of WHITEGLOW HAND & BODY LOTION i.e. SPF 25 ‐ PA+++, whitening claim for WHITEGLOW FACIAL FOAM ‐ 3 in 1 DEEP CLEANSING i.e. Whitens ‐ Blocks Melanin Production, WHITEGLOW SERUM + MOISTURISER ‐ UPTO 2X SKIN WHITENING & BRIGHTENING POWER”, claim of SPF value of “WHITEGLOW Skin Whitening and Brightening Gel crème ‐ i.e. SPF 25 ‐ PA+++”, were not substantiated with evidence of product efficacy, and are misleading by exaggeration. The CCC concluded that the claims were misleading, and that the advertisement had contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "VLCC Health Care Ltd."
PRODUCT:"VLCC Health Care Ltd."

COMPLAINT:

"“Weight Loss Challenge! ‐ Lose 10 kgs in 7 days”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail. However, they submitted their written response post the prescribed due date. The Advertiser stated that it was a genuine error and an inadvertent lapse by the franchisee, and that they had stopped further publication of the said advertisement. The CCC noted that the advertiser had not provided any details of the treatment procedure for weight reduction through their slimming programme. In the absence of any claim support data, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Weight Loss Challenge! ‐ Lose 10 kgs in 7 days”, was not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence, and was misleading by exaggeration. The advertisement was considered to have contravened Chapters I.1and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Dr. Batra’s Positive Health Clinic"
PRODUCT:"Dr. Batra’s Homeopathic Clinic"

COMPLAINT:

“India's Most Trusted Homeopathy Brand”, “94% patient satisfaction”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"ASCI had forwarded a copy of the complaint to the advertiser with a request for their response on the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat, which they did not avail. The CCC further noted that response was not received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the advertisement, and opined that the advertiser had not provided any supporting evidence such as survey methodology, parameters considered, questionnaires used, criteria used for evaluation, names of other similar institutes that were part of the survey and outcome of the survey. In the absence of any response or comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “India's Most Trusted Homeopathy Brand”, was not substantiated; nor were the source and date of research mentioned in the advertisement. The claim was therefore considered to be misleading by omission. The CCC further opined that the Claim, “94% patient satisfaction” too, was not substantiated with any supporting evidence of patient satisfaction data, and was hence considered misleading. In view of the above discussion, the advertisement was considered to have contravened Chapters I.1, I.2 and I.4 of the ASCI Code, and the complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Complete Health Solutions Private Limited"
PRODUCT:"You Stay Fit"

COMPLAINT:

"“Odisha's No.1 GYM & Slimming Centre”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"“Odisha's No.1 GYM & Slimming Centre” prove this claim. In view of the above, the claim was considered to misleading by exaggeration; and the advertisement was considered to have contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. This complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Mind Power Clinic"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"1. We prove 100 percent treatment for Alcohol addiction. 2. Our treatment/medicine is so effective that the patient will be completely cured before he even realizes, what has been done to him."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"ASCI had forwarded a copy of the complaint to the advertiser with a request for their response on the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail. The CCC further noted that response was not received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the advertisement, and in the absence of any response or comments from the Advertiser, it concluded that the claims, “We prove 100 percent treatment for Alcohol addiction”, and “Our treatment/medicine is so effective that the patient will be completely cured before he even realizes, what has been done to him”, were not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence, and were therefore misleading by gross exaggeration. The advertisement was considered to have contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code, and the complaint accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Medical Super 50 "
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"“Upto 100% Scholarship”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"ASCI had forwarded a copy of the complaint to the advertiser with a request for their response on the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail. The CCC further noted that response was not received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the advertisement, and concluded that in the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the claim, “Upto 100% Scholarship”, was not substantiated with any authentic supporting data such as evidence of 100% scholarships availed by any of their students; and that the claim was misleading by exaggeration and ambiguity regarding the amount of scholarship and the total number of scholarships being offered. In view of the above discussion, the CCC opined that the advertisement contravened the “Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs” as well as Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Career Point"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"“No.1 Corporate Play School in SAGAR”."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"ASCI had forwarded a copy of the complaint to the advertiser with a request for their response on the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail. The CCC noted that response was not received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the advertisement, and concluded that in the absence of any response or comments from the Advertiser, the claim, “No.1 Corporate Play School in SAGAR”, was not substantiated with verifiable comparative data of the advertiser and other similar institutes, or any third party validation. The CCC further opined that the claim was misleading by exaggeration. In view of the above, the advertisement was considered to have contravened the “Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs” as well as Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Institute of Rural Management"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"“100% Placement Record”. “Objectionable material - ""PLACEMENT - 100% RECORD"". No material to sustain the claim.”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail. However, they submitted their written response in which they had questioned the legal authority and jurisdiction of ASCI to deal with such complaints and issue notices suo moto. As claim support data, the advertiser provided a summary of Students Placement List (2015-16). As this response was inadequate, ASCI further requested the advertiser to submit additional data for verification, to which no response was received in time for the meeting. The CCC viewed the advertisements and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC further recalled, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India’s recent judgement in the matter of “Common Cause (A Regd Society) v Union of India and Ors”, in which the Hon Supreme Court had affirmed and recognised the self-regulatory mechanism put in place by bodies like ASCI as an effective pre-emptive step to statutory provisions in the sphere of media regulation for TV and Radio programmes in India. The Court further observed that grievance redressal platform provided by self-regulatory bodies like ASCI, function as the first step for aggrieved consumers against content in the media which might not be in line with the existing laws. In the absence of additional claim support data, the CCC concluded that the claim, “100% Placement Record”, was not substantiated with authentic supporting data such as detailed list of students who have been placed through their Institute, their enrolment forms and appointment letters received by the students; nor any independent audit or verification certificate had been submitted in this regard. Further, the claim was considered to be misleading by exaggeration. In view of the above discussion, the CCC concluded that the advertisements in question had contravened the “Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs” as well as Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaints were accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"First Guide Academy"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"“Upto 100% Scholarship” Claim is misleading by ambiguity”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI had forwarded a copy of the complaint to the advertiser with a request for their response on the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. Upon viewing the advertisement, and in the absence of any response or comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Upto 100% Scholarship”, was not substantiated with any authentic supporting data such as evidence of 100% scholarships availed by any of their students. Further, the claim was considered to be misleading by exaggeration and ambiguity regarding the amount of scholarship and the total number of scholarships being offered. In view of the above discussion, the advertisement was found to contravene the Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Cokonet Technologies Pvt Ltd"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“100% Placement Record”.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail. The Advertiser stated in their written response and comments that they select candidates for training on the basis of merit. The maximum number of candidates taken for in house training is five and once candidates complete training, they get placed also, in which process, they achieve a 100% placement record. Advertiser did not provide any supporting data for the above claim. Upon viewing the advertisement and considering the Advertiser’s response, and in the absence of any claim support data, the CCC concluded that the claim, “100% Placement Record”, was not substantiated with authentic supporting data such as detailed list of students who have been placed through their Institute, their enrolment forms and appointment letters received by the students; nor the records of any independent audit or verification certificate. The CCC therefore concluded that the claim was misleading by exaggeration, and that the advertisement was in contravention of Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Birsa Inst Of Tech (Trust)"
PRODUCT:"BITT Polytechnic"

COMPLAINT:

“No.1 Diploma Engineering College”.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"ASCI had forwarded a copy of the complaint to the advertiser with a request for their response on the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the due date for this complaint. Upon viewing the advertisement, and in the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “No.1 Diploma Engineering College”, was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser and other similar institutes; or through any third party validation or research to prove this claim. The CCC further opined that the claim was misleading by exaggeration. In view of the above, the CCC concluded that the advertisement contravened Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Yaduvanshi Shiksha Niketan"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"“India's No.1 School”."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"ASCI had forwarded a copy of the complaint to the advertiser with a request for their response on the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not seek avail. The CCC further noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. Upon viewing the advertisement, and in the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “India's No.1 School”, was not substantiated with verifiable comparative data of the advertiser vis-a-vis other similar institutes; or through any third party validation or research to prove this claim. In view of the above, the CCC opined that the claim was misleading by exaggeration and ambiguity, and omission of the reference to the particular criteria for which they are No.1. Therefore, the advertisement was considered to have contravened the “Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs”, as well as Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Industrial Training Department - Dept Of Industrial Train (Ker)-OT"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"“National trade certificate received form ITI training guarantees you a job in abroad and in our country”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

""The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail. In his written response and comments, the Advertiser stated that the main function of National Council for Vocational Training (NCVT) was to ensure the steady supply of skilled work force demanded by the Industry within and outside the country. They further stated that the NCVT was developing curriculum for the ITT courses as per the requirement of the Industry. Examination (Trade Test) and Certification is being done by the NCVT; that the NCVT Certificate has a worldwide approval and those who are having NCVT Certificates are getting placement within and outside the country. The CCC viewed the TVC and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC noted that the advertiser’s response has only assertions about their teaching program and the courses offered by them, without any supporting data for the claims made by them. In the absence of claim support data, the CCC concluded that the claim, “National trade certificate received form ITI training guarantees you a job in abroad and in our country”, was not substantiated with authentic supporting data such as detailed list of students who have been placed through their Institute, contact details of students for verification, enrolment forms and appointment letters received by the students. The claim was also considered misleading by exaggeration. The CCC therefore opined that the TVC had contravened “Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs” as well as Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD.""

 

COMPANY:"Pushpa Clinic (P) Ltd"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"“1. Guaranteed Treatment for Baldness. 2. 100% Success. 3. Pushpa Clinic Ayurvedic Treatment is Incredible for removing all types of Baldness. 4. 100% Money Back Guarantee if no result within 15-60 days.”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"ASCI had forwarded a copy of the complaint to the advertiser with a request for their response on the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail. The CCC further noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. Upon viewing the advertisement, the CCC concluded that the advertiser had not provided any details of the treatment procedure for Baldness. In the absence of any response or comments from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claims, “Guaranteed Treatment for Baldness”, “Pushpa Clinic Ayurvedic Treatment is Incredible for removing all types of Baldness”, were not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence and with treatment efficacy data among patients. The CCC further concluded that the Claim, “100% Success”, was not substantiated with any supporting data; and the Claim, “100% Money Back Guarantee if no result within 15-60 days”, was not substantiated with supporting evidence of the customers who were refunded with the money back. In view of the above, the CCC opined that the claims were misleading by exaggeration, and that the advertisement had contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "RJR Siddha Ayur Unani Hospital"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"“1. The cartilage is made to grow and the synovial fluid is made uniform. The knee pain heals through this and the knee strengthens within one or two months. 2. The people who take treatment in our RJR hospital won't have knee pain in life again. 3. In our treatment the knee pain is totally cured and is not repeating life long as mentioned by our customers. 4. Don't worry about knee pain, please come to RJR hospital and cured without surgery.”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"ASCI had forwarded a copy of the complaint to the advertiser with a request for their response on the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat, which they did not avail. The CCC further noted that response was not received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. Upon viewing the advertisement, and in the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claims, “The cartilage is made to grow and the synovial fluid is made uniform. The knee pain heals through this and the knee strengthens within one or two months”, and “In our treatment the knee pain is totally cured and is not repeating life long as mentioned by our customers”, were not substantiated with any supporting clinical evidence, and were misleading by exaggeration; and that the Claims, “The people who take treatment in our RJR hospital won't have knee pain in life again”, and “Don't worry about knee pain, please come to RJR hospital and cured without surgery”, were misleading by implication. The advertisement was therefore considered to be in contravention of Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Athena Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd"
PRODUCT:"Hair for Sure"

COMPLAINT:

"1. Try what 9 out of 10 users recommend 2. Supercharged with breakthrough Rutexil Growth Complex and Caffeine 4. Clinically tested to help control hair fall and accelerate hair growth 5. Clinically proven to help accelerate hair growth and control hair loss"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"Our Objection: 1. Claims 1-4 need to be substantiated with independent scientific reports. 2. Is Home Tester Club an independent testing agency? Was the survey that is referred done independently? If not, then these reports cannot be used for making such claims. 3. Do consumers have to deal with itchiness and rashes on using this product? 4. Is a skin allergy test necessary for a consumer before use of the product? 5. What are the side effects of prolonged use? 6. Can this product be used by all? Are there restrictions for pregnant women, people with sensitive skin? 7. The advertisement on the website https://www.athenalife.com/hair-for-sure-shampoo/ mentions for best results use 2-3 times a week?. How long does it take for the new hair to grow? 8. What happens when one stops using the product? What would the status of scalp be then? 9. Isnt the treatment for hair loss specific to the root cause of hair loss? Can it work for all causes of hair loss? 10. What about hair loss due to medicines or hereditary reasons? Will the product work then? 11. Does the product work for consumers who have suffered hair loss for a long period of time and chances are that the follicles have died completely?” “Lack Of Substantiation: ""Clinically Proven"" / ""Helps Accelerate Hair Growth"" and ""Helps Control Hair Fall"" The Advertiser has inscribed ""Clinically Proven"" on the front of its pack above its claims ""Helps Accelerate Hair Growth"" and ""Helps Control Hair Fall"", In the impugned advertisement, it is specifically claimed ""It is clinically tested to help control hair fall and accelerate hair growth.” A similar claim has been made on the Advertiser's website ""Clinically Evaluated to help accelerate hair growth and help control hair fall.” It is humbly submitted that in none of the above mediums .i.e. packaging, website or advertisement, has the Advertiser made any disclosure as to (a) the scientific literature based on whieh the claim is made or (b) the source/basis of the clinical study, if any, conducted. In short, the use of ""clinically proven"" are not substantiated with any study reports or with clinical evidence of product efficacy, It is clear that the Advertiser has made the claim of ""Clinically Proven"" only to add authenticity to its exaggerated and false claims, i.e. ""Helps Accelerate Hair Growth"" and ""Helps Control Hair Fall"". “Helps Accelerate Hair Gh.Owth"" And ""Helps Control Hair Fall"" i. As per ""Directions of Use"" on the Advcrtiser's package & website, the shampoo has to be retained on the scalp for 2-3 minutes. ""Retain the shampoo on scalp/or 2-3 minutes."" It is virtually impossible for Rutexil (which is nothing but a combination 2,4-Diaminopyrimidine -3- Oxide, Vitamin B3 & B5 and rutoxide trihydrate ) to have any impact on hair growth & hair loss in any manner in 2-3 minutes of application. It is pertinent to point out that, unlike a leave on category, these claims are made with respect to a shampoo and by their own admission the product does not remain on the scalp for more than 2-3 minutes. Supercharged With The Breakthrough Rutexil Growth Complex And Caffeine. The usage of the term supercharged does not fall within the permissible limits of puffery. The impression which is sought to be given with the usage of the word Suprecharged is that the product will in fact stop all hair loss problems faced by a person by the use of a shampoo. Ketoconazole. The ingredient list of the impugned product reflects that Ketoconazole is being used in the product. It is humbly submitted that Ketoconazole is listed at Entry No. 270 in Schedule H of the Drugs & Cosmetics Rules, 1945. Survey : Try what 9 out of 10 users recommend The only disclaimer in the entire advertisement is against the claim that ""9 out of 10 users recommend"" the impugned product. The disclaimer is herein below: “*As per HomeTesterClub survey done at all India level among 604 members during 18th November 2016 to 6th December 2016. "" The HomeTestcrClub is not an accredited agency nor is the protocol for the survey in any manner defined. HomeTesterClub's website, wwwhometesterclub.com, states that it is a website where members register for new sample boxes and answer a few survey questions once they have received the product to sample. From the feedback seen from the website itself, it was found that they were not sufficient posts providing any feedback whatsoever to support the disclaimer.”"

Recommendation: UPHELD

"ASCI had forwarded a copy of the complaint to the advertiser with a request for their response on the same. Upon their request, the Advertiser was initially provided an opportunity to discuss their submission via telecon. Subsequently, the advertiser submitted their written response in which they stated: that the Clinical Study demonstrated a significant increase in the A/T ratio and Anagen Hair Density. A similar appreciation was obtained through self-evaluation, especially in terms of Hair Growth (100% Agreement), Hair Fall Reduction (97% agreement). Testing done among shoppers through Home Testers Club further corroborates the claim of what 9 out of 10 users recommend.” As claim support data, the advertiser provided an extract of Clinical Study, and a copy of Home Tester Club survey findings. The claim support data was reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. The CCC viewed the print advertisement, website advertisement, and product packaging and considered the Advertiser’s response as well as the opinion of Technical expert presented at the meeting. The CCC observed that – Claim, “Try what 9 out of 10 users recommend” has the disclaimer that it is “As per Home Tester Club survey done at an all India level among 604 members during 18th November 2016 and 6th Dec 2016”. The Advertiser in their response has provided a December 2016 report published by the Buchanan Group, which runs the Home Tester Club surveys. The User survey methodology is clear. No attempt is made to disguise the fact that it is self-selected sample; and no claims are made that it is a representative sample of shampoo users. Further, the 605 open-ended responses provided by the Advertiser in the Excel sheet do not give any indication that these are either biased or spurious. The Home Tester Club India web site makes it clear that any one can opt to participate in the product sampling and the survey thereafter. Reports of Home Testers club survey submitted indicates that 9 out of 10 Indians who used the products were happy with the product and they would recommend the use of the product over other available products. The CCC concluded that the claim, “Try what 9 out of 10 users recommend”, was substantiated. These complaints were therefore NOT UPHELD. In respect of the Claim, “Supercharged with breakthrough Rutexil Growth Complex and Caffeine”, the CCC concluded that the claim was not substantiated, and was misleading by exaggeration. Regarding the Claims, “Clinically tested to help control hair fall and accelerate hair growth”, and “Clinically proven to help accelerate hair growth and control hair loss”: The CCC noted that the product is shampoo which is to be washed off in about 2 to 3 minutes. Thus, it is unlikely for the actives to permeate and accelerate hair growth/control hair fall when used only twice a week for about 2-3 minutes application, followed by washing off the product at the concentration levels added. The claim “Clinically tested” (associated with the Shampoo product) does imply that the product has undergone scientifically carried out clinical studies which support the claim that the Shampoo product controls hair fall and accelerates hair growth. The report of in vivo evaluation of safety and efficacy of the product has been submitted by the advertiser. The summary of the report indicates significant increase in the A/T ratio and anagen hair density. It is however seen that the actual data, which is very important to understand the statistical variation and level of significance has not been provided. Therefore, the CCC concluded that the claims, “Clinically tested to help control hair fall and accelerate hair growth”, and “Clinically proven to help accelerate hair growth and control hair loss”, were inadequately substantiated, and were misleading by ambiguity and implication; and that the print advertisement, product packaging, and the website advertisement had contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. These complaints were accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Bharti Airtel Ltd"
PRODUCT:"Airtel 29 INR for 1 month"

COMPLAINT:

“Enjoy internet for the full month at just Rs.29”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

""The complainant stated: “I wanted to communicate the Airtel advt for 29 INR as monthly pack as misleading. In 29 rupees they only offer 75 MB which cannot be last for 10 days maximum but earlier they promote as open advertisements now on user phone. I wanted to know what had been done to strike down this advt in past and if Airtel is doing same advt again what action will be taken. Airtel: official youtube advt https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mw2N3PiQuI Specifically covering Times of India emphasizing monthly pack http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/Airtel-offers-Maheene-Bhar-Ka-Internet-to-enable-users-to-stay-online-for-a-month-for-Rs-29/articleshow/54251001.cms I don't have same SMS post recharges but as consumer, if I am recharging 29 INR and as per advertisement run by airtel on my mobile I should get full month recharge but I am not getting so this way either airtel should refund me all the money I have used on extra recharge and as well make a public apology and compensation for misleading advertisement to me, and ASIC should put fine them for violation of same. In fact they are saying 30 days validity but in actual the pack expire in 28 days”.""

