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

Select Month :

 
ASCI Recommendations
 

COMPANY:"Oriental Group of Educational Institutions"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“Best Hotel Management Institute Award From The Govt. Of Kerala For The Seventh Time” “100% Placement Record”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objections raised in the complaint. However, in the absence of response prior to the due date, the matter was examined by the CCC on the basis of the materials available then and an exparte decision was taken. On receiving the CCC’s recommendation and Request for confirmation of compliance, the Advocate responded on behalf of the advertiser. The Advocate’s response stated that their institute has received award from the Govt. of Kerala for the seventh time, and that their institution has 100 placement record. As claim support data, the Advocate provided copies of certificates of Kerala State Tourism Awards for 2004-2005, 2005-2006, 2008, 2009-2010, and letters from Department of Tourism, Kerala for 2007, 2012-1013, 2013-2014. They also provided offer letters of few of their students, Campus interview details, and campus placement details. The CCC reviewed the data submitted for review and concluded that – Claim, “Best Hotel Management Institute Award From The Govt. Of Kerala For The Seventh Time”, was substantiated. This complaint is Not Upheld on Review. Claim, “100% Placement Record”, 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, nor any independent audit or verification certificate to prove placement for each of their students. Also, the claim is misleading by gross exaggeration. The advertisement contravened Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. This complaint being Upheld stands on Review."

COMPANY:"Emami Ltd"
PRODUCT:""Fair & Handsome 5 Action Fairness""

COMPLAINT:

“Long lasting fairness.”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"On receiving the CCC’s recommendation, the advertiser sought a Review of the same. Advertiser states that their product being a Cosmetic, provides long -lasting fairness when continually used twice daily as directed on the pack. Fair And Handsome product design is based on the Skin Lightening Technology widely used in the industry as "Reversible" which means post stopping the usage of the product, the user gradually goes back to their original skin tone. The advertiser also argues that other advertiser, too, use “long lasting” claim with qualifier ‘with continuous use’. As claim support data for review, the advertiser provided a summary of few competitor products and efficacy data for the product. The claim support data 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 the Technical expert presented at the meeting. The CCC noted that the advertiser cites differences between a drug and a cosmetic and says that whereas a drug might cure and thereby provide a long-lasting effect, a cosmetic does not, and this product being a cosmetic, it cannot be expected to provide a long-lasting effect after discontinuance. The advertiser thus accepts the fact that the effect is present only as long as the product is used. The CCC concluded that the claim, "long-lasting" implies that the product provides the claimed effect “fairness” for some extended time after its use has stopped or for some extended duration after the last application of the product, which was not substantiated adequately over a reasonable time period by the advertiser by objective measurements and the claim is misleading by ambiguity and implication. The CCC did not agree with the modification of the TVC by way of addition of a disclaimer “on regular use” as this was in contravention of the ASCI code on disclaimers Clause 1. The TVC contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the Code. The complaint being Upheld stands on Review."

COMPANY:"CL Educate Ltd"
PRODUCT:"Career Launcher"

COMPLAINT:

“How close was CL’s predicted percentiles for CAT 2015 takers?”, “Why CL’s Test Series is most preferred!”, “98.4% Students say, CAT Test Series Considerably increased the chances of cracking CAT & Other MBA entrances”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"“Link : http://www.careerlauncher.com/catmba/ testseries/ There are few Advertisements given by Career Launcher Classes, an institute which provides training for CAT. The advertisements are published for CAT program on its website www.careerlauncher.com which claim that the institute has taken feedback of 1600 students who appeared for CAT 2015 and 1. 98.4% Students say, CAT Test Series Considerably increased the chances of cracking CAT & Other MBA entrances 2. With statistical presentation institute also claims that How Close was CLspredicted Percentiles for CAT 2015 takers? Find out here 3. CL Test series is most preferred feedback of 1600 students who appeared for CAT 2015 The Institute has claimed on their website that they have displayed feedback of 1600 students as an advertisement tool. It seems that CL has given random statistics without any ground. And even though if CL has taken any survey; does it cover all types of student across India ? if so, they havent put any footnote/explanatory statement w.r.t. this survey conducted. It indicates that these random numbers/statistics and overstated claims are used just to misguide aspirants. 1. 98.4% Students say, CAT Test Series Considerably increased the chances of cracking CAT & Other MBA entrances Is CL assuring students that with CL CAT Series students can crack CAT & Other MBA entrances? Is there any track record to substantiate this assurance? 2. With statistical presentation institute also claims that How Close was CLs predicted Percentiles for CAT 2015 takers? Find out here Is there any basis to prove that CLs predicted percentiles are close to CAT 2015 & difficulty level was similar to CAT 2015? 3. CL Test series is most preferred It seems to be an exaggerated claim, do they have any comparative statistics with other market players to claim that they are most preferred in the market? Merely by putting random statistics/numbers doesnt make these claims authentic and reliable. It seems that there are overstated and misleading claims used with intention to attract and mislead students. CL should be asked to substantiate these claims”"

Recommendation: NOT UPHELD

"On receiving the CCC’s recommendation, the advertiser sought a Review of the same. They informed ASCI that the said website advertisements have been suspended, and subsequently provided additional data for review. As claim support data for Review, the advertiser provided copy of Chartered Accountant’s certificates. The CCC viewed the website advertisements and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC noted that the data submitted was of their own students and the claim in the advertisement was qualified to indicate the source of the feedback. Based on this data, the CCC concluded that the claims, “How close was CL’s predicted percentiles for CAT 2015 takers?”, “Why CL’s Test Series is most preferred!”, “98.4% Students say, CAT Test Series Considerably increased the chances of cracking CAT & Other MBA entrances”, were substantiated. The complaint is Not Upheld on Review."

 

COMPANY:"Emami Limited"
PRODUCT:"Fair and Handsome"

COMPLAINT:

"Complaint No.1: “Fair and Handsome a fairness cream made by Emami cosmetics. The AD shows that a man can attract girls towards him only if he's fair and those who have a darker complexion are rejected by Girls. The product is promoting a racist attitude wherein it states that only fairer men are accepted in the society and not a man with a darker complexion. This is not an acceptable way of marketing a product, when the whole world is fighting racism, these fairness creams are promoting the same through the ads placed by them in mainstream media. Yes there's a demand for fairness creams but they should be sold in a different way but not in the current guise promoting racism. I hereby request the advertising council to ensure such ads which promote racism and portray an individual with darker complexion inferior be stopped at any cost.” Complaint No.2: “Clearly showing dark skin inferior if u are darker girls dont like u vice versa trying to show bad as dark and trying to brainwash the youth its really getting harder to live india they are making such adds in which darker skin in shown inferior please help guyz. Some are even saying u have pollution in ur skin go away.its really heartbreaking because of it i tried even think ed of committing suicide.. but not the solution you can make a change.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZTsuwYgl48 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RH2clfEPxAU"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"On receiving the CCC’s recommendation, the advertiser responded with a request for a personal hearing. The advertiser representatives were given personal hearing by ASCI, at which time they informed that the claim made is about being handsome and not fairness, for which they would seek a review of the CCC recommendation by providing additional data. As claim support data for Review, the advertiser referred to a Millward Brown study used for testing effectiveness of Ad execution indicating that the advertisement evoked positive emotions. In addition, the Advertiser argues that the TVC continues to carry the ethos of the brand of instilling confidence in the users. The TVC shows how the brand plays a pivotal part in giving the protagonist a makeover as it talks holistically about the benefits for the face and does not talk singularly about fairness. The communication premise is based on making every man charming. The communication underlines the message of the 5 benefits that the product delivers with regular use of the same. The CCC noted that the Millward Brown study being referred to is for assessing how an ad performs on likeability, persuability of the communication, engagement and drives motivation. The CCC did not consider this data to be relevant for the communication shown in the TVC wherein the protagonist, in product pre-use situation, was shown to be at a disadvantage in terms of being attractive to the opposite sex. While he was shown as “dependable” , he was not “charming” enough and hence ignored by girls. The CCC also noted that while the TVC refers to few other benefits being offered by the product, the TVC majorly emphasizes on fairness improvement via multiple references to fairness (Fairness cream, fairness system, long lasting fairness, gorapan, reference to Fair and Handsome) in conjunction with a prominent visual representation of change in complexion. The CCC concluded that the TVC stereotypes people based on skin colour, implying people with darker skin color to be inferior and likely to be ignored by the opposite sex and people with fair complexion to be more attractive drawing female attention. The TVC contravened Clause 1 of the Guidelines of Advertising for Skin Lightening or Fairness Improvement Products (“Advertising should not communicate any discrimination as a result of skin colour. These ads should not reinforce negative social stereotyping on the basis of skin colour. Specifically, advertising should not directly or implicitly show people with darker skin, in a way which is widely seen as, unattractive, unhappy, depressed or concerned. These ads should not portray people with darker skin, in a way which is widely seen as, at a disadvantage of any kind, or inferior, or unsuccessful in any aspect of life….”). The complaints being Upheld stand on Review."