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail; but had submitted their written response. The CCC viewed the website advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. The Advertiser stated that they have resolved to change “internet for full month” to “internet for 30 days” reflecting that the validity of the pack is 30 days. The CCC further noted that the advertisement clearly establishes that it is for one month internet pack with no data limitation but the pack is 75 MB. However, the CCC noted that the complaint regarding the pack expiring much earlier than 28 days was not addressed by the advertiser. The CCC concluded that the claim, “Enjoy internet for the full month at just Rs.29”, is misleading by ambiguity and omission as 75 MB is not likely to last for a month. The website advertisement contravened Chapter I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Prem Hospital "
PRODUCT:"IVF and Surrogacy Center"

COMPLAINT:

"Claims that now no one will remain childless. Implies a cure from infertility"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

""Sterility in women Item no. 48 – DMR Schedule""

 

COMPANY:"Shri Ram Murti Smarak Institute of Medical Sciences"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"First time in Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand successful treatment for varicose veins without incision, without operation through laser.."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

""Vericose Veins Item no. 51-Schedule J""

 

COMPANY:"Care Point"
PRODUCT:"Acupuncture,Physiotherapy, Hair Weaving & Bonding Clinic"

COMPLAINT:

"1) Freedom from Baldness 2) Get freedom from obesity. 3)Increases Height The before and after visual in the advertisement appear to be misleading."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

""Baldness Item no. 5-Schedule J Obesity Item No.39- Schedule J Item No.38- DMR Schedule Stature of persons Item no. 47- DMR Act Improvement in height of children/ adults Item no. 29- Schedule J""

 

COMPANY:"Chahal Clinic"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"No Baldness."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

""Baldness Item no. 5-Schedule J""

 

COMPANY:"Indeed.com"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“The world’s #1 job site”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"ASCI had forwarded a copy of the complaint to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response as quoted above. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. The Advertiser stated that the claim is made on the basis of the ComScore’s report on Total Unique Visitors for February 2017. As claim support data, the advertiser provided a copy of the Comscore report for the period mentioned. The CCC noted that the data provided by the Advertiser is of Unique Visitors to various Career Services and Development websites for the month of February 2017, which is only one month’s data. According to comScore, Indeed.com had 56.7 million unique visitors across the world, while the next largest career services website is the Chinese Yjbys.com at 55.8 million unique visitors. This one month data provided was considered to be inadequate for a claim made of being world’s No.1. The CCC observed that the wording of the leadership claim in the advertisement is ambiguous. Further, the CCC opined that unique visits to the website, in themselves, do not by themselves substantiate the leadership claim because the data does not quantify the total number of people visiting the site, the basis on which the jobs were given, maximum jobs availed through this website, and the productivity score in comparison to other websites. The claim is not qualified to mention the source and date of research. In view of the above, the CCC concluded that the claim, “The World’s #1 job site”, was inadequately substantiated, and was misleading by ambiguity and omission, and that the advertisement had contravened Chapters I.1, I.2 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Bharti Airtel Ltd"
PRODUCT:"Airtel Rs 348 and Rs 299 Unlimited plan"

COMPLAINT:

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

""The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail. The CCC viewed the Ad – SMS and considered the Advertiser’s response. The Advertiser had stated that their tariff plan is truly unlimited for their retail customers and no terms and conditions are applicable for retail customers as they have designed the offer to pass on the benefits of unlimited packs to the retail customers. The terms and conditions are to curb misuse by commercial customers who have basic characteristics of commercial use of the telecom resource such as having a large number of outgoing calls to a large number of targets (above 100 unique numbers in a week). They have kept the conditions so that these unlimited voice packs are used by retail customers only. Based on this data, the CCC concluded that the claims offers of “Airtel Rs 348 and Rs 299 Unlimited plans” were misleading by ambiguity and omission of disclaimer qualifying the offers that it was subject to terms and conditions. The CCC further opined that the Ad – SMS had contravened Chapter I.4 of the ASCI Code as well as Clause 1 of ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers (“A disclaimer can expand or clarify a claim, make qualifications, or resolve ambiguities, to explain the claim in further details, but should not contradict the material claim made or contradict the main message conveyed by the advertiser or change the dictionary meaning of the words used in the claim as received or perceived by a consumer”). The complaint was accordingly UPHELD.""

 

COMPANY:"LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd"
PRODUCT:"LG Dual Cool Air Conditioners"

COMPLAINT:

"TV ad showing a child of about 5 - leaving home (without the knowledge of her parents) and spending time in a Mall - purportedly because her house is not cool enough in summer. this advert expressly encourages children to 'wander' off from their homes.....also the message is that its OK for the parents not to be aware of where their 5 year old child is - OUTSIDE their home.... seems encourage carelessness in child care.."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail. Further, the CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the TVC and concluded that the visual showing a minor on multiple occasions leaving her home, crossing the road and entering a Mall without the consent of her parents, depicts a dangerous act which is likely to encourage minors to emulate such acts in a manner which could cause harm or injury to such minors. Hence, the CCC concluded that the TVC contravened Chapters III.2(b) and III.3 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd.-"
PRODUCT:"3 months unlimited at Rs.309/-"

COMPLAINT:

"“3 months unlimited at Rs.309” Number of Complaints: 2 Complaint no.1 Jio website claims Jio Dhan Dhana Dhan 3months unlimited at 309 * It's not 3months it's only 84day validity. * It's not unlimited data limited to 1GB per day after speed reduced to 128Kbps. * 309 for only prime user's others need to pay 309+99 * It's not applicable who before done 303 recharge * Per user can claim only one time Jio don't clearly mentioned the terms and conditions about this offer. Operators has freedom to set own tariff's but this is not about tariff's issue this is about some terms and conditions not clearly mentioned on advertisement By this misleading advertising jio attracting customers. Complaint no.2 Confusing add. What is free and what s benefits. And what is unlimited. Unable to understand what is free and what are they offering as unlimited. With the change happened all I could understand is pay 309 for a month but could not understand what is 3 months unlimited as stated in the add."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response as discussed above. The Advertiser stated that it is a standard industry practice to calculate one month as being equivalent to 4 weeks or 28 days; and that they had clearly mentioned this aspect and have added that the first recharge of the prepaid plan provides the benefits for 84 days and the subsequent recharges provide the benefits for 28 days each. The advertiser further stated that the data is unlimited, as communicated, which is clearly specified at their web link where they have stated that the high speed data provided is 1 GB per day, post which the customer continues to avail unlimited data at reduced speed of 128 kbps for rest of the day, without any limit whatsoever on the quantum of data. The advertiser further clarified that the benefits of prime membership were not limited only to the Jio Dhan Dhana Dhan offer but the customer would also get additional multiple benefits over the one year validity. Subsequently, the advertiser representatives were given personal hearing by ASCI. Post the hearing, the advertiser informed that they have modified the advertisement and made the link to the Terms and Conditions more legible and interactive for the customers. The CCC viewed the website advertisement and considered the advertiser’s response. The CCC concluded that the claim, “3 months unlimited at Rs.309”, is misleading by ambiguity and omission of a disclaimer qualifying the offer that it is subject to terms and conditions. The CCC further opined that specific to the claim “Unlimited”, the website advertisement had contravened Chapter I.4 of the ASCI Code as well as Clauses 1 and 2 of ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers (“A disclaimer can expand or clarify a claim, make qualifications, or resolve ambiguities, to explain the claim in further details, but should not contradict the material claim made or contradict the main message conveyed by the advertiser or change the dictionary meaning of the words used in the claim as received or perceived by a consumer” and “Disclaimer such as `T&C apply’ should indicate where this information is available to consumer for further reference.”). The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Grey Matters"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“You Bring The Passport, We’ll get you the Visa”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

“This ad intimidating, yet not clear! Trying to deceive people who are willing to move foreign!”

Recommendation: UPHELD

"ASCI had forwarded a copy of the complaint to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was also offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. Upon viewing the advertisement, and in the absence of any comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “You Bring The Passport, We’ll get you the Visa”, was not substantiated with supporting evidence such as detailed list of candidates who had been given visa by the competent authorities, and is therefore misleading by ambiguity and implication. The advertisement was therefore considered to be in contravention of Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Metro Shoes Ltd. "
PRODUCT: "Davinchi Cooling & Energising Socks"

COMPLAINT:

"“Made from Organic Cotton” “Soft cotton socks infused with cooling and energising blend of peppermint and other mint oils”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"The advertiser, Metro Shoes, makes a package claim for its DaVinchi Brand of Cooling & Energising socks that they are made of organic cotton infused with cooling and energising blend of peppermint and other mint oils. The claims of organic cotton and infusion of peppermint and other mint oils and it purported beneficial effect (before as well as after washing) require to be proved and substantiated. Following is the link to the claims made: http://www.metroshoes.net/accessories/shop-by-1/socks/davinchi-23-3001-black-socks-full-length.html"

Recommendation: UPHELD

"ASCI had forwarded a copy of the complaint to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was also offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. Upon viewing the website advertisement and in the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claims, “Made from Organic Cotton”, and “Soft cotton socks infused with cooling and energising blend of peppermint and other mint oils”, were not substantiated with supporting data of product performance, and were hence misleading by exaggeration. The website advertisement and the product packaging were considered to have contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Aryamaan Developers Pvt. Ltd."
PRODUCT:"Crystal Xrbia"

COMPLAINT:

"“Add mentions 'international airport 20 minutes away' which is not at all possible. 1) Chembur Central is a very misleading name to be advertise. 2) The project actual location should be mention clearly when add is placed 3) Still if you take Chembur Central and travel from any side - 20 min reaching international airport is not possible be it by any means of transport (leaving airplane) 4) attaching herewith the google map -- showing the way and time limit as 49 min. kindly go through it.”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail. The CCC further noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. It was seen that the Complainant had provided a google map showing the time of the travel from Chembur to Mumbai International Airport as 49 mins. Upon viewing the Ad – Hoarding and in the absence of comments from the Advertiser, and based on the evidence provided by the complainant, the CCC concluded that the claim, “international airport 20 minutes away”, was false and misleading. The Ad – Hoarding was therefore considered to have contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Amazon Seller Services Pvt Ltd (Amazon.com, Inc)"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“The opening shot of this advertisement shows a man and woman riding two wheeler without helmet. India is number one in road accident and two wheeler accident tops the chart, riders without helmet die due to head injuries. Even the transport ministry is doing its bit to educate people on road safety and here is this advertisement by Amazon shown during IPL match on 23rd of April 2017 at 6:30 pm on Sony max encouraging riders not to wear helmet.”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The Advertiser (Amazon) was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response. The CCC viewed the TVC and considered the Advertiser’s response. It was seen that the Advertiser stated that the depiction objected to was so brief that it passes in the blink on an eye and was certainly not the key focus of the advertisement. The CCC concluded that the visual of “a man and a woman riding two wheeler without a helmet” as depicted in the TVC shows a violation of traffic rules, as well as an unsafe practice. The TVC was therefore considered to have contravened Chapter III.3 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Kashish Slimming Center"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"1. Reduce weight through modern Machine. 2. Reduce 6 to 10 kg weight in 1 month. + Along with it reduce 3 to 6 inches figure. 3. No Exercise."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"ASCI approached the concerned Media (Sakal group of publications) for their assistance in providing the contact details of the advertiser, or to forward the complaint to the advertiser. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser or from the concerned media entity prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and concluded that the advertiser had not provided any details of the treatment procedure for weight reduction through “modern machine”. In the absence of any response from the concerned media entity, or comments from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claims, “Reduce weight through modern Machine”, “Reduce 6 to 10 kg weight in 1 month. + Along with it reduce 3 to 6 inches figure”, and “No Exercise”, were not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence and treatment efficacy data, and were therefore misleading by exaggeration. The visual in the advertisement was also considered to be misleading by implication. The CCC concluded that the advertisement had contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Fitness World"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

““In 1 month 5 kg guaranteed weight loose or weight gain with no diet no medicine”.”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the concerned Media entity (Lokmat Media P. Ltd) for their assistance in providing the contact details of the advertiser, or to forward the complaint to the advertiser. No response was received from the concerned media entity prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. Upon viewing the print advertisement, and in the absence of any response from the concerned media entity the CCC concluded that the claim, “In 1 month 5 kg guaranteed weight loose or weight gain with no diet no medicine”, was not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence and with treatment efficacy data, and was therefore misleading by exaggeration. The advertisement was hence considered to have contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"V. Institute of Internet Marketing"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“100% Job Guarantee Course.”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"ASCI had forwarded a copy of the complaint to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail. The CCC further noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. Upon viewing the advertisement, and in the absence of any comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “100% Job Guarantee Course”, was not substantiated with verifiable claim support data, and was misleading by exaggeration and implication. The advertisement was therefore considered to have contravened Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"ICAII"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“Author of India's No-1 Selling book of NEET 2017".

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"ASCI had forwarded a copy of the complaint to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was also offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail. The CCC further noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. Upon viewing the advertisement and in the absence of any comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Author of India's No-1 Selling book of NEET 2017", was not substantiated with supporting data and was misleading; and that the advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Subhas Bose Institute of Hotel Management."
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"“100% placement to its all students through Campus Interview” “Confirmed placement in the tourism and hotel industry”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"ASCI had forwarded a copy of the complaint to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail. The CCC further noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. Upon viewing the advertisement, and in the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claims, “100% placement to its all students through Campus Interview”, and “Confirmed placement in the tourism and hotel industry”, were not substantiated with authentic supporting data such as detailed list of students who have been placed through their Institute, contact details of students for independent verification, enrolment forms and appointment letters received by the students, or any independent audit or verification certificate for the specific claim. The CCC further opined that the claims were misleading by gross exaggeration, and hence, the advertisement contravened Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Subhas Bose Institute of Hotel Management"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"1. Asia's Education Excellence Award, Singapore Best Educational Institute in Health Care. 2. Confirmed placement in the health care industry."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"ASCI had forwarded a copy of the complaint to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. Upon viewing the advertisement the CCC observed that the Advertiser had not provided a copy of the award certificate in respect of his claim, the details of the process in which the selection for award was done i.e. survey methodology, details of survey data, criteria used for evaluation, questionnaires used, names of other similar applicants that were part of the survey, and the outcome, etc. In the absence of any response or comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claims, “Asia's Education Excellence Award, Singapore Best Educational Institute in Health Care”, were not substantiated. The CCC further opined that the claim, “Confirmed placement in the health care industry”, was not substantiated with any verifiable claim support data, and was therefore misleading by exaggeration. In view of the above, it was considered that the advertisement contravened Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapters I.1, I.2 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Ramappa Police Academy"
PRODUCT:"“Fees return batch available if job not acquired.”"

COMPLAINT:

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"ASCI had forwarded a copy of the complaint to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. Upon viewing the advertisement, and in the absence of any response or comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Fees return batch available if job not acquired”, was not substantiated with any supporting evidence of the customers who were refunded with the fees back, and hence the claim is misleading by exaggeration. The advertisement was therefore considered as being in contravention of the Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Chronicle Inst Of Competitive Study"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“100% Job Opportunity”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: NOT UPHELD

"ASCI had forwarded a copy of the complaint to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail. The CCC further noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. However, the CCC upon viewing the advertisement, concluded that the claim, “100% Job Opportunity”, was not objectionable. The complaint was therefore NOT UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Anil Nair Classes"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“India's No.1 Coaching Center for all Competitive Exams.”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"ASCI had forwarded a copy of the complaint to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail. The CCC noted that no comments or response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. Upon viewing the advertisement, and in the absence of any comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “India's No.1 Coaching Center for all Competitive Exams”, was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s institute and other similar institutes, or any third party validation; and was misleading by exaggeration. The advertisement was therefore considered as contravening the Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Rankers Educare "
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“Guaranteed Selection Batch Start For: - Entrance Exam 2017.”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"ASCI had forwarded a copy of the complaint to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the due date for this complaint. Upon viewing the advertisement, and in the absence of any comments or response from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Guaranteed Selection Batch Start For: - Entrance Exam 2017”, was not substantiated with verifiable claim support data, was misleading by exaggeration The advertisement was therefore considered as contravening the Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"ICON Career Education"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“100% Scholarship.”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

""The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat, which they did not avail, but submitted their written response post the prescribed due date. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response in which they had stated that they had mentioned “100% Scholarship” as Arpit Bapna secured AIR 1, among all the students who applied for Nirma University for the five years Integrated Programme in Management. As per the scholarship plan of Nirma University, one who secures AIR-1 shall be offered 100% scholarship. In the absence of claim support data, the CCC concluded that the claim, “100% Scholarship”, was not substantiated with authentic supporting data such as evidence of 100% scholarships availed by any of their students and was misleading by implication and ambiguity regarding the amount of scholarship and the total number of scholarships being offered. The advertisement was therefore considered as contravening the Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD.""

 

COMPANY:"Vimhans PrimaMed Super Speciality Hospital"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"1. Walk the same day 2. No Physio 3. Painless & Quick Recovery"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but had submitted their written response. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. The Advertiser stated that all their patients were made to stand after 2 hours of the surgery in the recovery room and were made to walk with the help of support the same day under supervision of their orthopedics team. Their patients were not advised any exercises under the physiotherapist, and they were encouraged to move the knee on their own. The advertiser further stated that it is possible because of their excellent pain management and rapid recovery programme. As claim support data, the advertiser provided testimonials of 2 patients. Based on this data, the CCC concluded that the claims, “Walk the same day”, “No Physio” and “Painless & Quick Recovery”, were inadequately substantiated with supporting clinical evidence in a statistically significant representative sample , and are misleading by exaggeration and implication; and the the advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "FMS Dental Hospital"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“Ranked 5th in World and 1st in India by GCR Global Clinic Ranking”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

""The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response. The Advertiser stated that the claim was made on the basis of GCR Rankings, and as claim support data, they provided GCR Clinic rankings for February and April 2017; 2017 Top 10 International Healthcare clinic rankings; and GCR Clinic Rating. The claim support data was reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response as well as the opinion of the Technical expert, all of which were presented in the meeting. The CCC noted that The GCR Rank currently does not include hospitals, which the GCR defines as groups of medical clinics under one roof, treating numerous branches of medicine. Any clinic that has the official GCR Accreditation, has been personally visited, evaluated by their team and the GCR Score is claimed to be a correct representation of the expected quality a patient would receive there. ‘Uncertified’ clinics within the GCR Rank have an estimated GCR Score based on publicly available information such as independent patient reviews and information from their websites, and sites featuring that particular clinic. It is not very clear from the GCR web site how many of the 429,600 clinics are accredited (that is, visited by a GCR evaluator) and how many are ‘uncertified’ (that is, where the score is based on publicly available information). 100+ criteria are mentioned as being used in the evaluation, without specifying what factors were used; and how, for what are called ‘uncertified’ clinic scores, the data for the GCR scores was compiled, based on publicly available information. Moreover, the minimum number of 5 patient feedback on the Internet appears to be much too low and could lead to a suspicion of possible manipulation of ratings by interested parties. The site also gives an option of “How to improve ratings”. In view of these observations regarding the survey design, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Ranked 5th in World and 1st in India by GCR Global Clinic Ranking”, was inadequately substantiated, and that the claim was misleading. The advertisement was therefore considered as contravening Chapters I.1and I.4 of the ASCI Code, and the complaint was accordingly UPHELD.""

 

COMPANY:"Grover Eye Laser & E.N.T. Hospital (Grover Eye Laser Hospital)"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“India s only multifocal lasik laser with which you can get rid of both distance and near reading glasses”.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat, which they did not avail, but submitted their written response. The Advertiser stated that Multifocal Lasik Laser is being done only at their hospital in India for the past many years. He further stated that their Doctors are highly qualified allopathic ophthalmologists, trained in premier institutions and hospitals, and had made scientific presentations on this topic in various (Allopathic) Ophthalmologists Doctors Conferences in India. He added that verbal interaction of their doctors with various other eye doctors across India during various scientific conferences had not revealed any other place in India where Multifocal Lasik was being done. The response was reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. The CCC viewed the TVC and considered the Advertiser’s response as well as the opinion of Technical expert, all of which were presented in the meeting. The CCC noted that most "AMARIS" & most "MEL 80" Excimer Laser Machines are capable of doing Multifocal Laser Correction, also called as "PRESBYLASIK. There are a minimum 30 installations of the above mentioned two equipment in the hospitals in whole of India. Based on this information, the CCC concluded that the claim, “India s only multifocal lasik laser with which you can get rid of both distance and near reading glasses”, was not substantiated with any justification, and that the claim was misleading by exaggeration. The TVC was therefore considered to be contravening Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Resonance Eduventures Limited"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“The Most Trusted Institute for Pre-Engineering / Pre-Medical / Pre-Foundation in India.”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"ASCI had forwarded a copy of the complaint to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. Upon viewing the advertisement, and in the absence of any comments or response from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “The Most Trusted Institute for Pre-Engineering / Pre-Medical / Pre-Foundation in India”, was not substantiated with verifiable comparative data of the advertiser and other similar institutes in the same category, or any through a third party validation; and that the claim was misleading by exaggeration. The advertisement was therefore considered as contravening the Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Base Education Services Pvt Ltd- Base Education"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“The Most trusted Institute for student training in Karnataka.”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

""The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. The Advertiser stated that the expression ""The Most Trusted Institute for Student training in Karnataka"" was a generic expression which cannot be proved to be right or wrong by any objective data whatsoever; that it was a part of normal advertisement -puffing (though in their present case it is not so); that the performance of BASE in its specialized field of test preparatory coaching, was the best in Karnataka so far as the same pertains to exams and courses catered to by BASE; and as claim support data, the advertiser provided details of students' success in various exams. The CCC reviewed the data and concluded that the claim, “The Most trusted Institute for student training in Karnataka”, was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s institution and other similar institutes, or through any third party validation or research to prove the claim. The CCC further opined that, the claim was also misleading by exaggeration. The CCC therefore concluded that the advertisement contravened Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD.""

 

COMPANY:"Navchetana Kendra"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“Quit Alcohol”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but nevertheless submitted their written response. Upon viewing the print advertisement and on considering the Advertiser’s response, the CCC opined that the Advertiser had not provided any details of the treatment procedure for quitting alcohol. In the absence of claim support data, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Quit Alcohol”, was not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence, and was misleading by exaggeration; and that the advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "NuAyurveda Clinic"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"“I joined for the Weight loss programme and lost 6 kgs and 12 inches……”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 "Ad published in Mumbai Mirror p no 21 on April14, 2017 which in a description of customer for claiming weight loss of 6kg and 12 inches with no mention of treatment procedures and duration is wrong."

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response. Upon viewing the print advertisement and considering the Advertiser’s response, it was seen that the advertiser stated that the consumer testimonial in the advertisement referred to Panchakarma Treatment; and that Ayurveda protocols varied significantly from person to person and no standard treatment protocol or time duration could be committed as a general rule. The CCC noted that the advertiser had not provided any details of the treatment procedure for weight loss programme aimed at weight reduction. In the absence of claim support data, the CCC concluded that the testimonial claim, “I joined for the Weight loss programme and lost 6 kgs and 12 inches……”, was not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence, and with treatment efficacy data. The CCC further concluded that, the claim was misleading by exaggeration, and that the advertisement had contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Lida Biotech Pvt Ltd "
PRODUCT:"Lida Herbal Slimming Capsules"

COMPLAINT:

"The ad recommends of fat slim with no proof .published on mumbai mirror date April 14, 2017"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail but submitted their written response. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. The Advertiser stated that they have published as “one pill a day, no need to be on strict diet or exercise”. They further requested to be informed of violations in the ad, if any; they offered to make changes in the ad if it was violating ASCI’s standards; and lastly they offered to even discontinue the said ad. It was seen that the Advertiser had not provided any supporting data for the advertisement. The CCC concluded that the visual shown of a slim model in the advertisement is misleading by implication that the product, when used, would result in slimming, which was not substantiated with proof of product-efficacy. The advertisement was therefore considered to have contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Medinn Belle Herbal Private Limited"
PRODUCT:"Endura Mass weight Gainer"

COMPLAINT:

"This ad is not acceptable. Soldiers need for strength comes from fine diet we get. This will confuse poor and not much literate soldier into buying this. This is not a healthy way of advertising."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"ASCI had forwarded a copy of the complaint to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. Upon viewing the advertisement, and in the absence of any response or comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claims, “Endura Mass gave me the right weight to make me a winner. So if you are underweight start taking Endura Mass today”, was not substantiated with clinical evidence of product efficacy and were therefore misleading by exaggerationand implication. The advertisement was considered to have contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Trophic Wellness Pvt Ltd"
PRODUCT:"Nutricharge Woman"

COMPLAINT:

"“1. First ever health supplement for women in India that contains 53 key nutrients - 53 vitamins, 14 fruit extracts, 6 botanicals and 5 amino acids 2. Promote womens health to help keep them youthful 3. Helps fulfill daily needs with 33 key vitamins, minerals, antioxidants and amino-acids to keep them healthy. 4. Gives 6 specialty nutrients that may alleviate womens specific health problems at various stages of their life. 5. Nutricharge woman tablet is potentially beneficial for diabetics 6. May help correct dietary deficiencies to keep girls and women fit and may improve metabolism 7. Should be taken daily 8. Being a health supplement, Nutricharge woman tablet can be taken without a prescription 9. Who can consume: Woman of age 14 years and above 10. Dosage: One tablet daily (with Nutricharge Strawberry ProDiet shake) 11. Take 1 tablet of Nutricharge Woman with 1 glass of Nutricharge Strawberry ProDiet shake, to fulfill your daily needs of Protein, Vitamins, Minerals and Fiber (PVMF). 12. Footnote: *These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. 13. Footnote: *These products are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

""Our objections: 1. Claims 1- 8 and 11 need to be substantiated with independent studies and certified by independent competent authority. 2. How does Nutricharge Woman claim that it helps fulfill daily needs to keep them healthy, promotes health to keep them youthful and alleviate specific health problems at various stages of their life? Total nutrition and health is resultant of all food/supplement intake as well as physiology and metabolic activity of a person among other factors. Please explain. 3. How does Nutricharge woman tablet claim to be potentially beneficial for diabetics? This is dependent on many factors including food, lifestyle, and health of a person. Needs 1 Advertising Standards Council of India substantiation and certification from independent competent authority. 4. Referring to Claim 7 & 8, are there any adverse side effects of taking daily over a long period, without medical consult or of taking an over-dosage? What happens once you stop taking the supplement? 5. May help correct dietary deficiencies to keep girls and women fit and may improve metabolism-normally diet is planned as required taking into consideration the lifestyle, diet, activity levels or any specific condition. Wont adding this product without medical consult disrupt the balance? 6. It is advised to take one tablet of Nutricharge Woman with 1 glass of Nutricharge Strawberry ProDiet shake to fulfill daily needs of Protein, Vitamins, Minerals and Fiber (PVMF). This suggestion compels the consumer psychologically to buy and consume another highly priced product of the company. Grossly misleading. Also Unfair Trade Practice under the CP Act. 7. Footnote states that these statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. Then who has evaluated them? Why has it not been approved by FDA? 8. The other footnote mentions these products are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease? However, the product claims to be beneficial for diabetics, and alleviate womens specific health problems at various stages of their life-which could be serious medical problems. These are contradictory statements. Please explain. According to us, this contravenes Chapter 1.1 and 1.4 of ASCI code. Action to be taken: We propose that the content should be immediately withdrawn. Action we propose - this advt should be immediately withdrawn” Website link: https://www.nutricharge.in/products/nutricharge-woman-and-strawberry-prodiet/" "

Recommendation: UPHELD

"ASCI had forwarded a copy of the complaint to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail. The CCC further noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for the complaint. Upon viewing the website advertisement and in the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “First ever health supplement for women in India that contains 53 key nutrients - 53 vitamins, 14 fruit extracts, 6 botanicals and 5 amino acids”, was not substantiated with supporting data, and was misleading. Further, the CCC opined that the Claims, “Promote womens health to help keep them youthful”, “Helps fulfill daily needs with 33 key vitamins, minerals, antioxidants and amino-acids to keep them healthy”, “Gives 6 specialty nutrients that may alleviate womens specific health problems at various stages of their life”, “Nutricharge woman tablet is potentially beneficial for diabetics”, “May help correct dietary deficiencies to keep girls and women fit and may improve metabolism”, were all not substantiated with any evidence of product efficacy, and were misleading by exaggeration. The website advertisement was therefore considered to have contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. These complaints were accordingly UPHELD. In respect of the ‘Usage instructions’ for the product, i.e., - “Should be taken daily”, “Who can consume: Woman of age 14 years and above”, “Dosage: One tablet daily (with Nutricharge Strawberry ProDiet shake)”, “Take 1 tablet of Nutricharge Woman with 1 glass of Nutricharge Strawberry ProDiet shake, to fulfill your daily needs of Protein, Vitamins, Minerals and Fiber (PVMF)”, “Footnote: These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration”, “Footnote: These products are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease”, the CCC did not consider them to be products claims and they were not considered to be objectionable. Hence these complaints were NOT UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Amazon.com, Inc"
PRODUCT:"American style cream and onion flavor – party pack"

COMPLAINT:

“Olympia Industries Ltd. Is one of the highest rated seller on Amazon.in? I had purchased packets of lays on which they were allowing heavy discount of 73%. The MRP of a packet was reflecting as Rs. 230, but when I received the product and cross verified with the manufacturer, then I came to know that its actual MRP is not Rs.230 but its only Rs.65. And in lieu of 73% of discount I received only 3% of discount on the product. Whereas, even after placing the order, in the order summary it reflected that I had made a savings of Rs. 1670.By showing such kind of fake MRP and heavy discount they deceived me to purchase the product. They had not only cheated me but also made a penal offence by inflating the MRP of the product. And, I realized that If I am not going to raise my voice this time then I will not be the last one to sufferer.”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The Advertiser (Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd) was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response. The CCC viewed the website advertisement and considered the Amazon’s response. Amazon states that the product, the MRP, the Offer Price and the product description and title are listed by the independent seller directly and Amazon has no direct control over the particulars of the listing. The only role played by Amazon is to provide a platform to independent sellers to advertise their products and further provide logistic support inter alia money transactions, warehousing and delivery. ASCI verified the actual MRP of the product (Rs.65) at which it is being sold. Based on this verification, the CCC concluded that the price offer “MRP 230 Price 63.00 Save 167.00 (73% off)” of “American style cream and onion flavor – party pack”, in the advertisement was false and misleading. The website advertisement was therefore considered to have contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Ratan Ayurvedic Santhan Private Limited"
PRODUCT:"Herbal Facia Facial Bar"

COMPLAINT:

"1. Facial bar with kesar and chandan 2. Brings fairness and removes pimples 3. Has kesar, chandan, aloe vera and camphor 4. In only two minutes gives the feeling of facial 5. Now every day facial"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"Our objections: 1. Claims 1-5 need to be substantiated with data from independent scientific studies 2. How does the product claim to give the feeling of facial in just 2 minutes? What does it mean? Has it been proven by independent authority? Generally a facial includes the process of application of 3 to 4 different creams which are massaged on the face with intervals of 15-20 minutes each. Also, it is then followed by steam, removal of black/white heads and application of face masks. The process takes a minimum of 45 minutes. The comparison of a facial with this 2 minutes pack is completely false and misleading. According to us, the advertisement contravenes Chapter 1.1 and 1.5 of ASCI code. Action to be taken: We propose that the advertisement should be immediately withdrawn. Action proposed ? The advt should be immediately withdrawn"

Recommendation: UPHELD

""ASCI had forwarded a copy of the complaint to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. Upon viewing the advertisement, and in the absence of any response or comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claims, “Facial bar with kesar and chandan”, “Brings fairness and removes pimples”, “Has kesar, chandan, aloe vera and camphor”, “In only two minutes gives the feeling of facial”, were not substantiated with technical and efficacy data for the product, and were misleading by exaggeration. The advertisement was therefore considered to have contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. This complaint was accordingly UPHELD. As regards the Claim, “Now every day facial”, it was not considered to be objectionable. This complaint was NOT UPHELD.""