COMPANY:"Fena Ltd"
PRODUCT:"Advanced Fena Detergent Powder"

COMPLAINT:

"“100% Placement”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"On receiving the CCC recommendation which was decided exparte in the absence of comments from the advertiser, the advertiser informed ASCI that they had responded to ASCI’s communication seeking for comments, and whereas the communication which was sent to ASCI only electronically was not received by the ASCI team, (likely due to bulky e:mail size restrictions). Hence this complaint was placed before the CCC for review of CCC recommendation. The CCC viewed the original TVC as well as the revised TVC submitted by the advertiser and considered the advertiser’s response. Advertiser states that ""Fena was ranked No.1 quality detergent in the price category of Rs.43 - Rs.50 at the time of testing and not the price category of Rs.43 – Rs.48 as mentioned in their July 2015. The advertiser submitted communication from Consumer VOICE that the reference to the price category of Rs.43 – Rs.48 was due to an inadvertent error. The CCC reviewed the Consumer Voice report. The key findings of the report states, “Based on the test findings, none of the brands meet the requirement of detergency (cleaning efficiency) for Grade 1 of Indian Standard” As per the report, score range of “71-90” was considered to be “very good” and several other low price brands were in the same range as that of Fena Advanced. The CCC did not the difference in product scores to be statistically significant to claim superiority over the next closest product. In view of these observations, the CCC questioned the acceptability of this claim support data for making a claim of “India’s Number 1 Quality Detergent Powder”. The CCC observed that the TVCs are ambiguous about the product ranking and the disclaimer attempts to hide material information with respect to the claim (i.e. i) the ranking being among other low cost detergents and not among ALL marketed products to claim “All India” and ii) it pertained to overall score of the product and not “Quality” as claimed). The disclaimer in the Hindi TVCs is not in the same language as the audio of the TVC. The CCC concluded that claim of “India’s No. 1 Quality Detergent Powder”, was not adequately and undisputedly substantiated and the TVCs (original complained against as well as the revised version) are misleading by ambiguity and implication. Also, the disclaimers in the TVCs are not in compliance with ASCI’s Guidelines for Disclaimers. The TVCs contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code, and Clauses 2 and 4 (II) of ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers. The complaint being Upheld stands on Review."

 

COMPANY:"Mankind Pharma Ltd"
PRODUCT:"Heal-O-Kind Nanofine Gel"

COMPLAINT:

“Is advertising se children laparvah ho jayenge. Take action”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek a personal hearing and submitted their written response. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. Advertiser argues that the visual in the advertisement is explicitly showing that the festival is celebrated under the able supervision of the mother and the line in the ad is aptly addressed to a mother (or a parent) i.e, to enjoy the festival without any worry. This does not by any means provoke children to burst crackers carelessly as the ad is not addressed to them. The CCC concluded that the visual showing a mother and daughter holding a cracker (phuljari), when read in conjunction with the advertisement headline “chodo jalne ki fikr, Diwali manao befikr” suggests that one may celebrate Diwali (bursting crackers) in carefree manner. i.e. suggesting that even if one were to get burns, there is no need to worry thus implying a careless attitude and showing disregard for safety, encouraging negligence. The advertisement contravened Chapter III.2 ( c) and III.3 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Life fitness point "
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“Boldest bums of South Bopal now gymming a blast!”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"Complaint 01 “Above photo is in Ahmedabad. Area South Bopal. Advertisement is misbehaving in nature as per my understanding. Rest upto your understanding.” Complaint 02 “the ad is showing bums of a female and it says Boldest Bums of south Bopal now gymming a blast! the ad is showing female in a bad test and copy doesn't mean anything. we have come across female in Ahmedabad who has also objected for the same. i would request ASCI to take action against it and make them discontinue this publicity material.” Complaint 03 “Advertisement is showing bums of female and read as boldest bums of south Bopal is now gymming a blast. It is vulgar. Disrespectful for any female”"

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainants. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek personal hearing. The CCC also noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the due date for these complaints. The CCC viewed the Ad – hoarding and the print advertisement and concluded that in the context of an advertisement for a Gym, the visual showing a woman’s buttock (in non Gym attire), read in conjunction with the tagline, “Boldest bums of South Bopal now gymming a blast!”, is vulgar, and indecent which is likely in the light of generally prevailing standards of decency and propriety to cause grave and widespread offence. The Ad – hoarding and the print advertisement contravened Chapter II of the Code. The complaints were UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd"
PRODUCT:"HP Ink Tank Printing"

COMPLAINT:

“Print just at 10 paisa Black & White”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

“I recently happened to see a TV Commercial for HP Printers on television and online. I was very excited when it said print at just 10 Paisa (Black & White). In the ad they showed an A4 size Black & White borderless photograph being printed out in support of the claim of 10 paise per page printing. While I was discussing this with friends and colleagues, I learnt that, 10 paise printing is only possible with text printing in a standard given paper coverage pattern and to print a photograph like what is being shown in the ad, it will cost much more than 10 paisa. I did some more research on this matter and found that this is factually incorrect. I was a little confused and started wondering, shouldn't the brand show caution while making such claims. I was excited at the thought of printing B&W photographs for 10 paise as shown in the ad. This is not possible!! 10 paisa printing is possible only for certain limited coverage of black text matter (document printing) and not a photographic image. Hence I feel it is not fair for a brand like HP to make such claims and mislead the consumer into believing that B&W photographs can be printed for 10 paise. The photograph shown being printed in the ad should be changed to a text document to be correct. Would be great if your panel can look into it so that other consumers are not being misled like what had happened to me.”

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek a personal hearing and responded with a request for informal resolution of the complaint and also for a telecon with the ASCI Secretariat. During the telecon, the advertiser agreed to make changes in the disclaimer However, they informed that they would be able to substantiate the claim being challenged. As claim support data, the advertiser provided copy of ink yield test report. Advertiser states that the advertisement attempts to demonstrate that by using a HP Ink Tank Printer, a consumer will be able to enjoy printing high volumes at extremely low per page cost (thereby indicating that B&W prints may be printed at 10 paisa with an indicative frame of the Eiffel Tower being printed. The claim support data 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 the Technical expert presented at the meeting. The CCC noted that the TVC shows a A4 size Black & White borderless photograph of Eiffel Tower being printed and the protagonist states that “Eiffel Tower sirf 10 paise mein”. The CCC noted that the 10 paise printing is possible only for certain limited coverage of black text matter (document printing) and not for a photographic image contrary to what is being depicted in the TVC. The yields indicated in the Annexure I submitted by the advertiser are based on a continuous printing of this test sample (of 5 pages). Also, the data provided did not show the page yield to cost-per-page conversion. The CCC noted that the test sample and the photo used in the TVC are too different , especially as the test sample is not about photo prints - it contains text, presentation sheets, small images (all pages with lots of un-printed area). There is not even a single page in the test sample mix that is exclusively a full page photograph. Therefore the visual use of a photograph in the TVC and emphasis on “re-invent the value of 10 paise” is misleading by gross exaggeration. In the consumer's mind the impression is likely to be created that one can print 5000 b/w photo prints with one cartridge, which is not supported by the submitted test data. Even the disclaimers at the end of the TVC cannot dispel this impression. The CCC did not agree with the advertiser’s contention that the images shown in the advertisement are for representation purpose only. The disclaimers in the TVC are not in the same language as the audio of the TVC (Hindi), the disclaimer do not appear in conjunction with the claim and the hold duration of the disclaimers in the TVC are not in compliance with the ASCI guidelines. The CCC concluded that the TVC contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code and Clauses 4(I), and 4(X) of ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers. The complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Dhanwantri Pharmaceutical"
PRODUCT:"Swarn Madhu"

COMPLAINT:

“Removes - Weakness of brain - Weakness of body - Lack of Sexual power – Azoospermia, And makes you healthy”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objections raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek personal hearing. 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. In the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claims, “Removes - Weakness of brain - Weakness of body - Lack of Sexual power – Azoospermia, And makes you healthy”, were not substantiated with proof of product efficacy data, and are misleading. Specific to the claims implying cure for sexual problems (lack of sexual power), the advertisement is in breach of the law as it violated The Drugs & Cosmetics Act, Rule 106 Schedule J Item 36. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1, I.4 and III.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Sri Maharishi Pharma"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“Diabetis will be cured within 20 days. If it does not cure within 20 days your money will be returned to you. Also all related diabetic problems like joint pain, itching on feet, back bone pain, gastric issues, sneezing, cold, all these will be cured by sri maharishi pharma.”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the concerned Media (Malai Murasu) 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 prior to the due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the advertisement. In the absence of response from the concerned media and comments from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claims, “Diabetes will be cured within 20 days. Also all related diabetic /problems like joint pain, itching on feet, back bone pain, gastric issues, sneezing, cold, all these will be cured by sri maharishi pharma”, were not substantiated with clinical evidence, and are misleading. Specific to the claims implying cure for Diabetes, the TVC is in Breach of the law as it violated The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act (item 9 under DMR schedule). Also, the claims are misleading by exaggeration. The claim, “If it does not cure within 20 days your money will be return to you”, was not substantiated with supporting evidence of the customers who were refunded with the money back, and is misleading. The TVC contravened Chapters I.1, I.4 and III.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Emami Limited "
PRODUCT:"Fair and Handsome Fairness Cream"

COMPLAINT:

"“Product- Fairness Cream Appeared- In Times of India New Delhi 26 September 2016 Language- English Claims- 1. New Emami Fair and Handsome 2. No1 fairness cream for men 3. Time to become banda with best ever Fair and Handsome fairness cream. 4. Breakthrough new formulation with 5 action fairness system that works deep through the skin, helping transform the face by delivering 5 powerful actions 5.Now long-lasting fairness 6. 5 action fairness system 7. Sweat absorption 8. Oil control 9. Sun protection 10.Dark spot reduction 11. Long lasting fairness Our Objection- 1. What is the breakthrough new formulation. Has it been certified by an independent authority. 2. Complexion of skin is based on skin type, genetics, lifestyle and other factors. How does the product claim to give fairness through an external application. 3. How long does it take for the claimed fairness to happen. 4. How long does the claimed long lasting fairness remain. 5. Claims 1-11 need to be substantiated with independent research data. Action to be taken - We propose immedately withdrawal of this advt”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek a personal hearing and submitted their written response. As claim support data, the advertiser provided Efficacy testing certificate/test report, Published Literature, clinical trial reports, test reports for the content of Niacinamide, study report for SPF values etc. 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 presented at the meeting. Based on the opinion, the CCC noted as follows: Claim, “No. 1 fairness cream for men” – the Nielson data submitted by the advertiser shows the product to be the leader in terms of volume and value shares. This complaint was NOT UPHELD. Although this claim was substantiated, the source and date of research and criteria for assessment for the claim was not indicated in the advertisement. The CCC recommended that such disclaimer should be added in the communication. Claim, “Time to become banda with best ever Fair and Handsome fairness cream” - As per the test reports submitted, the current product is the advertiser’s the “best ever Fair and Handsome fairness cream”. This claim was substantiated with data to indicate product improvement over the old formulation. This complaint was NOT UPHELD. Claim, “Breakthrough new formulation with 5 action fairness system that works deep through the skin, helping transform the face and delivering 5 powerful actions” - For the five actions being referred the advertiser provided technical rationale. Action regarding “Sun protection” was substantiated with test reports. Action regarding “sweat absorption”, “Dark Spot reduction” and “oil control” were based on technical rationale about the product and consumer panel feedback. This complaint was NOT UPHELD, Claim, “breakthrough new formulation, “New” - The advertiser has given certain limited details of the changes made from their old product to make the new product. However the CCC noted that the formulation called as new was of year 2013 and hence was not “New” any more as per the ASCI guidelines for claiming “New”. This claim was inadequately substantiated and is misleading. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the Code. This complaint was UPHELD. “Long lasting fairness” – Advertiser admits that the product gives a superficial / artificial / temporary change in appearance till the time of use of the said product only. The CCC concluded that the claim, ""long-lasting"" implies that the product provides the claimed effect “fairness” for some extended time after its use has stopped or for some extended duration after the last application of the product, which was not substantiated adequately over a reasonable time period by the advertiser by objective measurements and the claim is misleading by ambiguity and implication. The qualifier “On regular usage, twice a day” was therefore considered to be in in contravention of the ASCI code on disclaimers Clause 1 . The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the Code. This complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Advanced Hair Studio"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"1. Worlds largest company in hair replacement and hair retention 2. 4 unique and cutting edge procedures 3. No room for compromise 4. Claims to delivers a head full of hair 5. Best of both worlds 6. Get Expert Advice"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"“Our objections- 1. How does Advanced Hair Studio claim it is Worlds largest company in hair replacement and hair retention. Are there independent studies to prove the claim. Who is it compared to and what are the parameters for calling itself largest. 2. Claim 2 needs to be substantiated and certified by competent authority. 3. What does it mean by saying it leaves no room for compromise. Please explain. 4. Claim 4 needs to be substantiated and certified by independent competent authority. 5. Claim 3 and 4 imply a certain and guaranteed result of a full head of hair. Is the result always obtained unconditionally. Grossly misleading. It needs to be explained and certified by independent competent authority. 6. Claim 5 and 6 need to be explained and substantiated by independent research studies. Action to be taken? We propose that this ad should be immediately withdrawn"

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The advertiser was granted an extension of two days to the standard lead time of seven days to submit their reply in response to their request for extension of 30 days. Advertiser responded by the extended due date. 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 presented at the meeting. The CCC noted as follows: The claim, “cutting edge procedures” was not considered to be objectionable. This complaint was NOT UPHELD. Claim No.1 – “Worlds largest company in hair replacement and hair retention”, - Advertiser states that they have become the World's largest company and have a network from New Zealand to USA based on its genuine, honest and quality work and producing remarkable results. There is no company, which is close to them in terms of number of clients, outlets, brand ambassadors to overall worth anywhere in the World. The CCC noted that the advertiser has only given assertions about their treatment being the world’s largest but has not provided any verifiable and authentic supporting evidence such as comparison with other similar brands in the same category or any third party validation or research to prove this claim. The claim is also misleading by exaggeration. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the Code. This complaint was UPHELD. Claim No.2 – “4 unique procedures” – Advertiser states that they provide both clinical and cosmetic procedures and provided brief descriptions of the four procedures. The CCC did not consider the advertiser’s submission to be adequate to claim “Uniqueness” of these procedures. The claim, “4 unique procedures”, was inadequately substantiated and is misleading by exaggeration. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. This complaint was UPHELD. Claim No.3 – “No room for compromise”, and Claim No.4 – “delivers a head full of hair” - Advertiser states that the kind of technology, doctors, tricologist, hair experts, hair stylists, instruments, product range, infrastructure to perform above stated procedures are best in the industry, due to which they have proven track record and that's what makes them unique, and one of its kind. The CCC noted that while the advertiser makes several assertions, no data was submitted to substantiate the claims made. The CCC concluded that the claims “No room for compromise”, “delivers a head full of hair”, were not substantiated with proof of transformations achieved and treatment efficacy data, and is misleading by exaggeration. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. This complaint was UPHELD. Claim No. 5 - “Best of both worlds” and Claim No.6 – “Get Expert Advice” – Advertiser states that their clients who come with hair problems and also have appearance related problem which has a straight impact on their personal and professional life and their organization is one of its kind with best possible options and expert advice to serve the above purpose. The CCC noted that while the advertiser makes several assertions, no details regarding the experts and their qualifications was provided by the advertiser. The claim, “Get Expert Advice” was not substantiated. Also the claim “Best of both worlds” was considered to be a vague statement. The CCC concluded that these claims are misleading ambiguity and implication. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. This complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Digital Age Retail P. Ltd"
PRODUCT:"Firstcry"