 

COMPANY:"Sablok Clinic"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"Claims to treat sex related problems successfully and take pleasure of married life."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

""Maintenance or improvement of the capacity of the human being for sexual pleasure – Item no. 36 – Schedule J""

 

COMPANY: "Prameya News7"
PRODUCT:"News 7 Odisha"

COMPLAINT:

"News 7 has published a paper ad on the eve of their 2nd anniversary on their own print publication (named, Prameya Odia newspaper). The news channel has claimed itself to be the No. 1 news channel in Odisha without quoting any source, which is misleading as well as a grossly wrong statement as they are far behind on GRPs from the current leader OTV in the news market of Odisha."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant. ASCI had forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser had, however, not responded to ASCI’s request. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and upon careful consideration of the complaint, and in the absence of any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the advertiser’s claim that they are the “No. One news channel in Odisha” is clearly unsubstantiated. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Aqua Pure Life water purifiers"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"The following claim in the Advertisement referred above are unsubstantiated as well as highly misleading to consumers. The reasons for the same have been elaborated below: “Sabse Shudh Pani” The Advertiser in the Advertisement states “Aqua Pure Life, 9 stage alkaline RO system, Jo paani main chupe hue bacteria, virus, haani karak chemicals ko door kar deta hain Sabse Shudh Paani. (Translation: Aqua Pure Life, 9 stage alkaline RO system which removes hidden bacteria, virus, harmful chemicals and gives the Purest water.) At the outset, the claim of Sabse Shudh Pani is a superlative claim of superiority of protection i.e. providing the safest and best water available anywhere in the world. In the absence of data in comparison with purifiers, bottled water and other sources from the entire world, the claim is false and misleading. Such a superlative claim should not be permitted in the absence of a very high degree of substantiation establishing total superiority against all competition water purifiers, bottled water and any other drinking water source. The claim connotes that the Advertiser provides the safest water anywhere in the world. Further, there are several sources and manufacturers of drinking water which provide drinking water that is superior in quality to that of the Advertiser. We have herein attached the Consumer Voice reports on Domestic Water Purifiers as Annexure II, which have established that there exists other brands which are superior to that of the Advertiser’s water purifier."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant. ASCI had forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser had, however, not responded to ASCI’s request. The CCC viewed the TVC and upon careful consideration of the complaint, and in the absence of any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the advertiser’s claim that the water purified in their water-purifier is the purest of all, was in the superlative, without any material being placed before the CCC to justify such claim. The advertiser’s claim “Sabse Shudh Pani” was therefore considered as entirely unsubstantiated and misleading by exaggeration; the advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code and the complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Mankind Pharma Limited"
PRODUCT:"Manforce Condoms"

COMPLAINT:

“This start a song and make a love scene bus this scene create a very bold and sexiest because this ads play before the break. In television long period show this ads and not to promote ads because this ads to watch full part on youtube. This ads show very much nudity and his full ads in youtube very nudity and and this ads to speak to people to watch full ads on YouTube because tv ads very short nudity and youtube are very long period time sex scene in this channel pls remove ads from youtube channel”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

""The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response as stated above. The advertiser had stated that prime facie they were unable to understand whether the complainant has issues with airing the said commercial on TV or diverting the audience to the YouTube channel. They further stated that the complainant had quantified nudity with terms like “very nudity” and “short nudity” which, according to the advertiser, was absurd and made no sense. The advertiser further stated that their advertisement does not have any sex scene as claimed by the complainant, and that they had ensured that not a single frame of the advertisement projects any vulgar, indecent or objectionable pose that could violate the ASCI Code. As regards the YouTube channel, the advertiser stated that they understand the cyber laws and were well aware of its regulations; and that the algorithm of a search engine platform like YouTube has a restricted accessibility. The advertiser stated that they had taken utmost care to ensure that their advert stays within the permissible limits and does not cross the limits of intimate scenes. The CCC viewed the TV advertisement, its YouTube version and carefully considered the Advertiser’s response and opined that the TV and YouTube advertisement was not likely to cause grave or widespread offence among adult viewers. However, the CCC noted that the advertisement that was available on YouTube, which was a longer version than the one on TV with additional scenes, ought to have been appropriately age-gated, so as to act as a caution to under-aged viewers. The CCC concluded that, in view of the fact that minors could view the said YouTube advertisement without any cautionary age-gating, the advertisement violated the provisions of Chapter III.2 of ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD. The complaint against the TV advertisement was NOT UPHELD.""

 

COMPANY: "Metro Shoes Ltd "
PRODUCT:"Davinchi Aloe Vera Health Socks"

COMPLAINT:

"1“Helps in anti-aging and reverse degenerative skin changes” 2.“Improves the skin’s ability to hydrate itself and a removal of dead skin cells” 3.“Reduces swelling from injuries and recovery from infections” 4.“Reduction in Arthritis, Joint and Muscle Pain”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"The advertiser, Metro Shoes, makes a package claim for its DaVinchi Brand of Aloe Vera Health Socks that Aloe Vera infuses socks: (a). help in anti-aging and reverse degenerative skin changes; (b). improves ability of skin to rehydrate and aid in removal of dead skin cells; (c). removes swelling from injuries and promotes recovery from infections; (d). reduces arthritis, joint and muscle pain; (e). has soothing and healing effects on burns and wounds. The claims of socks infused with aloe vera being beneficial effect (before as well as after washing) for the above claims from (a) to (e) require to be proved and substantiated. Following is the link to the claims made: http://www.metroshoes.net/davinchi-23-3002-whitesocks-full-length.html”"

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they availed, and submitted their written response as stated above. The advertiser stated that they were selling the “Aloe Vera Health Socks” under their “Davinchi” brand; that these were high quality cotton socks treated with aloe vera extract. The advertiser further stated that their claims made on the packaging are based on the traditional, commonly known benefits of external application of aloe vera on skin, and that they have been able to produce Test report showing durability of Aloe vera treated fabrics for up to ten washes. They finally stated that they had been unable to find any study or report with regard to efficacy of use of Aloe vera socks and in the absence of such a report, they would like to forthwith correct the packaging for this product, including the products in all the Showrooms. Upon viewing the advertisement, and the comments from the Advertiser, the CCC opined that claims made by the advertiser, which were in the nature of health benefits for the consumers who use the product (DaVinchi brand of Aloe Vera Health Socks) were not substantiated with authentic scientific or clinical evidence for the advertised product and are misleading by implication. In these circumstances, the CCC concluded that the advertised claims, i.e. that the Aloe Vera infused socks: (a) help in anti-aging and reverse degenerative skin changes; (b) improves ability of skin to rehydrate and aid in removal of dead skin cells; (c) removes swelling from injuries and promotes recovery from infections; (d) reduces arthritis, joint and muscle pain; and (e) has soothing and healing effects on burns and wounds had violated the provisions of Chapter 1.1 and 1.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"GM Global Technies Tower"
PRODUCT:"GM Infinite Towers"

COMPLAINT:

"“Ad claims to be opposite the mall. Ad claims to be opposite the mall. The mall construction is not complete and has been stopped a long time ago. Not proper for someone to advertise this way and is misleading."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant. ASCI had forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser had, however, not responded to ASCI’s request. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and upon careful consideration of the complaint, and in the absence of any comments or response from the advertiser, based on the submissions made by the complainant the CCC concluded that the advertiser’s claim in respect of the advertised housing project being located opposite to a particular mall was untruthful and was therefore misleading to the consumers. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Carrier Air-conditioning & Refrigeration Ltd"
PRODUCT:"Carrier AC Round clock service"

COMPLAINT:

"“In Advertisement, it shows that a student called as genius, doing page overturn one night before their exam, but he insure that Carrier Engineers are available at 24*7 for the service at your door step. You can called any timer Engineer will be available there. In these video he complety mention that a ""Engineer form Carrier round clock AC service is available work 24*7 on work even they called at night it available at their home. Team, why he mention the name of ENGINEER"", why he not mentioning as Carrier Technician instead of carrier Engineer. these advertisement completely make a laugh on Engineers, & lost their Social values in the society. REQUEST TO TAKE ACTION AGAINST THESE ADVERTISEMENT & OMIT THE WORD ENGINEER BYTECHNICIAN. IN ONE OF THERE ADVERTISEMENT HE ALSO COMPARE ENGINEERS WITH OWL.”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: NOT UPHELD

"ASCI had forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but had submitted their written response as quoted above. Upon viewing the print advertisement and considering the Advertiser’s response, the CCC opined that the in the context of the advertisement, description (in an advertisement) of an air-conditioning service personnel, who is claimed to be available on a round the clock basis, as an ‘Engineer’, was not deriding or mocking engineering professionals. The complaint was accordingly NOT UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd.-"
PRODUCT:"Reliance Jio"

COMPLAINT:

“All unlimited 3 months at Rs.309”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"Complaint no.1 Jio claims all services unlimited for 3 months at 309. With 21 IPL 2017 cricket player's & 7 IPL 2017 team's logos. Before also i complaint again the same 309 & ad but now it's different ad from that so take this complaint. I'll explain how this is different. First 309 plan offers only 84days it's not 3months then data for this plan is daily 1gb only get high speed after that speed reduced then 84days only for first recharge then second recharge for 309 & get only 28days validity. This ad is different because in this ad IPL 2017 players are there they have huge fans it's clearly misguiding there Fan's I request you to take action against that 21 IPL cricket player's on this ad. And take action against IPL 2017 7 team's logos mentioned in this ad because there logos& used in this ad there are huge fan base for that team's this ad is misguiding that Fan's. Complaint no.2 In jio YouTube page 17video ads claims jio 309 & plan offer's all unlimited for 3months. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=j6L5viWHq6U https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QvazfN9CR84 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jFIxgLWWwaE https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=G12oGVLKspA https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-EJyIEUlZBA https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cDPeMQ7B-6w https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_Z7GvYUg7tg https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ID2ACFRmWcc https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OHL9IE8_PPI https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=v2UH06zLG8Q https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gCMpgMzotHw https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qo0uE8BVbvI https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=27VLVJXo1J4 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XUAf6fDvqZo https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=REubvXxmy70 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KwMe2SjsQvY https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HVS31bCuoA0 Operators has freedom to set own tariffs but here this ad misleading to consumer's. Actually jio 309 & offer's only 84 days validity, then it's not all unlimited only 1gb per day is at 4g speed after that speed reduced, then it's only one time applicable offer. In these ads many IPL 2017 cricket player's & IPL 2017 team name used in India we have die-hard fans for cricket player's & cricket team name they are misguiding there Fan's hence i request you to take action against the players & teams& used in this ad to stop misleading ad's likes this in future. https://m.youtube.com/channel/UC7x7gqeQQ5dazPAvDgC7TIw/videos?itct=CA0Q8JMBGAEiEwjp2JSU1brT AhVLmX4KHagQDyU%3D&client=mv-google&hl=en&gl=IN"

Recommendation: UPHELD

"ASCI had forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response as stated above. Upon carefully viewing the Internet / YouTube advertisement, and examining the complaint and the response given by the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the advertiser’s explanation in respect of the first complaint, that “it was a standard industry practice to consider one month as 28 days to bring about consistency in the billing cycle” was not considered acceptable, given the fact that in common parlance, a month was always understood as a calendar month. In respect of the second complaint, the CCC carefully considered the response of the advertiser and opined that the advertisement in which the claim “Unlimited maza continue hoyega” that was made in the advertisement ought to have carried a mention that such claim was subject to certain terms and conditions. The advertisement did not have any mention of the speed throttling after 1 GB. In the absence of such mention of terms and conditions, the CCC opined that the claim was vague and misleading by omission and ambiguity. The advertisements were considered to be violative of the provisions of Chapter 1.1 and 1.4 of the ASCI Code as well as Clause 1 of ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers (“A disclaimer can expand or clarify a claim, make qualifications, or resolve ambiguities, to explain the claim in further details, but should not contradict the material claim made or contradict the main message conveyed by the advertiser or change the dictionary meaning of the words used in the claim as received or perceived by a consumer.”). The complaints were accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Arogya Retail "
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"“Advertisement for the above brand shows that they provide discount from 20% to 75 % on MRP, However while purchasing the items only 10% discount provided on maximum items and 20% discount provided on 1 item.”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant. ASCI had forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser had, however, not responded to ASCI’s request. The CCC viewed the hoarding advertisement and upon careful consideration of the complaint including the sales receipt enclosed by the complainant, and in the absence of any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the advertiser’s claim in respect of the advertised “provision of 20% to 75% discount” was untruthful and was therefore misleading to the consumers. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:""LG Electronics India Pvt Ltd""
PRODUCT: "LG Dual Fridge"

COMPLAINT:

"Freezer to Fridge - 100% Faster conversion#"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"“LG Dual fridge 100% faster conversion; The ad shows a saree clad women and another one wearing a hijab, standing on either side of the fridge. The caption says ""100% faster conversion"". The caption has a hidden connotation of the religious conversions which happen in the country. I believe such immature double-dealing ads should be condoned.” Please refer the following link from ePaper of the same: http://epaper.jagran.com/epaper/14-apr-2017-241-delhi- archive-edition-noida-Page-9.html"

Recommendation: NOT UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant. ASCI had forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser had, however, not responded to ASCI’s request. The CCC viewed the Internet advertisement and upon careful consideration of the complaint, the CCC concluded that the advertisement for a refrigerator, with the caption “Faster Conversion” (with two women – one on either side of the refrigerator; the woman on the left side of the refrigerator wearing a dress normally worn by the Hindu women in the country, and the woman on the right side wearing a dress which is normally associated with Muslim women in the country), which apparently informed the public about the technical feature of their product in which the Freezer compartment of the refrigerator could be converted into a normal cooling compartment, and vice-versa, was not likely to cause grave and widespread public offence. The complaint was accordingly NOT UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: ""Roorkee College of Pharmacy""
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"“RCP college is showing campus placement in big MNC's like - Sanofi, Valeant, janssen, AstraZeneca, Astellas, Bristol Meyer Squibb, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Gilead, GSK (GlaxoSmithKline), Merck, Roche where in actual NO student is placed in any of the mention companies. Any even none of the listed company are invited for placement. Since this is misleading to new student and parents to decide the carrier. Hence these contents should be removed from college website.” http://www.rcpcollege.edu.in/placement.php”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant. ASCI had forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser had, however, not responded to ASCI’s request. The CCC viewed the web-site advertisement and upon careful consideration of the complaint, and in the absence of any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the advertiser’s claim in respect of the placements in MNCs such as Astellas, Boehringer- Ingelheim which are claimed to have happened in the college was not truthful, and was therefore misleading tothe consumers. The advertisement contravened Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Idea Cellular Ltd"
PRODUCT:"Idea Data Jackpot Offer"

COMPLAINT:

"The below offer was sent to me today i.e. 23rd April 2017. When I called Idea to avail the offer they said it is over on 21st April 2017."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: NOT UPHELD

"ASCI had forwarded full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was also offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response as stated above The advertiser, in their response, had interalia stated that the case seems to be of some communication issue/gap as the said ""Idea Data Jackpot Offer"" is still available and running till May 31, 2017 contradictory to what is alleged in the complaint that the said offer is over on April 21, 2017. The advertiser stated that they had investigated the matter internally and it was found that the said offer which was initially available till April 21, 2017 was extended on April 8, 2017 till May 31, 2017 by way of updating the website terms and conditions much before its original expiry date. They lastly stated that in their endeavor for quick resolution of the issue, they would make efforts to contact and complainant and make the offer available to him/her subject to the terms and conditions of offer. In view of the foregoing, and since the advertiser had expressed their readiness to resolve the issue with the complainant, the CCC concluded that the complaint is NOT UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Amazon.com, Inc."
PRODUCT:"Redmi 3S/ 3S Prime"

COMPLAINT:

"“There is an advertisement regarding a sale for Redmi 3s stating the sale will be at 12pm every friday but the sale has not started. There is an advertisement regarding a sale for Redmi 3s stating the sale will be at 12 pm every friday .So I was waiting for the sale from 5-6 days but sale has not started. And they are saying wait for another friday for order. They totaly misleading the consumers. Sir/mam there is a advertisement on amazon.in stating that there will be 1 sale for ""Redmi 3s"" mobile phone every friday at 12pm i was waiting for that sale but sale has not started .When i contact amazon.in they are saying there may be any technical problem or shortage of stock. If there is shortage of stock they must show notice on advertisement .This happens again this week also .So i demand you to please take action against amazon.in for misleading customers.”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"ASCI had forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but had submitted their written response as detailed above. Upon viewing the Internet advertisement and considering the advertiser’s response, the CCC noted that while the advertiser rejected the jurisdiction of ASCI to entertain the complaint in the first place, stated that a flash sale was one where a product was offered for sale for a limited period of time and for a limited quantity of the product; and that owing to high demand of products sold through flash sales, on occasion the sales last a matter of a couple of minutes if not seconds. The advertiser further stated that they deny the complainant’s allegation in the present matter that the flash sale was not conducted at the scheduled time; and that the flash sale for the Redmi 3S and 3S Prime had been conducted on Amazon.in every Friday at 12 Noon as advertised throughout the month of April, 2017. As per the CCC, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has, in a recent judgement titled “Common Cause (A Regd Society) v Union of India and Ors”, has affirmed and recognised the self-regulatory mechanism put in place by bodies like ASCI as an effective pre-emptive step to statutory provisions in the sphere of media regulation for TV and Radio programmes in India. The grievance redressal platform provided by self-regulatory bodies like ASCI, therefore, function as the first step for aggrieved consumers against content in the media which might not be in line with the existing laws. Upon careful consideration of the matter, the CCC concluded that in spite of all their assertions, the advertiser had not provided any evidence of successful sale of the advertised product through flash sale, in the period mentioned in the advertisement. Hence it was considered that the advertisement had violated the provisions of Chapter 1.1 and 1.4 of the ASCI Code, in so much as the claims therein have not been objectively substantiated and the offer was misleading. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Balaji Telefilms Ltd (ALTBalaji)"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"“The advertisement reflects that you can watch the show ""Karle tu bhi mohabbat"" for free. I saw an advertisement of Altbalaji on SonyHD which is basically an application which screens web series. The advertisement reflects that watching a new web series ""karle tu bhi mohabbat"" on the application AltBalaji is free however, when I installed the application it only let me watch first 5 episodes and later asked for a nominal subscription fee. My issue is unethical marketing by them. They should let the customers know that there will be a subscription fee if chosen to download the application. You may also take a look at numerous play store reviews on which they have chosen not to respond.”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant. ASCI had forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser had, however, not responded to ASCI’s request. The CCC viewed the TV advertisement and upon careful consideration of the complaint, and in the absence of any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the advertiser’s claim in respect of the public being able to watch the show "Karle tu bhi mohabbat" for free, was untruthful, and misleading, too, to the consumers in the absence of any mention of the terms and conditions (that one would have to pay a nominal subscription fees after a given number of free episodes) to which the claim was subject to. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Bharti Airtel Ltd "
PRODUCT: "Airtel Broadband"

COMPLAINT:

"“The issue is that Airtel at present does not provide 100mbps speed anywhere in Delhi. Not only that, in the garb of providing 100mbps speed they provide speeds of 2mbps, 4mbps, 8mbps and 16mbps. That is plain and simple misleading its customers. Many companies actually provide that speed and don’t just make claims of providing that. Not only that Airtel at present cannot even provide such speeds as it does not have the infrastructure to do so.”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response as stated above. Upon carefully viewing the print advertisement and the advertiser’s response, the CCC opined that the advertiser has not been able to adequately substantiate the claim made in their advertisement, of making available speed up to 100 mbps with the plans advertised. While the advertiser has stated in their response that Internet speeds in a broadband network depend on the technology deployed and the distance of the premises from the exchange, and that technically it was not possible to commit the exact speeds available in each premise without an on-ground feasibility check, they further stated that a feasibility check is done post receipt of an online order/lead and on the basis of feasibility check, a customer is informed about the exact speed available; and that it is only post feasibility check that a customer exercises the choice for availing Airtel broadband services or not. They added that they had nowhere claimed that they provide “speeds only of 100Mbps”. The CCC nevertheless concluded that they had nowhere, in the claim that they had made in their advertisement, mentioned the “terms and conditions” (which they had described in detail in their response) under which they were making the said claim. The CCC concluded that the claim “Speed up to 100 Mbps available with this plan” was not substantiated and was misleading by ambiguity and omission. Accordingly, it was felt that the advertisement and the claim had violated Clause 1.1 and 1.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Amazon.com, Inc"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"I received email today from Amazon highlighting the following : 1. WD Elements USB 2TB 3.0 high-capacity portable hard drive for Windows. by WD Price: Rs. 5,079.29 2. Seagate Backup Plus Slim 2TB Portable External Hard Drive with... by Seagate - Price: Rs. 4,741.26 The price given in email is misleading. After clicking the link the prices were shown as below. 1.WD Elements USB 2TB 3.0 high-capacity portable hard drive for Windows. Price: 6,695.00 Inclusive of all taxes 2. Seagate Backup Plus Slim 2TB Portable External Hard Drive with Mobile Device Backup USB 3.0 (Black) Price: 5,264.23 Includes Import Fees Deposit + 307.95 Delivery Charge Amazon is sending misleading emails and forcing consumers to clicks the link. Suggest take action against them."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant. ASCI had forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser had, however, not responded to ASCI’s request. The CCC viewed the e:mailer advertisement and upon careful consideration of the complaint, and in the absence of any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the advertiser’s claim regarding the prices at which specific products were being offered on their webpage, was untruthful and misleading to the consumers. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"DHI Global Medical Group"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"“The advertisement gives reference to an IMRB research and does comparative rating of different brands. 1. IMRB (or any other body) does not do research on their own and its always sponsored. The research seems to be sponsored by either DHI or its associates, with the sole intention of disparaging all competitor brands 2. We have not shared our database or participated in any survey of IMRB. Hair transplant is not like an automobile, where you can stop people on the road depending upon the brand they are driving and ask them about their experience and get a rating done. You need access to the data base of customers which is confidential and protected under the medical ethics of any clinic/ doctor. The research seems fabricated and IMRB has been used as a stamp to support this advertisement 3. A large enough representative sample size could not have been used for this survey, since the brands have not participated in this survey. The survey methodology also seems suspect and could easily be biased towards one brand and not another. 4. IMRB has not ensured that there is no sponsor bias towards DHI”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant. ASCI had forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser had, however, not responded to ASCI’s request. The CCC viewed the print / web-site advertisement and upon careful consideration of the complaint, and in the absence of any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the advertiser’s claim regarding the superiority of their products or services based on IMRB Customer Satisfaction survey ratings, in the absence of any substantiation through IMRB study design, questionnaire and reports, etc., was untruthful and misleading. The advertisement was violative of the provisions of Chapter 1.1 and 1.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Kalyan Jewellers"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"“Gold coin free with every purchase above 25000 We bought a chain and locket at kalyan jewellers mangaluru for Rs 34500. But, gold coin was not given I have attached the advertisement which says free gold coin will be given to all purchases above r 25ooo/ the hoarding is outside the jewellery shop.”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response stating that they had enquired with the concerned showroom on this matter, and were informed that the said customer, while purchasing, was desirous to opt for an additional discount instead of the free gold coin offered and that the same was agreed to as a stand-alone case. They added that the said complaint may have been filed with the ASCI by the complainant inadvertently without realizing that the value of the gold coin was included in the additional discount offered for the said purchase on his own request. Upon viewing the hoarding, print advertisement and carefully considering the advertiser’s response, the CCC opined that the claim advertised “Gold coin free with every purchase above 25000” has been inadequately substantiated in as much as they had not provided any evidence of gold coins having been actually given to other customers, or that of a comparative sales receipt of another customer to show that the customer in the complaint in question had in fact been given a discount and the claim was misleading. Hence it was considered that the advertisement had violated the provisions of Chapter 1.1 and 1.4 of the ASCI Code The complaint was accordingly UPHELD. "

 

COMPANY:"Nidan Ayurveda India Pvt Ltd - Nidan Ayurveda India"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"1. Eat fully even but still reduce weight. - Otherwise get money back 2. NIDAN AYURVEDA INDIA's new research from which without reducing diet you can reduce your weight without any side effects. Within 45 days if there is no result get your money back guarantee. 3. Visuals are misleading"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objections raised in the complaint. ASCI had forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser had, however, not responded to ASCI’s request. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and upon careful consideration of the complaint, and in the absence of any comments or response from the advertiser substantiating their claims, “Eat fully even but still reduce weight - Otherwise get money back”, “NIDAN AYURVEDA INDIA's new research from which without reducing diet you can reduce your weight without any side effects. Within 45 days if there is no result get your money back guarantee” the CCC concluded that the advertiser’s claims in the advertisement are untruthful and misleading to the consumers. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Ratan Ayurvedic Sansthan Private Limited - Ratan Beuton Herbal Kala Shampoo"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"1. Get beautiful black hair easily 2. Enriched with Natural elements. - Herbal shampoo 3. Claim appears to be misleading as it implies natural hair darkening effect with the product"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objections raised in the complaint. ASCI had forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser had, however, not responded to ASCI’s request. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and upon careful consideration of the complaint, and in the absence of any comments or response from the advertiser substantiating their claims “Get beautiful black hair easily”, “Enriched with Natural elements. - Herbal shampoo”, the CCC concluded that the advertiser’s claims in the advertisement are untruthful and misleading to the consumers by ambiguity and implication. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Sameeksha Ayurveda Clinic– Sameeksha Clinic"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“Get Rid of Hypothyroidism Permanently & Safely.”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objections raised in the complaint. ASCI had forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response. The advertiser stated their intention was not to mislead public and their actual intention was to make public to be aware that hypothyroidism can be better managed with Ayurvedic medicines. They were in a hurry to give their advertisement on that particular date as there were some discounts in the cost of advertisement during that period. Hence, in that hurry they might have wrongly framed the advertisement The CCC viewed the print advertisement and upon careful consideration of the complaint, and response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the advertiser’s claim in the advertisement “Get Rid of Hypothyroidism Permanently & Safely”, are untruthful and misleading to the consumers. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:""Zee Laboratories Limited""
PRODUCT:"My Fair Cream"

COMPLAINT:

"1.Fairness Cream 2.Tried and tested by crores of people 3.Complete cosmetic range 4. Photo and name of Isha Gupta My Fair Fairness Queen 2017 Complaint: “1. Claim 2 needs to be substantiated with independent data. How does the product say that it is tried and tested by crores of people? 2. Has the product been approved by any National/International Regulatory Authority? 3. Has the results been confirmed by an Independent Agency? 4. How long does it take for the product to show results? 5. What conditions are required for this? 6. How long does the effect last? What conditions are required for this? 7. Is the treatment safe for all patients? What are the side effects? 8. Is Ms Isha Gupta endorsing the product? The title seems to be of a pageant sponsored or conducted by the product or company itself and not an independent pageant? 9. Please substantiate the statement President Award Winner? With details on the award, date received etc. 10. The logo ZEE is that of the popular ZEE TV Channel. Does it have any connection? Please give details. According to us, the advertisement contravenes Chapter 1.1 and 1.4 of ASCI code””"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objections raised in the complaint. ASCI had forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser had, however, not responded to ASCI’s request. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and upon careful consideration of the complaint, and in the absence of any comments or response from the advertiser substantiating their claims “Fairness cream”, “Tried and tested by crores of people”, “President Award Winner” , the CCC concluded that the advertiser’s claims in the advertisement are untruthful and misleading to the consumers. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Organic India Private Limited"
PRODUCT:"Tulsi Green Tea"

COMPLAINT:

“100% Certified Organic”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, and submitted their written response as discussed above. The Advertiser stated that the product Tulsi Green tea has been labelled as 100% certified organic in line with the Organic Scope certificate issued by the Control Union Certifications, and independent agency authorized by APEDA for certifying Organic Products. Tulsi Green Tea present in the scope certificate has been certified to be Organic and revised certificate certifies it to be 100% organic. As claim support data, the advertiser provided a copy of the Organic Scope certificate. The claim support data was reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response as well as the opinion of Technical expert presented at the meeting. The CCC noted that the accreditation number of the Certification Agency is not depicted in the advertisement. While the advertisement appeared on January 17, 2017, the Scope certificate for this period did not reflect the product name in it. Based on this evidence, the CCC concluded that the claim, “100% Certified Organic”, was not substantiated for the advertisement under reference and is misleading. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the Code. The complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Modi Naturals Ltd."
PRODUCT:"Oleev Active"

COMPLAINT:

"1. “Olive Active” 2. “Everyday cooking with the goodness of Olive Oil” 3. “With Energocules” 4. “reduces serum cholesterol, prevents many lifestyle diseases and has antiageing properties” 5. SCI-FRY TECHNOLOGY 6. “Stable while frying” 7. “A light oil that gets absorbed up to 20% less” 8. “not only gives light and tasty food but also assures you health benefits”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"1. The packaging and advertisement highlights brand name Oleev Active The oil sold by the company is the blended edible vegetable oil which is a mixture of physically refined rice bran oil and refined olive pomace oil. The intent behind this brand name is to mislead or deceive the customers by falsely representing the blended edible vegetable oil to be olive oil. The brand name gives the impression that it is olive oil having the quality, specification, standard etc. of the olive oil particularly when read with other statement appearing on the front Label. Everyday cooking with the goodness of Olive Oil . Also the Oleev Active is likely to be perceived by the consumer as product claim and shall be misleading the customers by ambiguity. The trademark is not registered and is under objection by trademark registry. Despite objections the product is being sold with same brand name. 2. The advertisement highlights Everyday cooking with the goodness of Olive oil The oil is blended vegetable oil with combination of rice bran oil and olive oil in ratio of 70:30 respectively. From the information specified it cannot be find out that what the basis of this claim is. How can the oil with its petite content of refined olive pomace oil can bring the goodness in cooking. 3. The advertisement and packaging highlights:with energocules, sci-fry technology, neutral flavour, anti-oxidant ke saath, reduce serum cholesterol, prevents many lifestyle diseases, has antiageing properties, stable while frying, makes food light and tasty food, light oil, assures health benefits, facilitates release of energy The aforementioned highlighted claims stated hereinabove should be based on or supported by independent research or assessment, the source and date of this should be indicated in the advertisement. The advertisement produces the distorted facts which can mislead the consumer by means of implications or omissions. Also, the claims should be proved by some study or conducted on substantial part of population across different individuals of different age, gender, medical condition in India. It contains statements and visual presentation which creates ambiguity likely to mislead the consumer about the product advertised What is sci-fry technology? Is it conducted by some experts or by Modi Naturals? Is such kind of technology well accepted in food industry? Is it approved by FSSAI? Does FSSAI gives credence to such technology? Light oil that gets absorbed upto 20% less- The claim is unsubstantiated and it is not clear how the food cooked in it will absorb 20% less oil. What are the properties which lead to lesser absorption? How does the oil help in reducing serum cholesterol, preventing lifestyle diseases? What is meant by antiageing properties? How does the oil help in achieving it? As claimed on the label, what sort of energy is generated by the oil through ATP? Does it mean the consumer will feel energetic? Has any study been conducted to prove such benefits of the oil? Neutral flavor and tasty food are subjective opinion and may differ from person to person. How can the oil ensure tasty food and neutral flavor? 4. The disclaimers appearing in the advertisement are barely readable. Also the advertisement shows Olive in the backdrop which is misleading as the oil is not Olive Oil. Any oil with a miniscule quantity of the Olive Oil should not be allowed to be represented as Olive Oil."

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they had availed, and submitted their written response as stated above. The claim support data submitted by the advertiser was reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. The CCC carefully examined the complaint, the product packaging and the TVC and the detailed response sent by the advertiser as well as the opinion of Technical expert presented at the meeting. The CCC observed that regarding the first part of the complaint, that the packaging and advertisement in question highlights brand name “Oleev Active”; that the oil sold by the company is blended edible vegetable oil (mixture of physically refined rice bran oil and refined olive pomace oil); that the intent behind this brand name was to mislead or deceive the customers by falsely representing the blended edible vegetable oil to be olive oil; that the brand name gives the impression that it is olive oil having the quality, specification, standard etc. of the olive oil particularly when read with other statement appearing on the front Label, “Everyday cooking with the goodness of Olive Oil”, the advertiser stated in their response that the fact that the product being advertised, i.e. “Oleev Active” was a BLENDED EDIBLE VEGETABLE OIL, was clearly printed on the front of the pack below the product name. The CCC noted that the product contained substantial portion of Olive Oil, i.e. 30%. Besides, the advertiser stated that they had clearly printed the details about the product on the face of the pack, that it contains 30% olive oil and balance a refined vegetable oil. The CCC did not consider the product name “Oleev Active” and claims “Everyday cooking with the goodness of Olive oil” “Blended Edible Vegetable oil” “contains an admixture of Physically refined Rice Bran oil 70% by weight and Refined Olive Pomace oil 30% by weight” objectionable. These complaints were accordingly NOT UPHELD. The CCC noted that the advertiser has used the words “Energocules” (stated as a coined word by the advertiser) and “Sci-Fry technology” (a coined term to indicate the product’s High Smoke point and added ingredients that improve product stability during frying) in the past - in an earlier decision of the CCC in C.3856 in 2012 and C.7744 in 2015, which were considered to be creative expressions and hence not objectionable when scrutinized earlier by the CCC. In view of the foregoing, the complaints are NOT UPHELD. In respect of the claim “Neutral flavor” the advertiser stated that during refining process, impurities and odours are removed by treating the oil with physical and/or chemical means; this means that refined oil would not have any inherent flavor; that the ingredients of “Oleev Active” are refined in nature and thus cooking with Oleev Active oil does not add any flavor, and is hence neutral in flavor. In view of the above, the CCC concluded that this aspect of the claim was reasonably substantiated, and accordingly the complaint was NOT UPHELD. The claim “Making Oleev oil a part of your kitchen not only gives you light and tasty food but also assures you health benefits” was considered NOT UPHELD. As regards the complaint relating to the claim that the product “helps in reducing serum cholesterol, preventing lifestyle diseases, and has anti-ageing properties etc.”, the advertiser stated that nowhere on the packaging was it claimed that ‘Oleev Active’ helps in reducing serum cholesterol, preventing lifestyle diseases, etc”. The CCC noted that while the advertiser positions these benefits as Oryzanol properties, the claim was not substantiated for the Oryzanol content in the product or the specific oil blend and was misleading by ambiguity and implication. The advertiser submitted report to support claim “Stable while frying” ; However, the CCC did not find a mention of the advertised product in the report and the a comparison was done with Saffola Gold. In absence of a detailed study under different frying tests for the specific product, this claim was considered to be inadequately substantiated. For the claim “a light oil that gets absorbed upto 20% less”, the report did not cover frying results for different foods. Therefore, the data was considered to be inadequate and the claim was misleading by ambiguity and omission. Furthermore, while the TVC is in Hindi, the disclaimers in the TVC are in English. These pack claims / advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code as well as Guidelines on disclaimers.These complaints were accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Modi Naturals Ltd."
PRODUCT:"Oleev Smart"

COMPLAINT:

"“Oleev Smart VitaFit Low Absorption “Healthy state and prevent cellular damage” “Helps in bone and muscle strength” “aids in Healing Process” “improves blood circulation and lowers overall bad cholesterol” “support and promote heart health” Stable while frying” “absorbed up to 20% less”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"The objections are as follows: 1. The packaging and advertisement highlights brand name Oleev Smart The oil sold by the company is the blended edible vegetable oil which is a mixture of physically refined rice bran oil and refined rapeseed oil. The intent behind this brand name is to mislead or deceive the customers by falsely representing the blended edible vegetable oil to be olive oil. The brand name gives the impression that it is olive oil having the quality, specification, standard etc. of the olive oil. Oleev Smart is likely to be perceived by the consumer as product claim and shall be misleading the customers by ambiguity. The trademark is not registered and is under objection by trademark registry. Despite objections the product is being sold with same brand name. 2. The advertisement highlights ‘Smarter choice for a healthy lifestyle’ It is unclear as to how use of this oil would result in healthy lifestyle. Is consuming this oil only thing one needs to do for maintaining health. What study has been conducted to prove the health benefits of the oil on an individual? 3. The advertisement and packaging highlights: Vitafit, low absorption, keep tissues in healthy state and prevent cellular damage, helps in bone and muscle strength, aids in healing process, improves blood circulation and lowers bad cholesterol overall health, support and promote heart health, stable while frying The aforementioned highlighted claims stated hereinabove should be based on or supported by independent research or assessment, the source and date of this should be indicated in the advertisement. The advertisement produces the distorted facts which can mislead the consumer by means of implications or omissions. Also, the claims should be proved by some study or conducted on substantial part of population across different individuals of different age, gender, medical condition in India. It contains statements and visual presentation which creates ambiguity likely to mislead the consumer about the product advertised. What is VitaFit? Is it conducted by some experts or by Modi Naturals? Is such kind of technology well accepted in food industry? Is it approved by FSSAI? Does FSSAI gives credence to such technology? Light oil that gets absorbed upto 20% less- The claim is unsubstantiated and it is not clear how the food cooked in it will absorb 20% less oil. What are the properties which lead to lesser absorption? How does the oil help in low absorption, reducing bad cholesterol, keeps heart young and healthy, promotes blood circulation and overall health, support and promote heart health, stable while frying."