COMPLAINT:

"Get 50% OFF* on all orders until midnight after the first 500 orders @3PM"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

“FirstCry is misleading its customers by false advertisements and offers which do not exist on their site. The false and deceptive marketing done by FirstCry is a serious offence under Malafide and Unfair Trade Practices. Please refer to the Free at Three" offer which says that the first 500 orders will be free and thereon the customers would get 50 percent off. We wasted almost 1 hour trying to apply the coupon on several products and the coupons worked on none of them. This has not happened for once but on several occasions. The same complaint was raised to firstcry on multiple occasions We had also shared many sample snapshots along product details where none of the published offers worked. Eventually Firstcry also admitted to its mistake but them they stopped responding. When asked to provide the escalation hierarchy we were simply refused and even the next senior supervisor did not give the escalation contact points. Attached along this mail are the snapshots for your review. In all the cases while applying the coupons we got the error stating that the product was not eligible for offer but this is completely false. This too was brought to firstcry and they accepted their mistake. We would request you to kindly take very strict action against these false cheating marketers.”

Recommendation: NOT UPHELD

"The CCC viewed the website advertisements and considered the Advertiser’s response. As claim support data, the advertiser provided sample of invoices of few of their customers who availed 100% and 50% discount offer. Based on this data, the CCC concluded that the claim offer, “Get 50% OFF* on all orders until midnight after the first 500 orders @3PM”, was substantiated. The complaint was NOT UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Borges India Private Limited"
PRODUCT:"Borges Olive Oil"

COMPLAINT:

“India's No. 1 Olive Oil”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"“Borges Olive Oil, is claiming to be India's No. 1 Olive Oil basis the Product of the Year 2016, which is basis a consumer survey. Also, the Product of the year is specific to 1 product - Extra Light and not for all the variants. Borges is entitled for Voted Product of the Year 2016 for their product 'Extra Light in taste' variant. However the tags have been added on all the products and variants. As per the winning rights - You may use the Trade Marks only on or in relation to the winning Product and that Product alone. Unless otherwise approved in each instance by the Organiser You may not use the Trade Marks on packaging or advertising which includes products other than the Winning Product. Also the claim for India's No. 1 Olive Oil does not have any base and is being used in all their communications in stores.”"

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek a personal hearing and submitted their written response post the due date. The CCC viewed the Ad – promotional materials and considered the Advertiser’s response. Advertiser states that the variant "Borges Olive Oil- Extra Light in Taste" of Borges India had won the award for the Product of the Year ("PoY") 2016 in the “Olive Oil” category and for PoY 2016 awards, there was only one category for "olive oils" and there were no further sub-categories thereof. The "Olive Oil" category was an umbrella for all the variants of olive oils including but not limited to virgin olive oil, classic olive oil etc. Advertiser did not provide details of this consumer survey report but based on the complaint details and the advertiser’s response, the CCC concluded that the advertisement in store displays and promotional material with claim, “India’s No.1 Olive Oil”, was misleading by ambiguity as it depicted / was associated with all the variants of olive oil marketed by Borges India and not restricted to the product variant 'Extra Light in taste' alone. The advertisement contravened Chapter I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Pernod Ricard India P. Ltd."
PRODUCT:"Seagram’s Royal Stag"

COMPLAINT:

“Seagram’s Royal Stag Mega Music CD”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"Advertisement of Royal Stag Music CD in News Paper Daily Times of India on 08 November 2016. Advertisement says its music cd but packaging of whisky has been shown. They are advertising musing CD with the same brand name as the whisky, I do ge the whisky but at no music shop there is a CD with this brand name. Use of logo and Packaging is same as whisky bottle"

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The advertiser was granted an extension of two days to the standard lead time of seven days to submit their reply in response to their request for extension. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat as well as tele-conferencing, However, the advertiser did not avail of the same. The CCC viewed the advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. Advertiser states that the basis and underlying idea of the advertisement is independent of any restricted products, and is related to Music Compact Discs under the brand name “Royal Stag Mega Music” which has been used continuously and extensively since 2004. As claim support data, the advertiser provided copies of the registration certificates for Royal Stag with respect to Music CDs (class 9) and Cricket Gear (classes 28 and 25), and a photograph of “Royal Stag Mega Music” Music CD. The Advertiser did not provide the annual market sales data of the product/service advertised. Based on the reference to Music CDs, the CCC concluded that the advertisement depicting the Royal Stag brand name and visual, is a surrogate Ad for a promotion of a liquor product – Seagram’s Royal Stag. The advertisement is misleading by implication, has reference to the words “Make it Large / Large jiyo” and contravened Chapters I.4 and III.6(b) of the ASCI Code (“Whether there exists in the advertisement under complaint any direct or indirect clues or cues which could suggest to consumers that it is a direct or indirect advertisement for the product whose advertising is restricted by this Code.”) Also, the Ad did not meet the requirements as per ASCI's Guidelines for Qualification of Brand Extension Product or Service and thereby contravened Chapter III.6 (a) of the ASCI Code (“Whether the unrestricted product which is purportedly sought to be promoted through the advertisement under the complaint is produced and distributed in reasonable quantities, having regard to the scale of the advertising in question, the media used and the markets targeted.”). The complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Heinz India P. Ltd "
PRODUCT:"Complan Nutri Grow"

COMPLAINT:

“To have 11 immunity builders that increases immunity.”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"On receiving the CCC recommendation, the advertiser opted for a Review. The advertiser representatives were given personal hearing by ASCI. As claim support data for review, the advertiser provided reference articles highlighting the importance of role of different Micronutrients (MNs),Nucleotides (NTs),Probiotics (PBs) in Human Immunity. Advertiser argues that Complan NutriGro is a milk based health drink which supplements daily diet to support / aid immunity in normal children and not to cure/improve the specific conditions. Advertiser refers to studies to support that nutrition deficiency need not always occur only amongst malnourished children but can occur amongst even well-nourished children. Advertiser further states that various studies referred to in their review letter summarizes that the product has essential micronutrients, prebiotics, probiotics and nucleotides that enhance the immune system of both healthy and malnourished subjects. The claim support data was reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. The CCC viewed the TVC (Hindi and Bengali), and considered the Advertiser’s response as well as the opinion of the Technical expert presented at the meeting. The CCC noted that not all the references submitted by the advertiser are age-appropriate for the target age for which the supplement is meant (Toddlers of 2-6 years). Also, while the literature generally accepts the importance of micronutrients in Growth and Immunity, nowhere any of the reference gives a specific opinion that supplements either singly or in combination of MNs, NTs and PBs, FOs etc. have been proved to be effective except in cases of Iodine and to a much lesser extent Iron and Folic acid. This is because there have been no adequate studies on bioavailability of these to the humans in various situations. As such any claim of “building immunity” on consumption of these as supplements can be called at the best, presumptions. It is not advisable to use presumptions as basis for claim support. The CCC concluded that the claim, “Complan Nutrigro has 11 immunity builders that increases immunity”, was not adequately substantiated in the age group of subjects for whom it is meant. Also, the advertisement targets normally nourished children (and potentially also certain categories like those with overactive immune systems) which was considered to be misleading by ambiguity as the advertised product may not build immunity in normal children with a normal diet. The TVC contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. Also, the disclaimers in the Bengali TVC are not legible and hold the duration of the disclaimers in the TVC are not Page 4 of 30 as per the ASCI guidelines. The TVC contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code, and Clause 4(VII), 4(X) of ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers. The complaint being Upheld stands on Review."

 

COMPANY:"Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd"
PRODUCT:"Reliance Jio Digital Life"

COMPLAINT:

“Best 4G network with the lowest data rates globally”, “India’s first ever platinum 4G service”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

“Jio on its website is claiming to be the best 4G network and offering Platinum 4G service. What is meant by the best 4G network? How is better than the 4G networks that other providers are offering? On what parameters are they making this claim? And what’s meant by Platinum 4G service? They haven’t explained any of this on their website. It just seems to be another tall claim to fool consumers! Such companies should not be allowed to mislead consumers in this manner!”

Recommendation: UPHELD

"On receiving the CCC recommendation, the advertiser responded with additional data for review, and also sought for a personal hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The Advertiser provided a summary of multiple filings made with the relevant regulatory authorities, i.e., WPC demonstrating the nature of their various tower installations. This data demonstrates that the advertiser has deployed exclusive 4G tower installations on a PAN India basis as compared to the 2G, 3G and 4G towers deployed by other operators. Advertiser states that their size of deployment is the largest as compared to the combined total of all other telecom operators in operation in India. Advertiser also proposed options for modifications for the claim. The claim support data was reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. The CCC viewed the website advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response as well as the opinion of the Technical expert presented at the meeting. The CCC noted that the supporting data submitted by the advertiser substantiates that they have more installations and coverage using 4G technologies, than others in India. Also, since the data is currently provided free, the “lowest data rate globally” claim was not considered to be objectionable. However, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Best 4G Network with lowest data rates globally” is misleading by ambiguity and implication of it being among the best in the world. The website advertisement contravened Chapter I.4 of the Code. The complaint being Upheld stands on Review."

 
 

COMPANY:"Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt. Ltd"
PRODUCT:"Dettol Liquid Handwash"

COMPLAINT:

“Saabun se accha hai Saabun se saccha hai”; “Saabun se haath saaf nahin gandey hote hain”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"Latest commercial of Dettol hand wash showing soap is spreading infection and its of no use. As we are very much happy and confident about Clean India drive initiated by Central Government and thanks the government for such initiative. At the same time one TVC was showing very frequently about Dettol Handwash where in message is Saabun se haath saaf nahin gandey hote hain and soap is spreading infection and also doesn’t clean the hands which is showing very frequently over all channels. The brief message in advertisement is Saabun se accha hai Saabun se saccha hai Dettol hand wash mfg and marketed by Reckitt Benckiser Sir in India almost 70% population resides at village and arount 67% are very poor even kids of poor families are being offered mid day meals in schools and as per UNICEF and central govt. Campaign by UNICEF- (Handwashing with soap before the government-supplied Mid-day Meal (MDM) is ... Swachh Bharat Swachh Vidyalaya 'Clean India: Clean Schools' campaign.) So I would like draw your kind attention that poor people of India are in a position to afford Handwash costing around 30 Rs as compared to soap or detergent which cost between Rs 8-10. Then how ?? This advertisement says and confuse people that we should not use soap for handwash as it spreads disease and communicate infection so immediately stop using soap and start using handwash. I request through you to company please provide comparative study how its is better than soap and how this product is affordable to rural poor people and should rural poor people immediately stop using soap as they are of no use as per Dettol advertisement."

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant. The advertiser was granted an extension of five days to the standard lead time of seven days to submit their reply. The advertiser representatives were also given personal hearing by ASCI. Advertiser states that the communication in the TVC intends to convey that sharing soap means sharing germs and Liquid hand wash is more preferred mode of washing hands to ward off any possibility of sharing of germs. The idea is to educate the consumer about the efficacy of liquid handwash versus bar soap and this has been validated by a test conducted by an independent laboratory (Annexure F) which shows that liquid handwash is more efficacious than bar soap. The advertiser states that Studies and researches clarify that a soap in an in-use condition becomes a harbor for micro organism, thereby possibly causing greater harm and thus nullifying the original purpose of hand washing. Further, as claim support data, the advertiser also provided copy of articles on Microbial Contamination of “in use” Bar Soap in Dental Clinics, Contamination of Bar Soaps under in-use Conditions, Contamination of bar soaps in a household setting, etc. The claim support data 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 the Technical expert presented at the meeting. The CCC noted that the TVC opens with the children posing a question to the man washing his hands with a bar soap “Are you washing your hands or making them dirty?” and the jingle states that the liquid hand wash is better than bar soap “Sabun se saccha hai, sabun se accha hai”. The visuals in the TVC further show a side by side comparison of hand washed by bar soap having significantly more number of germs on it as compared to hand washed by liquid hand wash. The TVC concludes saying that the liquid hand wash, which is untouched by hand, provides protection from illness causing germs. The CCC noted that the annexure F of the advertiser’s response is of in vitro testing and actually indicates that not only hand wash but bar soaps also result in log cycle reduction of the test organisms. Although references provided by the advertiser indicate that a bar soap could have micro-organism deposits due to human touch, there was no evidence to prove that, even if bacteria were present on the bar soap, this would necessarily be carried on to the hands post wash and cause infection and disease. The Advertiser did not provide any “in use” test result to demonstrate that handwash is able to provide better protection from germs as compared to a bar soap. In the context of the overall communication when seen in totality, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Sabun se saccha hai, sabun se accha hai” is misleading by ambiguity and implication that liquid handwash is better than bar soaps in providing protection from diseases and infection. The hold duration of the disclaimers in the TVC are not in compliance with the ASCI guidelines. The CCC concluded that the TVC contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code and Clause 4(X) of ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers. The complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Bigtree Entertainment Pvt. Ltd"
PRODUCT:"(Bookmyshow – Mywallet Weekdays Offer)"

COMPLAINT:

“Book Ticket through wallet on weekends. Get 50% cash back”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"Misleading add by book my show on 50% cash back. The ad campaign said 50% discount on ticket purchase that means 1 ticket free on purchase of 2 tickets. But then there is a catch that maximum cash back is 75 rupees only. Now there is not a single theatre or show where ticket price is 150 or less. So the statement 50% cash back is not valid and misleading. Please refer attached screen shot of the mobile app for the said campaign."

Recommendation: NOT UPHELD

"The CCC viewed the website advertisement and considered the Advocate’s response on behalf of the Advertiser. Advocate states that for the month of October 2016, during the period in which the aforesaid promotional scheme was applicable, a total of 3111 transactions where the total transaction value was Rs. 150/- or less have taken place. A total of 6238 (in number) movie tickets were booked under the aforesaid 3111 transactions. In all of the aforesaid transactions the customers have been entitled to, and have received, a cashback of 50% of the transaction value. In all other transactions which are covered under the aforesaid promotional scheme, where the transaction value was greater than Rs.150/-, the customers have been entitled to, and have received, a cashback of Rs. 75/-. The Advocate on behalf of the advertiser also provided details of few such transactions. Based on this data, the CCC concluded that the claim offer, “Book Tickets Through Mywallet On Weekdays Get 50%* Cashback Offer”, was substantiated. The complaint was NOT UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "TVS Motor Company Ltd"
PRODUCT:"TVS Sport KS Spoke"

COMPLAINT:

“TVS Sport Mileage ka Baap - 95 kmpl+”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

“Sir I’m purchase new bike tvs sports virat kohli advertisement all channel tvs sports bike 95 km per ltr bt new bike not mileage I m action for ligaly tvs company and tvs advertisement pls stop this advertising. Daily advertised any channel. Star plus. Star cricket. I have not eject time. mrng 10 am to 8 PM working time. I’m see tv 8 pm. Serial break time showing this advertising. advertising any time showing all channel. I’m see this advertising daily star plus . This advertising showing 95 km per litter petrol. I’m see this advertising I’m purchase new bike 15 June 2016. Company commitment 78 to 80 km local mileage. Bt wrong any commitment. My new bike mileage only 53 km per ltr. I m sending email tvs company bt not response. Tvs company service centre not response. I’m totally depression. Company advertising 95 km per ltr bt totally fake. Please help me.”