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they had availed, and submitted their written response as stated above. The claim support data submitted by the advertiser was reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. The CCC carefully examined the complaint in its entirety, the product packaging and the detailed response provided by the advertiser as well as the opinion of Technical expert presented at the meeting. The CCC noted that Oleev Active (a product that contains Olive Oil) is the mother-brand and is advertised on TV whereas Oleev Smart is a mixture of refined rapeseed oil – Low Erucic Acid (Canola oil) and physically refined rice bran oil and does not contain any Olive oil. The CCC did not agree with the advertiser’s contention that the “acceptance of the (trade) mark for registration by the trademark registry is by itself an affirmation that the mark “Oleev” is not misleading of descriptive”; that the “Oleev Smart” brand name is approved and registered by Agmark authority”, “that all information about the product was appropriately and accurately displayed on its packaging in the manner as prescribed under the Food Packaging and Labelling Regulations”. The CCC carefully considered the complaint and the response, and were of the view that the word “Oleev” in the advertiser’s brand name, “Oleev Smart”, is likely to cause, in spite of all clarifications to the contrary, a belief in the consumers at large, in a broad manner that it may contain olive oil especially given that the mother-brand that is advertised in mass media has Olive oil. In view of the above discussion, the product name in packaging / advertisement was considered to be misleading. In respect of the second part of the complaint that the byline for the product below the product title on its packaging, which says “Smarter choice for a healthy lifestyle” the CCC was unclear as to how such consumption of the product alone would lead to better health than the current oil being consumed by consumers, and there are no comparative studies cited for this claim. The advertiser cited the Uttarakhand High Court’s judgement about the tagline ‘Healthy Piyo Healthy Jiyo’ in which the Honourable High Court had said that no tagline can be misleadingThe CCC did not agree with the advertiser’s argument that the said byline was no claim at all, and it was only a “coined tagline and creative way to write”. Advertiser further stated that according to studies, blending two or more oils combines the potency of two edible oils and offers a balance of fatty acids, and that normally, no single oil can provide the recommended dietary fat ratio, which the body needs. The CCC concluded that while the advertiser is portraying the benefit of an oil blend versus single oil, in absence of any comparative data or qualifier, the claim “Smarter” is misleading by ambiguity and omission of the comparison being referred to. As regards the complaint relating to the claim “Super enriched formula of Vitamin A, D, E & K, Oryzanol and Omega fatty acids. Anti-oxidant properties of Vitamin A and E keep tissues in healthy state and prevents cellular damage, while Vitamin D helps in bone and muscle strength, Vitamin K aids in healing process. Oryzanol improves blood circulation and lowers overall bad cholesterol levels. Also Omega 3, Omega 6 and Omega 9 fatty acids along with other good lipids support and promote heart health” , the advertiser stated that these claims are made for oil’s constituents such as Oryzanol. The CCC noted that while the advertiser positions these benefits as Oryzanol properties, the claim was not substantiated for the oil constituents / Oryzanol content in the product or the specific oil blend and was misleading by ambiguity and implication. For the objection regarding the term “Vitafit+”, the advertiser states that it is a coined word to communicate about the health properties of constituents of Oleev Smart oil like Vitamins A, D E & K and other antioxidants, and that the addition of fat soluble vitamins A and D are in accordance with FSSAI’s guidelines on fortification in edible oil. They further stated that “VitaFit+” has been accepted and advertised in Journal by Trade Mark Registry. While the CCC, in principle, did not find the presentation of the logo unit for “VitaFit+” when seen in conjunction with declaration of Vitamin A, D, E and K, to be objectionable, in absence of evidence of the RDA levels for these vitamins, the term was considered to be misleading. The advertiser submitted report to support claim “Stable while frying”; However, the CCC did not find a mention of the advertised product in the report and the a comparison was done with Saffola Gold. In absence of a detailed study under different frying tests for the specific product, this claim was considered to be inadequately substantiated. For the claim “low absorption”, “a light oil that gets absorbed upto 20% less”, the advertiser states that adding DMPS to control foaming helps in reducing oil absorption in fired food. However, this claim was no substantiated by lab trial reports to prove that reduction in absorption of oil is to a significant level is achieved due to the addition of DMPS. Therefore the data was considered to be inadequate and the claim was misleading by ambiguity. In view of the above, the CCC concluded that the pack claims referred above / advertisement were contravening provision of Chapter 1.1 and 1.4 of the ASCI Code. These complaints were accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Modi Naturals Ltd."
PRODUCT:"Oleev Health"

COMPLAINT:

"“Oleev Health” “Advanced cooking for everyday health” “with Cardizymes” “SCI-FRY Technology” “Low Absorption” “lowers bad cholesterol and keeps your heart young and healthy.” “promotes blood circulation” “overall physical health” “support and promote heart health” “SCI-FRY Technology” “Stable while frying” “A light oil that gets absorbed up to 20% less”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"“The objections are as follows: 1. The packaging and advertisement highlights brand name Oleev Health The oil sold by the company is the blended edible vegetable oil which is a mixture of physically refined rice bran oil and refined rapeseed oil. The intent behind this brand name is to mislead or deceive the customers by falsely representing the blended edible vegetable oil to be olive oil. The brand name gives the impression that it is olive oil having the quality, specification, standard etc. of the olive oil. Oleev Health is likely to be perceived by the consumer as product claim and shall be misleading the customers by ambiguity. The trademark is not registered and is under objection by trademark registry. Despite objections the product is being sold with same brand name. 2. The advertisement highlights “Advanced cooking for everyday health”. It is unclear as to how use of this oil would result in everyday health. Is consuming this oil only thing one needs to do for maintaining health. What study has been conducted to prove the health benefits of the oil on an individual? 3. The advertisement and the product’s packaging highlights: “with cardizymes, sci-fry technology, low absorption, lowers bad cholesterol, keeps heart young and healthy, promotes blood circulation and overall health, support and promote heart health, stable while frying”. The aforementioned highlighted claims stated hereinabove should be based on or supported by independent research or assessment; the source and date of this should be indicated in the advertisement. The advertisement produces the distorted facts which can mislead the consumer by means of implications or omissions. Also, the claims should be proved by some study or conducted on substantial part of population across different individuals of different age, gender, medical condition in India. It contains statements and visual presentation which creates ambiguity likely to mislead the consumer about the product advertised. What is sci-fry technology? Is it conducted by some experts or by Modi Naturals? Is such kind of technology well accepted in food industry? Is it approved by FSSAI? Does FSSAI gives credence to such technology? Light oil that gets absorbed upto 20% less- The claim is unsubstantiated and it is not clear how the food cooked in it will absorb 20% less oil. What are the properties which lead to lesser absorption? How does the oil help in reducing absorption, bad cholesterol, keeps heart young and healthy, promotes blood circulation and overall health, support and promote heart health, stable while frying."

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they had availed, and submitted their written response as stated above. The claim support data submitted by the advertiser was reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. The CCC carefully examined the complaint in its entirety, the product packaging and the detailed response provided by the advertiser as well as the opinion of Technical expert presented at the meeting. The CCC noted that Oleev Active (a product that contains Olive Oil) is the mother-brand and is advertised on TV whereas Oleev Health is a mixture of physically refined rice bran oil and refined rapeseed oil – Low Erucic Acid (Canola oil) and does not contain any Olive oil. The CCC did not agree with the advertiser’s contention that the “acceptance of the (trade) mark for registration by the trademark registry is by itself an affirmation that the mark “Oleev” is not misleading of descriptive”; that the “Oleev Health” brand name is approved and registered by Agmark authority”, “that all information about the product was appropriately and accurately displayed on its packaging in the manner as prescribed under the Food Packaging and Labelling Regulations”. The CCC carefully considered the complaint and the response, and were of the view that the word “Oleev” in advertiser’s brand name, “Oleev Health”, is likely to cause, in spite of all clarifications to the contrary, a belief in the consumers at large, in a broad manner that it may contain olive oil especially given that the mother-brand that is advertised in mass media has Olive oil. In view of the above discussion, the product name in packaging / advertisement was considered to be misleading. For the term ‘Cardizymes’, the advertiser states that it was a coined word to communicate in a creative manner which signifies the benefits Oleev Health Oil’s constituents like Oryzanol; that the term ‘Cardizymes’ has been accepted and advertised in Journal by Trade Mark Registry. While the CCC, in principle, did not find the term “Cardizyme” to be objectionable, it’s presentation in conjunction with a heart / heart beat symbol, in absence of evidence of the effective Oryzanol level for heart related benefits, was considered to be misleading by implication. As regards the complaint relating to the claim “Contains Oryzanol that lowers bad cholesterol and keeps your heart young and healthy. Oryzanol also promotes blood circulation thereby promoting overall physical health. Also Omega 3, Omega 6 and Omega 9 fatty acids along with other good lipids support and promote heart health”, the advertiser stated that these claims are made for oil’s constituents such as Oryzanol. The CCC noted that while the advertiser positions these benefits as Oryzanol properties, the claim was not substantiated for the oil constituents / Oryzanol content in the product or the specific oil blend and was misleading by ambiguity and implication. For the claim “Stable while frying”, the CCC did not consider the data presented by the advertiser to be adequate. For the claim “low absorption”, “a light oil that gets absorbed upto 20% less”, the advertiser states that adding DMPS to control foaming helps in reducing oil absorption in fried food. However, this claim was no substantiated by lab trial reports to prove that reduction in absorption of oil is to a significant level is achieved due to the addition of DMPS. Therefore the data was considered to be inadequate and the claim was misleading by ambiguity. In view of the above, the CCC concluded that the pack claims referred above / advertisement were contravening provision of Chapter 1.1 and 1.4 of the ASCI Code. These complaints were accordingly UPHELD. The CCC noted that the advertiser has used the words “Sci-Fry technology” (a coined term to indicate the product’s High Smoke point and added ingredients that improve product stability during frying) in the past - in an earlier decision of the CCC in C.7744 dated 10th April, 2015, which were considered to be creative expressions and hence not objectionable when scrutinized earlier by the CCC. In view of the foregoing, these complaints are NOT UPHELD. The claim “Advanced cooking for everyday health” was considered as a generic statement for a Rice bran oil and Canola oil blend. This complaint was NOT UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Polycab Wires Pvt Ltd"
PRODUCT:"Polycab Cables & Wires"

COMPLAINT:

"Complaint 1: “We noted that now they have many variety of advertisements in many languages with same ""Energy Saving"" claims. What is objectionable is: 1. Advertisement shows that meter will run slow. 2. Advertisement claims energy saving to large extent so that the consumer feels relief from blood pressure etc. 3. Assuming that the consumer is going to replace only the worst quality cables. There are many chances that consumer is already using very good quality or ISI marked cable which may be superior to polycab, or equivalent or may be marginally inferior. In any of such cases there can't be saving even in the cable losses. The company can't presume that existing cables are bad and only theirs is good. Cables cannot save energy for any equipment. Cables can save only the copper losses. General observation in all domestic and industrial applications is that the cable losses do not exceed 2% of the total consumption. Presuming polycab wires are the best and even save say 50% of losses still it will amount to only 1% saving on overall bill. Such small saving the consumer can't even notice forget about the dancing because the meter runs slow or bill is drastically reduced. The kind of advertisements and claims Polycab is doing clearly shows that they are taking the consumers and ASCI for ride. I request to take serious action. If required register fresh complaint OR take this as continuation of earlier complaint. We believe conclusive findings of earlier complaint i.e. ""The claim is misleading by implication and exploits consumers’ lack of experience and knowledge; the advertisement contravened Chapters I.4 and I.5 of the ASCI Code"" still holds good for all the advertisements of Polycab that they are showing on television these days. Please take suitable action. All current advertisements of polycab claims power savings. We have objections for all the advertisements. The advertisement that you have referred and attached with your mail is the one which you may tag with current complaint number. We will file complaints separately for other advertisements. If required we are ready to challenge the company to change existing cable of randomly selected consumer and record consumption before and after the change of cable. This will be done for a constant loss. During test time we will keep same number of tubes, fans and similar appliances in operation in both cases. Minimum 10% saving should be established to substantiate their claim.” Complaint 2: “Advertisement for polycab wires thro' TV (eg. Sony channel during IPL matches live Telecast). The ad says that by using polycab wires, electricity can be saved. (bijli bachao) Electricity can be saved by reducing resistance of copper wire. In the market, Copper wire is sold by its size, such as 1 sq mm, 1.5 sq mm, 2.5 sqmm, 4 sq mm etc. All branded wires conform to indian standards (BIS). The resistance of any one brand cannot be superior to another brand. Hence the ad by polycab is misleading."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response as quoted above. The claim support data was reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. The CCC carefully examined the complaint, the TVCs (Hindi, Marathi, Gujarati and Punjabi) and the response/comments of the advertiser and opinion of the Technical expert. The CCC noted that the main complaint-issues for consideration in both the complaints, are as follows: (i) that the advertisement shows the meter as running slowly; (ii) that the advertisement claims energy saving to such a large extent that the consumer feels relief from blood pressure; (iii) that there are many chances that the consumer is already using good quality or ISI marked cables which may be superior to the advertiser’s product in this case, i.e., POLYCABS; (iv) that the company cannot presume that the consumers are currently using poor quality cables, and that only their product is good; (v) In the Intra-industry complaint, the main issue is that, all the current cable products in the market that confirm to the Bureau of Indian Standards have to be considered as being of good quality, and that any one brand could not be considered superior to any other brand. The advertiser had stated in his response and comments that (i) they have not shown the meter running slow in this advertisement; (ii) they had not shown the actor’s blood pressure going down; (iii) that they had made no specific claim about the quantum of energy saving achieved; and (iv) that they had made a mention about the relatively lower consumption of power through use of their cables, only as compared to ‘ordinary’ cables. Upon carefully considering the above, the CCC observed that in respect of the complaint that “the meter is shown running slow”, the advertiser responded that the complaint was factually incorrect; that they had produced four commercials that are situated in the meter room, and only one of these commercials shows a meter in motion; and that nowhere in this or any other commercial have they shown a meter running slowly as stated by the complainant. The CCC, upon careful viewing of the TVC (also available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHufHhaie6E ) , noted that the substance of one of the characters’ action and dialogues in the TVC strongly suggested that the electric consumption meter had stopped running fast after the change in the cables. This, considered together with the other claim of the advertiser in the TVC that use of Polycab cables results in substantially reduced power consumption, invariably leads to the conclusion that the advertisement suggested slow movement of the electric consumption meter. The CCC therefore concluded that this part of the advertisement was misleading, and thus violated the provisions of Chapter 1.4 of the ASCI Code. Accordingly, this complaint was UPHELD. In respect of the complaint that “Assuming that the consumer is going to replace only the worst quality cables. There are many chances that consumer is already using very good quality or ISI marked cable which may be superior to polycab, or equivalent or may be marginally inferior. In any of such cases there can't be saving even in the cable losses. The company can't presume that existing cables are bad and only theirs is good”, the advertiser had stated in his response that: (a) their claim of saving electricity was very clearly with reference to ‘ordinary’ wires, and that this was clearly articulated in the disclaimer that appears in the TVC; that they had made no claims vis-a-vis any other ‘branded’ wires, and that the disclaimer (in the TVC) too clarifies that this claim is based on tests conducted by Govt. laboratories; that the size of the font and the duration of the disclaimer were in accordance with the ASCI guidelines; (b) that contrary to the assumption of the complainant that many consumers in the country were already using good quality wires, it is well known in the industry that there are millions of homes in our country that have used ordinary wires in their homes; that poor quality cables are not only unsafe but also consume more electricity for a given load (due to impurities in copper and poor insulation) as compared to their product, Polycab cables; (c) that their claim of power saving was being made on the basis of tests conducted by two reputed Government of India laboratories, i.e., the National Test House (NTH) and the Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME) Laboratories; that these tests conclusively prove that Polycab wires save between 25% to 40% power as compared with ordinary wires tested, and that the matter was earlier discussed by the CCC in the context of complaint number 1608-C.983 of August 2016, and that in their observations, the CCC had observed that the power consumption test reports were valid only in laboratory conditions, and that the extent of power saved will depend on the extent of electricity used in households of varying sizes; that in deference to the observations by the CCC they had not specified any quantum of power savings in this subsequent set of TV commercials; and, (d) that even the complainant acknowledged that savings were possible by using wires that confirm to BIS specifications; that savings are higher as compared to many so called brands of ordinary wires in the market that are nowhere close to meeting these specifications as they had clearly established. The CCC observed that the advertiser had not substantiated their assertion that “it is well known in the industry that there are millions of homes in our country that have used ordinary wires in their homes” with independent authentic evidence, there being no evidence or basis for describing any product as “ordinary”, as earlier discussed. The CCC referred to the expert opinion which stated that: “…. Any claim would need to state what the SCALE of consumption is, and what the LENGTH of cable is, on which it is based. The cable LENGTH here refers to the meters of cable between the supply from the ELECTRIC UNITS METER to the APPLIANCE. … A CLAIM OF quantitative SAVINGS WITHOUT INDICATING CONSUMPTION AND WIRE LENGTH IS NOT VALID. Any disclaimer must indicate these basic features of the tests (appliance power and wire length). A ""SMALL"" household (with less appliances, a drawing less current and having less cable lengths) will not give the same savings as a ""LARGE"" household with many appliances (drawing large current over large cable lengths). The claim is misleading because the total household electricity bill is actually mix of low and high power items used for different lengths of time. … The power losses will be higher when the high power equipment is in use but it will be low for low power equipment, and will also depend upon how much time different things are used for. It is the final mix of equipment and use-time that will determine what is the total loss”. In respect of the complaint that the TVC claimed energy savings to a substantial extent so that the consumer felt relief from blood pressure etc., the advertiser stated that they had not shown the actor’s blood pressure going down; and that they had made no claim about the extent of energy saving as stated by the complainant. However, the CCC upon carefully viewing the TVC, noted that the characters in the TVC act in such a dramatic manner that an ordinary person, on viewing the TVC, would come to the reasonable opinion that the savings in power consumption due to the use of the product cables promoted in the TVC would be quite substantial. However, as made clear in the technical report pertaining to certain earlier complaints on the same product, such savings would depend only on the total wattage of electricity consumption in a given premises covered by one electricity consumption measurement meter, and the total length of electric cabling used in such premises. In the absence of mention of any of these factors by the advertiser in the advertisement, and in view of the lack of clarity for the expression “ordinary wires” used in the advertisement, the CCC concluded that the TVC was misleading by implication, and violated the provisions of Chapter 1.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaints were accordingly UPHELD. The CCC noted that although the TVC does not make any quantitative claim of Power Saving, it is misleading by omission of additional qualifiers and by implication as the power saving in a general household (as against a lab condition set up) is unlikely to be significant or substantial in resulting in any savings. The CCC therefore concluded that the claim of the advertiser “Polycab wire lagao aur bijli bachao” and comparison to “ordinary cable” was misleading by omission and implication and violative of the provisions of Chapter I.4 of the ASCI Code. This part of the complaint is accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited"
PRODUCT:"Xiaomi Redmi 4A and Redmi Note 4"