Recommendation: NOT UPHELD

"The CCC viewed the TVC and considered the Advertiser’s response. Advertiser’s states that the mileage of 95 kilometres per litre is supported by a disclaimer qualifying as “95 km/I Maanak Parikshan Paristhithiyo ke antaargath” (under standard test conditions). This mileage is based on the numbers certified by the Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI) in accordance with the tests conducted as per the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 (CMVR). As claim support data, the advertiser provided a copy of the ARAI certificate. Based on this data, the CCC concluded that the mileage claim of “95 kmpl” was substantiated. The complaint was NOT UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Dr. Titus's Centre For Sexual & Mental Health (Dr. Titus P Varghese)"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“Cure for Homosexuality”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"http://www.curehomosexuality.com/treatment.html The website of Dr.Titus P Varghese is claiming to cure homosexuality. Homosexuality is a mental disorder and there is no scientific evidence of curing this disorder. If Dr.Titus has really cured please let us know how has he done it scientifically?"

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The 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. The CCC also noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the due date. The CCC viewed the website advertisement. In the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Cure for Homosexuality”, was not substantiated with clinical evidence, and is misleading by exaggeration. The website advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD."

 

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

COMPLAINT:

“Mailer claiming multiple leadership positions in the Hindi News genre. All claims are based on one week's data. This is unacceptable according to BARC rules.”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The 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. The advertiser representatives did not seek personal hearing. The CCC also noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the website emailer. In the absence of comments from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claims, “HSM Urban + Rural – No.1”, “HSM Urban – No.1”, “HSM Rural – No.1”, “All India Urban + Rural – No.1”, “All India Urban- No.1”, “All India Rural – No.1”, “Prime Time – No.1”, were not substantiated and are misleading. Advertiser has referred to BARC data as a source for these claims. The CCC noted that as per “BARC India Ratings – Principles of Fair and Permissible Usage” the period of comparison for any claim of leadership should cover at least four consecutive weeks of data. However, as per the disclaimer put by the advertiser for the claims is based on single week (week 45’16) and not four consecutive weeks of data as per BARC. Therefore it is violative of BARC Principles. The CCC was also of the opinion, that continuing news update pertaining to “demonetization” cannot be considered as an “event”. Therefore the basis for these claims with the source – “BARC TG15+ NCCS All, MKT: as mentioned, Time:- 2:00 – 26:00, 19:00 – 24:00, Period:- Wk:- 45”16, Share% based on 12 Hindi news channels”, was not acceptable. The subject matter of comparison is chosen in such a way so as to confer an artificial advantage upon the advertiser so as to suggest that a better bargain is offered than is truly the case. The website advertisement is misleading by ambiguity and implication. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1, I.3, I.4 and IV.1(b) of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Amrutanjan Health Care Ltd"
PRODUCT:"Back pain roll on"

COMPLAINT:

“Special Formula jo kaam kare bas 30 seconds mei”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"“Special formula kaam kare bass 30 seconds mein Person using Amrutanjan gets pain relief in 30 secs, while regular gel does not Doctor asking everyone to take the 30 seconds challenge. I wanted to complain against the Amrutanjan Roll On Ad campaign. The ad says the product will relieve pain in 30 seconds, whereas it doesnt. I have always bought Moov for back pain for my mother. On seeing this ad on TV, my wife asked me to buy Amrutanjan Roll On. It gives mild sensation on applying, but doesnt rid her of the pain in the 30 seconds, as they are saying on the TV. I went to their website to check the claim backup. https://www.amrutanjan.com/back-pain-roll-on.html. It is shocking that they are making false claims on National TV. The product starts acting in 30 seconds according to the research and the ad says Special formula kaam kare bass 30 seconds mein, which to an innocent consumer means it will work in 30 seconds. I want you to ensure that Amrutanjan does not make”"

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek a personal hearing and submitted their written response. The CCC viewed the TVC and considered the Advertiser’s response. Advertiser states that the claim is made on the basis of the actual efficacy of the product, which they have internally evaluated during the course of developing and marketing the product. They also commissioned an independent study by M/s. Nielsen (India) Private Limited, and the findings of this study also support this claim. As claim support data, the advertiser provided a copy of the findings of the Nielsen study. The CCC noted that as per the findings of the Nielsen study, the product “starts” acting within 30 seconds, whereas the claim, “Amrutanjan Back Pain Roll-On ka special ayurvedic formula kaam kare bass tees second mein”, implies that the product will provide relief within 30 seconds. The CCC concluded that this claim is misleading by implication. The TVC contravened Chapter I.4 of the Code. The complaint was UPHELD."

 

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

COMPLAINT:

"“The ad contains the data for Aaj Tak compared to India TV. Aaj Tak, All India Urban data being ahead of India TV, All India Urban+ Rural data. The source line mentions the data for All India, CS 15+ NCCS AB, 8th Nov'16, 2000-2400 hrs. This is to bring to your notice that the attached communication is totally against the guidelines given by BARC to the industry for correct usage of data. The data used in the mailer has been sliced to just four hours on a particular day, AB only, 15+ yrs. The source line reads: BARC, 08 Nov 16, TG 15+ NCCS AB, Time Band 2000-2400, imp'000. With this slicing the channel has gone on to draw comparison naming our channel.”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek a personal hearing and submitted their written response. The CCC viewed the Ad – emailer and considered the Advertiser’s response. Advertiser argues that they have been in adherence of the BARC guidelines, until they observed that several of their competitors were in violation of the same. The CCC noted that the data in the Ad – emailer relates to a particular day (8th November 2016 – 4 hours of demonetization announcement). The CCC was of the opinion, that news pertaining to “demonetization” cannot be considered as an “event”. Therefore the basis for the claim, “Aaj Tak’s urban viewership crossed India TV’s All India Viewership” – Source : BARC, 08 Nov 16, TG 15+ NCCS AB, Time Band 2000-2400, imp'000, was not acceptable. The CCC considered the Ad – emailer to be misleading by ambiguity and implication. As per the disclaimer put by the advertiser for the claims is based on one day data (8th November 2016) and not four consecutive weeks of data as per BARC. Therefore it is violative of BARC Principles. The subject matter of comparison is chosen in such a way so as to confer an artificial advantage upon the advertiser so as to suggest that a better bargain is offered than is truly the case. The Ad – emailer contravened Chapters I.1, I.3, I.4 and IV.1(b) of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Go Airlines (India) Ltd (Go Air)"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"Fly smart with our low fares. Fares Starting from RS 736* (All inclusive)"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

“Misleading ads by Airlines not even 0.05% Tickets are sold at this price let Airline produce data how many Tickets have been sold at this price of Rs736/=. Please take above complaint it appeared in Print Media &Social Media twitter”