COMPLAINT:

"“It was an ad for an pre- order event to book the smartphones REDMI 4A (GOLD, ROSE GOLD, DARK GREY) And REDMI note 4 (gold, silver, dark grey, black) But when the pre order event started the product that I wanted and was shown in ads to be up for sale in the said event was not even available in the first place let alone me nit getting it in sale. It was on 21st April 2017 at 12:00 pm”."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response as stated above. The CCC viewed the Internet Ad and considered the Advertiser’s response. The advertiser in their response submitted through their advocate, mainly stated that Clause 10.1 of their terms and conditions clearly states that “The information on pre-order products and pricing displayed on the webpage of mi.com/in is only an invitation to offer”; and that any person accessing the pre- order link does not have a guaranteed expectation of being provided a device that he wants. Further, to ASCI’s suggestion to produce evidence of successful sales in the said offer to any other buyers, the advertiser refused the same on the grounds of privacy and confidentiality of its customers. The CCC noted that the advertiser did not provide any third party certificate or any audited report to substantiate that the advertised product was available for sale or was sold to any customer. Upon a careful consideration of the above, the CCC concluded that the claim “Pre-order Now!” was not substantiated and the “pre-order announcement” advertisement, was misleading, and hence violative of Chapter 1.1 and 1.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Lovely Professional University"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"“An online ad campaign by LP University makes the claim that ""packages in excess of Rs. One Crore are the norm"". There are multiple problems with his statement: 1. ""Becoming the norm"" indicates that getting packages of Rs.1 crore+ is common - the definition of ""norm"" is ""very common"". However, the website mentions only EIGHT students who are getting such packages. Considering that LPU has over 25,000 students, it is in no way reasonable to say that getting Rs.1crore+ is common. 2. The packages are being apparently offered by Google or Apple. So, the students have to live and work in the USA. Multiplying (salary in dollars) * (exchange rate) will give us figures in crores - however this is misleading as the expenses and cost of living is higher in the San Fransisco Bay Area than in India. Purchasing Power Parity calculations should be used to indicate the equivalent salary/package in INR. 3. Just because students this year might have succeeded, there is no guarantee that you will succeed. This is a screenshot of the link to the ad in Google Search. (This is an example - I have seen such ads many times on Youtube/other Google Searches/and other ads on webpages): (The advertisement has been highlighted in a red box) On clicking the advertisement, we are taken to the following link: http://www.lpu.in/landingpages/brand/? There, this can be seen (on scrolling down a little): (Clearly seen in the picture is ""Offers of Rs. 1 Crore from Apple, Google etc are now becoming the norm!"" The picture above the text shows only 8 people's names and pictures. No reasonable person would say 8 students out of 25,000 is becoming the norm. Thus, I believe that this ad violates many principles of fair advertising and has the potential to mislead students in one of the most important decision on which college to choose. For reference, a full page screenshot of this advertisement is also being attached to this email.”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response as stated above. The advertiser’s main response to the complaint was that, their statement on their web page “packages in excess of Rs. One Crore are now becoming the norm” was misunderstood; that the phrase “now becoming the norm” as used by them has a different meaning than “becoming the norm” as quoted by the complainant; that the said phrase was not a promise they were making to students but only information. Upon carefully viewing the Internet advertisement, and examining the complaint and the response given by the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim in the advertisement, “packages in excess of Rs. One Crore are the norm" clearly conveyed the idea that an overwhelming majority of the students of the advertiser’s University are able to obtain placements with Rs.1.0 crore per annum remuneration, immediately after passing out of the University. It was however seen, that the advertiser could not provide any evidence or proof for the claim. The CCC opined that the advertiser’s further statement in justification, that the above advertisement “was only information”, could also not be accepted. In view of the above, the CCC concluded that the advertisement was misleading by ambiguity and implication, and was accordingly violative of the Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as the provisions of Chapter 1.1 and 1.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was therefore UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"ACT Fibre (ACT Fibre)"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“Bangalore's #1 High Speed Internet Provider”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"I find the rating as Bangalore No1 without any substance. It does not say who gave that award and how are they No 1. I would like to mention that Hathway Cable and Airtel Internet is faster than ACT Fibernet. In any case my objection is that no service provider should be claim that they are superior than other without any proof. Was there a study done by an independent agency to claim that ACT is No 1 ? I could not find the same in the advertisement. e.g Its like telling No 1 PG service in Bangalore. That's misleading and a lie before they are note tested against all the other service provider. e.g A hospital can claim that they are No 1 hospital is Bangalore. How is that correct ? If the hospital is saying according to THE WEEK survey we are No 1. Then its fine. What the logic of claiming to be no 1 has to be specified.”"

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response as stated above. The advertiser had in their response mainly stated that they had carried out internal check by comparing the wired broadband tariff plans of major service providers, and found that no other major service provider was providing speeds up to 125 Mbps; hence their describing themselves as “ACT-Fibernet-Bangalore’s No. 1 High Speed Internet Provider” in an advertisement was valid. They further stated that as per the “TRAI Highlight (March, 2017)” issued by TRAI, they were 3rd largest wired Broadband service provider in the country. Lastly, they stated that they had themselves conducted market studies which showed that they have more no. of customers subscribing to plans with speeds equal to and greater than 30 Mbps in the city of Bangalore, based on which they had made the said claim of “No. 1”. Upon carefully viewing the hoarding advertisement, examining the complaint, and considering the response given by the advertiser, the CCC opined that the various grounds of “studies or assessments conducted by them internally” as stated by them (for describing themselves as “Bangalore’s No. 1 provider of broadband speeds up to 125 MBPS”), in the absence of such evidence being independently certified by reputed marketing research entities or by an authority, if any, that certifies these matters, do not adequately substantiate their claims. The CCC further felt that some of the advertiser’s justifications do not logically stand; e.g. their being placed at No. 3 in the country could not reasonably be the basis for claiming No.1 position in Bangalore. Hence, the CCC opined that these claims made by the advertiser were not adequately substantiated and are misleading. The advertisement was therefore considered to be violative of the provisions of Chapter 1.1 and 1.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Akhil Bharat Computer Siksha Kendra"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“Dangerously Misleading Students in False Manner. With due decorum and deference, I would like to inform you that the aforesaid computer training centre (mentioned in the above reference) is dangerously misleading their students. With due decorum and deference, I would like to inform you that the aforesaid computer training centre (mentioned in the above reference) is dangerously misleading their students as such training centre are demanding in false manner that the Certificates that will be given to their students are approved or affiliated by the Government of India. Their standard of the teaching and teaching materials are of low standard. Also they are using Bharat Sarkar (most of places in Bengali Script) in their advertisement matters. Thus this computer training centres are cheating the people of our Mollarpur area. I strongly believe that you will be kind enough to do the needful urgently against the aforesaid computer training centre. I am attaching some advertisement matters of aforesaid centre alongside this mail.”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was also offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response as stated above. Upon carefully examining the complaint and the response of the advertiser who admitted to be not knowledgeable in these matters, the CCC opined that the advertiser’s claims regarding his organization “Akhil Bharat Computer Siksha Kendra” - “Department of Labour, NCT, MHRD (CR) Approved”, or affiliated to the Government of India were not supported by any authentic evidence. In view of the advertiser’s own acceptance of the same, the CCC concluded that the advertisement was making untruthful and misleading claims and thereby violating of the Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as the provisions of Chapter 1.1 and 1.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "TV Today Network Ltd"
PRODUCT:"Aaj Tak"

COMPLAINT:

"“Aaj Tak released a mailer on demonetization. The data in the Ad emailer relates to a particular day (8thNovember 2016 4 hours of demonetization announcement). Source: BARC, 08 Nov 16, TG 15+ NCCS AB, Time Band 2000-2400, Share% The data released is basis Market Share% which is against BARC guidelines”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser did not offer any response or comments to the complaint on the claims in their advertisement, prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. The complaint was sent to a Technical Expert to confirm validity of the complaint. Upon carefully viewing and examining the advertisement, and in the absence of any comments from the Advertiser, based on the opinion of the Technical expert the CCC concluded that percentage share has been used instead of impressions in 000s or coverage in 000s which is not permissible as per BARC guidelines. The advertisement was considered to be misleading and violative of the provisions of Chapter 1.1, 1.3 and 1.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Expert Institute of Advance Technology Pvt Ltd"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“Following is the advertisement published in danik bhaskar newspaper 4 page dated 7 may of expert Institute claiming 100 % job guarantee. Is these legal??? Image attached for your reference.”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser did not offer any response or comments to the complaint on the claims in their advertisement, prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. The advertiser was also offered a personal hearing, which they did not avail. Upon carefully viewing and examining the print advertisement, and in the absence of any authentic evidence to substantiate their claims from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim “100% job guarantee”, without any substantiation or qualifiers, was untruthful and misleading, and violative of the provisions of the Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapter 1.1 and 1.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Chitkara University"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"Chitkara University, registered in Chandigarh is advertising in Dainik Savera (Chandigarh) on 7th May 2017 as the “Most Trusted University in North India” without any authentic source being quoted. This information is falsely misleading consumers. Please see image of page 1 advertisement of newspaper of date.”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser did not offer any response or comments to the complaint on the claims in their advertisement, prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. The advertiser was also offered a personal hearing, which they did not avail. Upon carefully viewing and examining the print advertisement, and in the absence of any comments or substantiation from the advertiser to their claims, the CCC concluded that the claim “Most Trusted University in North India”, was without any substantiation or qualifiers, and was therefore untruthful, misleading and violative of the Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as the provisions of the Chapter 1.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Reliance Communications Ltd"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“In offer at *129# unlimited local std call for 28 days at rs 199. After recharge I get reliance to reliance unlimited free and other network 1250 minutes but according to offer all call are unlimited. Offer says unlimited local std call but after recharge I get 1250 minutes to another network. After recharge 1250 minutes for offnet calling but original offer unlimited local std call for offnet. Issue with reliance communication number 9352858003. On 20th April 2017 I check a offer from reliance by following *129# for my number 9352858003 offer say unlimited local std call for all networks 1 gb data and incoming free in roaming at 199/rs but after recharge I get unlimited local std call for reliance network and 1250 minutes for another Network This is economical fraud by reliance”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser did not offer any response or comments to the complaint on the claims in their advertisement, prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. The advertiser was also offered personal hearing, which they did not avail. Upon carefully viewing and examining the promo SMS advertisement, and in the absence of any comments from the advertiser to substantiate their claims, based on the information provided by the complainant, the CCC concluded that the claims “unlimited local STD call for 28 days at Rs 199”, and “unlimited local STD call for all networks”, were without any substantiation and in view of the capping for other networks is misleading. The advertisement – SMS contravened Chapter I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code as well as Clause 1 of ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers (“A disclaimer can expand or clarify a claim, make qualifications, or resolve ambiguities, to explain the claim in further details, but should not contradict the material claim made or contradict the main message conveyed by the advertiser or change the dictionary meaning of the words used in the claim as received or perceived by a consumer.”). The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"SICE Shivaji Institute"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"1. “Job guaranteed intensive coaching” in Guntur, Vijayawada. 2. “Puppala Shivaji who is state no.1 faculty”."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser did not offer any response or comments to the complaint on the claims in their advertisement, prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. The advertiser was also offered a personal hearing, which they did not avail. Upon carefully viewing and examining the print advertisement, the complaint, and in the absence of any comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claims “Job guaranteed intensive coaching”, and “Puppala Shivaji who is state no.1 faculty”, were without any substantiation of any kind, and were untruthful, misleading and violative of the Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as the provisions of the Chapter 1.1 and 1.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Picasso International Animation College"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“100% Placement Record Till Date.”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response as stated above. The advertiser had not given any substantiation in their response for their claims in the print advertisement, and stated that they are interested in informal resolution. Upon carefully examining the complaint and the response given by the advertiser, the CCC concluded that there was no material in the response of the advertiser to substantiate the claim made in the advertisement, of “100% placement Record till date”. The CCC therefore considered the claim to be misleading, and violative of the Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as the provisions of Chapter 1.1 and 1.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Mankind Pharma Limited"
PRODUCT:"Heal O Kind Nanofine Gel"

COMPLAINT:

"Claims Objected To: 1. HEAL‐O‐KIND ‐ Nanofine Gel 2. FIRST‐AID'S ALL‐ROUNDER  INJURY  BURNS  BRUISES  CUTS  NICKS 3. NANO CRYSTALLINE SILVER IN HEAL‐O‐KIND 4. Has Anti‐bacterial action for wound healing 5. Reduces inflammation 6. Prevents scarring of wounds 7. Nanofine Technology"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response as stated above. In their response, the advertiser stated that “all their claims that were mentioned in the advertisement were authentic and that they were substantiated with relevant documents attached herewith.” The claim support data was reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. Upon carefully examining the advertisement and the complaint, opinion of the technical expert, the CCC observed that while the advertiser furnished data regarding silver nano particles, the advertiser has not submitted any data or results of human clinical studies / tests on their product. It is well published in the scientific literature that in general lab experiments on cells, silver nanoparticles are broad-spectrum bactericidal and virucidal compounds. The respondent has supplied several articles from the literature where cell-level and animal studies on silver nanoparticles are quoted. One test result for anti-bacterial action on the respondent's product by M/s Virchow Biotech Pvt. Ltd. is provided, but as per that report, the anti-bacterial compliance is 85% to 100%, and furthermore, the underlying data in terms of CFU (colony forming units) and log reduction is not provided. As this crucial data is missing, the technical justification was considered to be inadequate for the claim support. In absence of efficacy data for the product / active ingredients at the levels used in the product, the claims “FIRST‐AID'S ALL‐ROUNDER – INJURY, BURNS, BRUISES, CUTS, NICKS (emphasized with a tick mark)”, “NANO CRYSTALLINE SILVER IN HEAL‐O‐KIND Has Anti‐bacterial action for wound healing, Reduces inflammation, Prevents scarring of wounds” were inadequately substantiated. In view of the above, the CCC concluded that the advertisement was misleading by ambiguity and implication, and therefore violative of the provisions of Chapter 1.1 and 1.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"SBF Healthcare and Research Centre Private Limited (SBF Healthcare )"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“Since its inception a decade ago, about 7000 people have been treated successfully”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objections raised in the complaint and forwarded full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response as stated above. The advertiser had stated in their response that they could not substantiate their claim without violating Doctor-Patient confidential & privileged information. They also expressed a desire that on the basis of the material provided by them, the complaint could be settled in the Informal Resolution procedure. Upon carefully examining the print advertisement, the complaint, and the response of the advertiser, the CCC observed that on the plea of ‘Doctor-patient’ privacy and confidentiality, the advertiser could not abdicate the responsibility of substantiating the claims that had been made in the advertisement. The CCC further opined that the patient-data could, without being divulged to any outsiders, have been audited and checked by their Chartered Accountants, or any other reputed health research organization after entering into appropriate agreements of confidentiality, who could have then certified the claims relating to the number of patients handled by the hospital made in this advertisement. In the absence of any authentic scientific evidence to substantiate the claims made in the advertisement, the CCC concluded that the claim “Since its inception a decade ago, about 7000 people have been treated successfully” was untruthful, and misleading and hence violative of the provisions of Chapter 1.1 and 1.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "British Nutritions Pvt .Ltd"
PRODUCT:"D-Protin"

COMPLAINT:

"1. The only company in India trusted for over 2 decades in diseases specific nutritional products. 2. Pioneers & leaders in Diabetic nutrition. 3. The only brand D-PROTIN which is trusted by millions of doctors across the nation and in more than 30 countries. 4. Most awarded and highly prescribed."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objections raised in the complaint and forwarded full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response as stated above. The advertiser agreed in their response that there had been genuine lapses in the advertisement, and that they wish to resolve the matter via Informal Resolution. Upon carefully examining the print advertisement, the complaint, and the response and comments of the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claims in the advertisement viz. “The only company in India trusted for over 2 decades in diseases specific nutritional products.”, “Pioneers & leaders in Diabetic nutrition.”, “The only brand D-PROTIN which is trusted by millions of doctors across the nation and in more than 30 countries.”, “Most awarded and highly prescribed” were without substantiation, and therefore misleading and violative of the provisions of Chapter 1.1 and 1.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Hair Doc Trichology Hair Clinic - Hair Doc Trichology Expert"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“Visuals in the ad of a bald person imply cure of baldness. Treatment modality requires substantiation”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objections raised in the complaint and forwarded full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser did not offer any response or comments to the complaint on the claims in their print advertisement, prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. Upon carefully examining the print advertisement, and the claim of “Baldness” made therein, and the “before treatment” and “after treatment” visuals, the CCC concluded that the claim made in the print advertisement was without substantiation and misleading by implication, and violative of the provisions of Chapter 1.1 and 1.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd"
PRODUCT:"LG Air Conditioner"

COMPLAINT:

“India's 1st ac with mosquito away technology”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objections raised in the complaint and forwarded full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser did not offer any response or comments to the complaint on the claims in their print advertisement, prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. Upon carefully examining the print advertisement, and the claims made therein, the CCC concluded that the claim made in the advertisement “India's 1st ac with mosquito away technology” is without substantiation, and misleading and hence violative of the provisions of Chapter 1.1 and 1.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: Dr. Batras Positive Health Clinic (Dr. Batras Homeopathic Clinic)"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"“1. Grow your hair back in just 10 weeks with French technology 2. Introducing a Nobel prize winning technology which is an innovative hair treatment that results in hair growth in 10 weeks. 3. 1st time in India”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objections raised in the complaint and forwarded full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response as stated above. The claim support data was reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. The advertiser stated in their response that they stand by their statements made in the advertisement. In respect of their claim that their product was the first of its kind India, they produced a certificate from NPH Global, Korea; and in respect of their claim of introducing a Nobel prize-winning technology, they cited a study done by Two Doctor viz., Peter Agre and Roderick MacKinnon. Upon carefully examining the print advertisement, the complaint, and the response of the advertiser, and opinion of the technical expert, the CCC observed that the response and comments of the advertiser do not adequately substantiate the different claims made in the advertisement with authentic and scientific evidence. The CCC noted that for the claim “First time in India” followed by “Grow your hair back in just 10 weeks by French technology”, there no congruence of the justification given for the claim First time in India, so the claim was considered to be incorrect. The links given for justifying the claim of Nobel Prize winning technology are related to discovery of aquaporin water channels. Electroporation involves use of pulsed electric fields and studies for regenerating skin with this technology are so far reported only in rats in peer reviewed journals. There is no evidence yet that this technology can be used safely in humans to grow hair. Therefore the claim “Introducing a Nobel Prize winning technology which is an innovative hair treatment that results in hair growth in 10 weeks.” was not substantiated. The CCC noted that the French technology referred to here, probably refers to mesotherapy which has been mentioned in the testimonials. The visuals show a case of alopecia areata which can grow back hair spontaneously. Another shows hair thinning which is a complaint not a diagnosis. Hair thinning may occur due to telogen effluvium which can recover spontaneously. Another picture is purportedly of ectodermal dysplasia which has fewer hair follicles since birth, so the claim of being able to grow hair in such a patient is not supported by scientific knowledge. Female pattern hair loss is the fourth picture and usually responds well to minoxidil therapy which is FDA approved. Nowhere is it clear that mesotherapy alone was given. Given that the advertiser is using needle- less mesotherapy which is not scientifically proven to promote hair growth and misleadingly claiming to use technology based on aquaporin channels and claiming treatment induced hair growth in cases where hair can grow spontaneously and also where hair growth is impossible, the CCC therefore concluded that the claim in the advertisement were not substantiated and are misleading in this respect, and contravened the provisions of Chapters 1.1 and 1.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "SBS Biotech Ayurvedic Division"
PRODUCT:"Roop Mantra Skin Care Products"

COMPLAINT:

"Misleading claims and endorsement by celebrity. 1. Testimonial by Preity Zinta - Dated 24 January, 2017. ""I'm very happy to be associated with Roop Mantra why because manthra is a best ayurvedic product. It got many national and international awards also. - Preity Zinta further said before endorsing roop manthra she studied and tried roop manthra to herself and said that you also try it, then you will understand yourself that why i have done this endorsement."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objections raised in the complaint and forwarded full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, and submitted their written response as stated above. The CCC carefully examined the print advertisement, the complaint, and the responses of the advertiser. The advertiser stated in response to the first part of the complaint on the Testimonial by Preity Zinta - Dated 24 January, 2017, (in which she says ""I'm very happy to be associated with Roop Mantra why because manthra is a best ayurvedic product. It got many national and international awards also”; that Preity Zinta had further said before endorsing roop manthra she studied and tried roop manthra to herself and said that you also try it, then you will understand yourself that why i have done this endorsement), that “every citizen including celebrities have the Right to freedom of speech and expression as per the Indian Constitution and that the statement on the advertisement is the opinion and expression of a celebrity and doesn't bear any statement; design which make any false statement of “Roop Mantra Skin Care Products”. The CCC noted that the advertiser sought guidance from ASCI’s CCC on revisions required to be made to the advertisement. The CCC carefully considered this explanation, and opined that in accordance with the celebrity guidelines of ASCI, the advertiser was required to show that the celebrity was adequately informed about the product, or had personal experience with the product, which they had not conclusively established. In view of the above, the CCC concluded that the said claim has not been adequately substantiated and is misleading by implication. The CCC hence concluded that this part of the advertisement was violative of the “Guidelines for celebrities in advertising” as well as the provisions of Chapter 1.1 and 1.4 of the ASCI Code. The first part of the complaint was accordingly UPHELD. As regards the second part of the complaint, that the Roop Mantra skincare product’s claim that it was “helpful in protecting from: dark complexion, scars, wrinkles, pimples and dull skin” was misleading, the advertiser stated that their statement in ""Roop Mantra"" ad was fully supported and substantiated with concrete evidence that it contains 12 herbs; that their statement regarding ""Roop Mantra - helpful in protecting from: Dark complexion, scars, wrinkles, pimples and dull skin” is itself clear that Roop Mantra is not a main therapy but it may help in protection from them. The CCC, upon carefully considering the above justification, opined that the advertiser has made only assertions regarding their product efficacy but had failed to substantiate the claim that the advertised product was “helpful in protecting from: dark complexion, scars, wrinkles, pimples and dull skin”, with relevant and authentic scientific evidence or independent studies conducted on the efficacy of the product. The advertiser did not provide this efficacy data despite a specific request from ASCI. The CCC therefore concluded that this part of the advertisement was misleading and violative of the provisions of Chapter 1.1 and 1.4 of the ASCI Code. The second part of the complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Rajnish Hot Deals Pvt. Ltd"
PRODUCT:"Play-Win F-Capsule"

COMPLAINT:

"1. Power booster for females. 2. Claims to get rid of body weakness and gain enthusiasm & energy."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objections raised in the complaint and forwarded full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response as stated above. The advertiser had stated in their response that they would withdraw objectionable words if any, and suitably modify their advertisement. In respect of the second statement that had been objected to, they stated that they do not think there is any objectionable issue, as “every woman can’t get enough energy from their daily food and eatables, so we have mixed all the necessary herbs as mentioned in the Ayurvedic Granthas which is mentioned in as (Brihan Chikitsa).” Upon carefully examining the print advertisement, the complaint and the response and comments of the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the advertiser had not succeeded in adequately substantiating the claims made in the advertisement viz. “Power booster for females.”, “get rid of body weakness and gain enthusiasm & energy” and was misleading by exaggeration. Therefore, the claims made in the advertisement were considered untruthful, misleading, and violative of the provisions of Chapter 1.1 and 1.4 of the ASCI code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Narang Group-"
PRODUCT:"Ocean Fruit Wave"

COMPLAINT:

"Claims objected to: 1. It got Glucose, Vitamins B3, B6,B9, B12 2. No artificial sweeteners or colours 3. Real fruit juice and delicious flavour combinations 4. An illustration of a fruit saying You can squeeze those bottles instead of me 5. Another illustration of a fruit saying It’s all me 6. Supers say- Contains fruit 7. Supers say- Ready to serve fruit drink"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"Complaint: Our objections 1. Claims 1-7 should be substantiated With independent research data and certified by competent authority. 2. How much fruit juice does it contain? What is the percentage of pure fruit juice in the 300ml bottle? 3. Claim 4 suggests that the product is natural real fruit juice. This should be substantiated with independent reports. 4. As per claim 5, it implies that it is only fruits and nothing else. This needs to be supported with independent data. 5. What are the quantities of glucose, vitamin B3, B6, B9 and B12 in the 300ml bottle? 6. What is their percentage of RDA? 7. What is the percentage of sugar in the 300ml bottle? 8. Claim 5 and claim 6 are Contradictory According to us, the advertisement contravenes Chapter 1.1 and 1.4 of ASCI code."

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they availed, and submitted their written response as stated above. The claim support data was reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. Upon carefully examining the print advertisement, the complaint and the detailed response and comments of the advertiser, and opinion of the technical expert, the CCC opined that the claims “It got Glucose, Vitamins B3, B6,B9, B12”; “No artificial sweeteners or colours”; “Real fruit juice and delicious flavour combinations”; Supers - “Contains fruit”; and Supers - “Ready to serve fruit drink” were adequately justified; and accordingly, these complaints were NOT UPHELD. The CCC, however, considered that the complaint No. 4, with an illustration of a fruit saying, “You can squeeze those bottles instead of me”, suggested that the consumer should have this drink instead of having fresh fruit. This aspect, in the context of the advertisement recommending what a child should drink, the CCC opined, was in violation of the ASCI Guidelines on Advertising of Food and Beverages Clause 5 (“mislead as to the nutritive value of the beverage”); and this complaint was accordingly UPHELD. Lastly, in respect of the complaint no 5, relating to the claim that contained another illustration of a fruit, saying “It’s all me”, the CCC opined that the implication of the said claim was that the product was, in its entire content, the fruit, which is not true; and that the claim was misleading by implication and violative of the provisions of Chapter 1.1 and 1.4 of the ASCI code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Idea Cellular"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“Idea published misleading advertisement of unlimited call for 28 days, no terms or conditions mark given. After recharge they are giving only 300mins talk value. Informed to customer care about the misleading advertisement, no proper response received. Not ready to give benefit or reversal of the amount Rs.198. This issue raised due to miscommunication from idea. They are giving 300mins daily basis, which is equivalent to unlimited plan. They are giving unlimited plan info in recharge page of my idea mobile application. No T&C mark. After recharge only capping information appears.”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response as stated above. The CCC carefully examined the web-site advertisement, the complaint, and the response and comments of the advertiser. In their response, the advertiser had stated that the plan was accessible through “My Idea App/Idea website”, which displayed an advertisement banner regarding the said unlimited plan, clearly advising the reader with "*Conditions apply. Prices may vary by circle. They further stated that as per the regulatory framework of TRAI (Telecom Regulatory Authority of India), telecom service providers are given the liberty to set the tariff for their services subject to certain requirements, and they are given the freedom to follow their commercial usage policy. Upon carefully considering the response and comments of the advertiser, the CCC observed that while the claim of the advertiser was, “unlimited call for 28 days”, the complaint was that “after recharge of the mobile, they were giving only 300 mins talk value”. The advertiser’s response to the complaint was that “the unlimited plan (i.e. Rs.198 Recharge from Idea App offering Unlimited L+N Calls & 1GB data for 28 days) was availed by the complainant through My Idea App/Idea website, which displayed an advertisement banner that clearly advised the customer of the clause "*Conditions apply” and “stipulates the commercial usage policy at the bottom of the webpage, as per which, tariff @ Rs 0.30 p will be applicable after calls of more than300 mins in day”. The CCC carefully considered the above, and concluded that the advertiser could not substantiate the claim “unlimited” as mentioned in the advertisement and the claim is misleading in view of the capping of 300 minutes in a day. The web-site advertisement contravened Chapter I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code as well as Clause 1 of ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers (“A disclaimer can expand or clarify a claim, make qualifications, or resolve ambiguities, to explain the claim in further details, but should not contradict the material claim made or contradict the main message conveyed by the advertiser or change the dictionary meaning of the words used in the claim as received or perceived by a consumer.”). The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "EMAMI LIMITED"
PRODUCT:"Fair and Handsome Fairness Cream"

COMPLAINT:

""Fast Track Complaint received against the TVC, Youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzdERmYhQUw), and product packaging of “Emami Ltd – Fair and Handsome Fairness Cream”, from Hindustan Unilever Ltd. As per the complaint, “The Advertiser blatantly disparages products of competitors in the TVC, in an attempt to promote its own Product. The TVC begins with a song “Main Hun Don…” which continues for initial 6-7 seconds of the TVC. During this time, the protagonist was shown to be enjoying the song in the gymnasium. Then the protagonist picks up a fairness cream from his bag and starts applying the same and continues to do the same for next 10 seconds. Immediately once he starts applying this fairness cream, the transaction has been shown in the TVC, the song changes to “Pari Hun Main…” and the Protagonist is shown to dance/mimic in a feminine manner in tune with such song. The Advertiser builds this male - female song scenario and in the subsequent part of the TVC while promoting their own Product blatantly disparages a white coloured fairness cream tube with a pink coloured cap. It is extremely important to mention here that the tube/product being shown in the TVC is the product with distinct characteristics and is exactly same as Hindustan Unilever Limited’s product – Fair & Lovely Fairness Cream. Till such time Shah Rukh Khan (the “Celebrity”) was shown to be observing the protagonist however thereafter the Celebrity starts interacting with the protagonist and it is depicted in the TVC that the Celebrity is telling the protagonist that this fairness cream will not work on men’s skin. While the Celebrity is interacting with the protagonist, he also picks up the fairness cream used by the protagonist and throws it away in a disgusting manner. the oval shape of the tube of the fairness cream shown in the TVC is identical to Fair & Lovely’s tube; the horizontal pink stripe placed on the fairness cream shown in the TVC is identical to the horizontal pink stripe on the tube of Fair & Lovely; Similarly the nozzle of the tube shown in the TVC is identical to the nozzle of Fair & Lovely’s tube. In addition to the above, it is also pertinent to note that Fair & Lovely has been always recognised and referred to by the consumers as the “Pink Cream” and the Advertiser is trying to take advantage of this fact and thus the Advertiser is referring to Fair & Lovely by direct implication and it can’t be construed in any other manner. It is pertinent to note here that Fair & Lovely was actually available in pink colour from the year May, 2012 to July, 2013 before it was relaunched in August, 2013. It is also submitted that the Advertiser had repeatedly and unduly compared creams from these distinct categories, i.e. fairness creams designed for men (as claimed by the Advertiser) and fairness cream, however in the impugned TVC, the Advertiser has clearly disparaged Fair & Lovely in an unfairly manner thereby taking undue advantage. The statement in the TVC “……Mardo ki sakt tawacha per pink fairness cream beaasar!......” (…Pink Fairness Cream is of no use on Men’s tough skin…) is false, misleading and disparaging as fairness creams will work even on Men’s skin. It is also pointed out that the formulations of “Fair & Lovely” and “Fair & Handsome” are substantially similar and thus the claim by the Advertiser that only Fair and Handsome would work on Men’s skin and other creams are useless for this purpose is untrue. The formulations of these creams can be easily compared from the Product labels. It is submitted that the Celebrity has endorsed the Product in the Advertisement however it is not clear whether such endorsements or representations of preference of Celebrity is reflecting genuine, reasonably current opinion of the Celebrity. The Advertiser is trying to deceive consumers by giving the impression that the claims made in the Advertiser are Celebrity’s personal views. Further the endorsement done by Celebrity are in violation of the Code related to use of Celebrities in Advertising. The claims made by the Advertiser in the TVC as well as on Product label are false and misleading. The claim made by the Advertiser on the Product label and in the TVC implies that the Product delivers the following benefits: Sweat Absorption: Absorbs sweat for long lasting, fresh look; Oil Control: Reduces and Controls excess Oil; Sun Protection: Protects against harmful UVA/UVB Rays; Dark Spot Reduction: Reduce Dark Spots to give Clearer Skin; Long Last Fairness: Visible Fairness in 3 weeks Similar benefits are being claimed in the TVC. We would want to point out that the claims such as ""SUN PROTECTION”, “FAIRNESS” are absolute claims, particularly in absence of any study to support the same, the claims are misleading by implication. The Advertiser has further claimed that Men’s skin is different for following reasons: It sweats more; It has a top layer that is 20% thicker; It secrets more oil, making skin prone to oiliness; It looks darker and un-even. The complainant wishes to submit that though men’s skin and women’s skin is biologically different in certain aspects like sebum/sweat secretion and pore size, scientific literature indicates no major difference in basic structure-function, sensorial response and the biochemical and cellular processes of skin biology in men and women. Also, there is no evidence showing the direct impact of those phenotypic differences (sebum secretion, sweat secretion, pore size) on skin pigmentation, as both skin and spots darkness levels are impacted and determined by melanin pigment concentration. The underlying biological pathways involved in human pigmentation are quite similar and the process of pigmentation is common across diverse populations, regardless of race, ethnicity or gender. Even in case of melasma, similar clinicohisto pathological characteristics are observed in men and women. Besides the similarity of skin pigmentation, physiological, morphological and cell biological processes in both genders, the mode of action of bio-actives on skin lightening and spots reduction remain similar in men and women. They work on different melanization pathways either inhibit melanin generation, transfer and dispersion of both gender. Thus fairness creams based on Niacinamide as main skin & spots lightening active would work in a similar manner irrespective of gender. Niacinamide inhibits melanin transfer from melanocyte to keratinocyte thus working on an important step in melanisation. Reliance is places on various studies which are annexed herewith and collectively marked as Annexure B. It is pertinent to note that in the Advertiser’s Product Fair and Handsome men’s fairness cream as well as in the complainant’s product Fair & Lovely, niacinamide is the main active ingredient for delivering the fairness benefit.”""

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The Complainant as well as the Advertiser’s representatives were given a personal hearing with the Technical expert, Chief Administrative Officer and the Chief Complaints Officer to present their case. The details of the complaint and the advertiser’s response was taken into consideration. The FTCP viewed the TVC, product packaging, and noted the Advertiser’s response. On the complaint of disparagement, the FTCP felt that there are many aspects of dissimilarities between the product shown in the TVC and the complainant’s product. Hence this complaint is NOT UPHELD. The complaints in respect of claims made in the TVC and the product packaging relating to: 1) Sweat Absorption: Absorbs sweat for long lasting, fresh look; 2) Oil Control: Reduces and Controls excess Oil; 3) Sun Protection: Protects against harmful UVA/UVB Rays; 4) Dark Spot Reduction: Reduce Dark Spots to give Clearer Skin; were reviewed, and claims 1-4 were substantiated. Hence these complaints are NOT UPHELD. The complaint with respect to the claim (5) “Long Last Fairness: Visible Fairness in 3 weeks”, that was Upheld earlier by the CCC (1610-C.1343) in December 2016, was reviewed in context of the current complaint by FTCP. The FTCP noted that the above claim does not appear in the above TVC. However as the claim continues to appear on the product packaging, it contravenes Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the Code. Hence this complaint is UPHELD. The statement in the TVC “……Mardo ki sakt tawacha per pink fairness cream beaasar!......” (…Pink Fairness Cream is of no use on Men’s tough skin…) was not adequately substantiated. The TVC contravenes Chapter I.1 of the Code. This complaint is therefore UPHELD. The complaint regarding endorsement by the Celebrity was examined by the FTCP. It is seen that the TVC contains portions of the celebrity expressing opinions such as “Mardo ki sakt tawacha per pink fairness cream beaasar!” which have not been substantiated. Therefore this part of the TVC contravenes Clause (d) of the Guidelines for Celebrities in Advertising. Hence this complaint is UPHELD."

 
 

 

DID YOU KNOW?