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The 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. The advertiser representatives did not seek personal hearing. The CCC also noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the twitter advertisement. In the absence of comments from the Advertiser, and any evidence to show that the advertised fare was indeed availed by any customer, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Fly smart with our low fares. Fares Starting from RS 736* (All inclusive)……”, was not substantiated and is misleading by ambiguity and exaggeration. The twitter advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the Code. The complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Anmol Tila"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“Semen Booster Oil”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the concerned Media (Amar Ujala) for their assistance in providing the contact details of the advertiser, or to forward the complaint to the advertiser. The media responded and provided the contact details of the Advertiser. The ASCI then approached the Advertiser for their response in addressing the objection raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was also offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek personal hearing. The CCC also noted that no response was received from the advertising agency prior to the due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and noted that the claim in the advertisement reads as “Indriya vardhak” (enhancing the penis size). In the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Indriya vardhak”, was not substantiated, and is misleading. Also, this claim is in Breach of the law as it violated The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act, Rule 106 Schedule J Item 30. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1, I.4 and III.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Magic Wings Centre"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"“For the first time in M.P., Dr. Neha Arora uses modern science’s most advanced technology i.e Bio stem Therapy, Cell Regeneration Therapy and Decompression therapy to control incurable diseases” “Gradual loss of Vision” “Old paralysis” “Muscular Dystrophy (more than 100 sucessful treatment) , cerebral actrophy, cerebral palsy”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objections raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek personal hearing. 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. In the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claims, “For the first time in M.P., Dr. Neha Arora uses modern science’s most advanced technology i.e Bio stem Therapy, Cell Regeneration Therapy and Decompression therapy to control incurable diseases”, “Gradual loss of Vision”, “Old paralysis”, “Muscular Dystrophy (more than 100 sucessful treatment) , cerebral atrophy, cerebral palsy”, were not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence. Specific to the claims implying treatment for gradual loss of vision (Blindness) and Paralysis, the Ad is in Breach of the law as it violated The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act (items 3 and 39 under DMR schedule). Also, the claims are misleading by gross exaggeration. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1, I.4 and III.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Berger Paints India Limited"
PRODUCT:"Lewis Berger Weathercoat Anti Dust Paint"

COMPLAINT:

“Claims to be an anti-dust paint. Also claims to have a dust guard technology that does not let dust settle on walls regardless of the quantity of dust.”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser submitted their written response. The advertiser representatives were given personal by the ASCI, at which time the advertiser shared a demo test done for the efficacy of the product., They also informed that real life test is being done in factories. As claim support data, the advertiser provided a copy of the write up on the details of the on-site tests carried out by them for verifying the efficacy of weather coat Anti Dust on walls exposed to weather and the procedure for demonstration, and a video clip of the demonstration. The claim support data 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 the Technical expert presented at the meeting. The CCC noted that the data shows that compared to its competitors, the Berger paint surface remains whiter, in a charcoal dust test, where the painted surface are exposed to the dust in a chamber. A six month exposure to the environment shows the Berger pointed surface to be whiter. While the tests demonstrate superiority of Berger paint over competition product in terms of lower dust pick up, the CCC noted that the claims made in the TVC are absolute claims. The test data does not support the unconditional nature of the claims as there is some dust that will always stick to the Berger surface, however small. The CCC concluded that the claims, “anti Dust paint”, and "Dust guard technology” were not objectionable. However the claim “Deewar pe dhool ko tikne na de, Kitni bhi dhool aaye ghar pe na tik paye" (does not let dust settle on walls regardless of the quantity of dust) was inadequately substantiated, and is misleading by exaggeration. The TVC contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Rakyan Beverages Private Limited (RAW Pressery)"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"“Perfect to reset your body clock and give you a good nights sleep” “Alkalizes your system and flushes out all your toxins” “A Cold pressed juice cleanse is amongst the best ways to rid your body of toxins and rejuvenating it. Reset and Reboot your system with our detox diet plans.”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"“Various unscientifc words are used in the advertisements and openly on their webste and products as well. ""Deep Cleanse"" diet juices are advertised as ""*Perfect to reset your body clock and give you a good nights sleep. *Alkalizes your system and flushes out all your toxins."" It also used words which have no real meaning completely falsified, non peer reviewed and unproven medical benefits, quoted ""A Cold pressed juice cleanse is amongst the best ways to rid your body of toxins and rejuvenating it. Reset and Reboot your system with our detox diet plans."" https://www.rawpressery.com/collections/detoxcleanse * The words ""detox"" has no place in the scientific or medical community. There is no such thing as a ""toxin"" to begin with produced in the body that needs to be ""detoxed"". The normal liver and kidneys do a job on its own and no juice provides a ""detox"". * Juices claim to reset body clock is completely fabricated. Body clocks are regulated by external factors such as travel, stress, exercise and daylight hours, juices cannot reset one's body clock. * ""Flushes out all toxins"" implies body has toxins which normal water does not exit on its own. If this were the case, we'd all be dead if we didn't drink juices! Every scientific school of though establishes this is a meaningless statement disguised to confuse consumers. Throughout their line of radical ""cleanse"" diets, they are overlooking important macro elements such as a daily standard of protein and insoluble fiber, which is actually harmful to the growth of the human body and goes against medical ethics.”"

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant. The advertiser was granted an extension of three days to the standard lead time of seven days to submit their reply. The advertiser representatives were given personal hearing by ASCI. The CCC viewed the website advertisements and considered the Advocates response. Advocate states that their client’s products are 100% natural juices which do not contain any additives or artificial or harmful substances that help in detoxification of the body system through light diet and avoiding unhealthy food and beverages. “Deep Cleanse” is a diet plan recommended by them to their customers and the word “Cleanse” is commonly and widely used in their area of business. They further state that the words “toxins” and “Body Clock” have not been used by them in scientific and/or medical parlance. It has been used in common parlance which is widely used and accepted to refer to any substance alleged to cause ill health. Advertiser denies that by stating “Flushes out all toxins” it does not imply that only juices and not water can flush out all toxins from a human body. As claim support data, the Advocate provided Charts showing the nutritional value of the advertiser’s products, and copies of the Nutritional Analysis Certificates for their products. The CCC reviewed this data, and concluded that the claims should not use scientific words unless there is evidence to show the product to be able to provide those benefits. The CCC concluded that the claim , “best ways to rid your body of toxins.”, “Alkalizes your system and flushes out all your toxins”, were not substantiated with supporting scientific evidence. Also, the claim is misleading. The website advertisements contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the Code. This complaint was UPHELD. The CCC did not consider the claim, “Perfect to reset your body clock and give you a good nights sleep” , “Reset and Reboot your system with our detox diet plans “ to be objectionable. This complaint was NOT UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Saboo Sodium Chloro Ltd"
PRODUCT:"(Surya Salt)"

COMPLAINT:

"“Scientists believe that we can get freedom from joint pain after regularly consuming Sanbhar salt. Other than this we can also avoid all stomach diseases, Acidity and skin diseases.” Food product making therapeutic claim."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objections raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek personal hearing. 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. In the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claims, “Scientists believe that we can get freedom from joint pain after regularly consuming Sanbhar salt. Other than this we can also avoid all stomach diseases, Acidity and skin diseases”, were not substantiated with evidence of product efficacy. The CCC expressed their concern for promotion of this “food” product as a medical product with therapeutic claims. The advertisement is misleading by ambiguity. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Today Tea Ltd"
PRODUCT:"(Today Premium Tea)"

COMPLAINT:

"1. Zero Fat 2. Rich In Calcium."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objections raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek personal hearing. 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 also noted that the advertisement visual indicates tea with addition of milk. In the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claims, “Zero Fat”, “Rich in Calcium”, were not substantiated. Also, the claims are misleading by ambiguity and implication. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Herbal Daily"
PRODUCT:" Herbal Daily Haldi"

COMPLAINT:

"“ 1. Herbal Daily Haldi - It is a Natural tonic to treat millions of people having the problem of Sinus, Cough cold, Asthma & Allergy, Arthritis, Uric Acid, Joint knee pain, Weight loss” 2. 100% Natural Treat”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek a personal hearing and submitted their written response. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. Advertiser’s response provides details regarding the ingredients present in the product and a link for accessing their customer’s testimonials who have benefitted by the product. As this data was not considered to be adequate on preliminary review, ASCI further requested the advertiser to provide additional data with quantitative composition details of the product. Advertiser then submitted a copy of the FSSAI License, Copy of Product label, ISO, GMP and HACCP certified audit details and write up regarding Health benefit of turmeric. The CCC concluded that the claims, “Herbal Daily Haldi - It is a Natural tonic to treat millions of people having the problem of Sinus, Cough cold, Asthma & Allergy, Arthritis, Uric Acid, Joint knee pain, Weight loss”, and “100% Natural Treat”, were not substantiated with clinical evidence for the advertised product for its efficacy. Consumer testimonials was not considered to be authentic primary claim support data. The CCC expressed their concern for promotion of this “food” product as a medical product implying treatment for medical claims. The advertisement is also misleading by ambiguity as it states “100% Natural Treat” implying “treatment”. It contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"K. Patel Phyto Extractions Pvt. Ltd"
PRODUCT:"Dot Shot"

COMPLAINT:

"“Globally acclaimed, proven. Brighter morning after a hard partying night” “Now no more morning blues, DOTSHOT an anti-hangover drink resolves it. DOTSHOT is a natural and safe drink to detoxify effect of alcohol from your body. It also replenishes vital electrolytes that overcome muscle cramps. It helps maintain muscle and nerve function. After that mad crazy night have the last shot of the night of anti-hangover drink and wake up fresh for a brighter morning ahead.”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek a personal hearing. The Advertising Agency on behalf of the advertiser provided a copy of product license. In the absence of response, ASCI requested the Ad agency to provide specific comments with data in support of the claims made. Ad agency was not able to submit the claim support data on behalf of the advertiser. The CCC viewed the print advertisement. In the absence of claim support data, the CCC concluded that the claims, “Globally acclaimed, proven. Brighter morning after a hard partying night”, “Now no more morning blues, DOTSHOT an anti-hangover drink resolves it. DOTSHOT is a natural and safe drink to detoxify effect of alcohol from your body. It also replenishes vital electrolytes that overcome muscle cramps. It helps maintain muscle and nerve function. After that mad crazy night have the last shot of the night of anti-hangover drink and wake up fresh for a brighter morning ahead”, were not substantiated with proof of product efficacy. Also, the claims are misleading by exaggeration. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Capital Foods Ltd "
PRODUCT:"Ching’s Secret Soups"

COMPLAINT:

"Premium Sumptuous Soups, Rich Satisfying Flavours, Choicest Exotic Vegetables"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"“The Advertiser claims on its pack of Ching's Secret soups ""Premium Sumptuous Soups, Rich Satisfying Flavours, Choicest Exotic Vegetables"". The Advertiser is claiming on its pack that its Product is made with choicest ""exotic"" vegetables. However, back of pack declarations of the said Product lists the vegetables that have actually been added to the Product. These vegetables (as mentioned in the list of ingredients] are quite commonly found in India and have been part of traditional Indian cuisine. The Advertiser has not substantiated as to how and in what manner vegetables like carrot, cabbage, garlic, onion may be considered"" exotic"". The Advertiser has wrongfully made an unsubstantiated, unsupported and uncorroborated claim of ""exotic"" with respect to vegetables that are commonly grown/found in India and are part of Indian cuisine. The Advertiser's claim that its Product is made with choicest ""exotic"" vegetables is outrageous, ridiculous and completely unsubstantiated. The word ""exotic"" as per Oxford Dictionary means originating in or characteristic of a distant foreign country'. It also means of foreign origin or character; not native; introduced from abroad, but not fully naturalized or acclimatized2. In common parlance, ""exotic vegetables"" refer to vegetables that are not commonly grown/found natively and are associated with foreign origin/non-native cuisine. Moreover, owing to their ""exotic"" nature, such vegetables are available in markets mostly at a premium rate as compared to the rest of the vegetables. Even in supermarkets, ""exotic"" vegetables are mostly stored separately, sometimes in cold storage/freezer cabinets, and are likely to be more expensive than other vegetables. Further, several websites that mention ""exotic vegetables"" in varying contexts, commonly refer to vegetables like asparagus, celery, leeks, broccoli, snow peas, red/yellow bell peppers etc. Copies of some of these webpages are attached hereto for your perusal and marked as Annexure B Colly. In view of the above, vegetables like carrot, cabbage, garlic, onion, tomato, which are commonly grown/found in India and have been part of traditional Indian cuisine, cannot be termed as ""exotic"". Moreover, claiming vegetables to be ""exotic"" on pack is likely to create confusion in minds of consumers as regards the vegetables actually used in the Product. For example, on the one hand, there is green cabbage which is common to India. On the other hand, there is red cabbage/Chinese cabbage, which is considered to be ""exotic"" as explained above. Claiming ""exotic"" on front of pack, and declaring merely ""cabbage"" as one of the ingredients on back of pack of the Product, without expressly mentioning the type of cabbage, the Advertiser is misleading the consumer into assuming the cabbage used to be ""exotic"". Accordingly, the Advertiser, without any substantiation, cannot claim vegetables like carrot, cabbage, garlic, onion as ""exotic"". It is submitted that the Advertiser has claimed on their Product that the same is made with ""exotic"" vegetables, thereby implying certain qualities/health benefits that may be assumed by the consumers. However, as can be seen on the back of pack declarations, the ingredients include vegetables like carrot, cabbage, garlic etc., which are quite common in India and part of traditional Indian recipes and as such, cannot be claimed to be ""exotic"". It can therefore be concluded that the Advertiser is misleading the consumers by way of unsubstantiated, mischievously crafted claims without any relevant disclaimers and qualifiers..”"

Recommendation: NOT UPHELD

"The CCC viewed the product packaging of five variants (Mix Veg, Tomato soup, Sweet Corn, Hot n Sour and Manchow soup) and considered the Advertiser’s response. Advertiser states that in the Ching’s Secret Exotic range of soups, there are various ingredients that are included which are exotic on account of which the said term has been incorporated on the packagings. Some of these ingredients are shiitake mushroom, black ear wood mushroom, broccoli, American sweet corn etc. that are not native to the Indian topography. Based on this data, the CCC concluded that the packaging claim, “Choicest Exotic Vegetables”, was substantiated. The complaint was NOT UPHELD. "

 

COMPANY:"SKS Ayurveda Impex Pvt. Ltd (Sks Ayurveda Range Of Products)"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"1. SKS - Increase height by adopting ayurved 2. This drug do proper blood circulation in our body & Consciousness to hormones. After 90 days use of medicine you will urself see that you have increased your height 3. Visual Misleading"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The advertisement was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act (Item 47 under the DMR Schedule ), The Drugs & Cosmetics Act , 1940 ( Item 29 under Schedule J) and is being referred to the Ministry of Ayush."

 

COMPANY:"Astha Clinic(AJM) "
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"1. White Spot - Successful Treatment 2. Visual Misleading"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The advertisement was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act (Item 33 under the DMR Schedule ), The Drugs & Cosmetics Act , 1940 ( Item 35 under Schedule J) and is being referred to the Ministry of Ayush."

 

COMPANY: "Micropark Wellness "
PRODUCT:"(Muslinites Range)"

COMPLAINT:

"1.1X10 Muslinites Gold Capsule. 2. Now Muslinites Tripti Oil is also available 3. For Best results use with MusliNites Tripti Oil."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The advertisement was considered to be, prima facie, in violation The Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 (Item 47 under Schedule J) and is being referred to the Ministry of Ayush."

 

COMPANY:"Izda Healthcare "
PRODUCT:"Six Foot Range Of Products"

COMPLAINT:

"1. SIX FOOT - Helpful in :- - Physical Development"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The advertisement was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act (Item 47 under the DMR Schedule), The Drugs & Cosmetics Act , 1940, ( Item 29 under Schedule J) and is being referred to the Ministry of Ayush."

 

COMPANY: "Chitransh Homeo Hall"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"1. Treatment of white spots, psoriasis, acne, nails, hair diseases from roots."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The advertisement was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act (Item 33 under the DMR Schedule), The Drugs & Cosmetics Act , 1940, ( Item 35 under Schedule J) and is being referred to the Ministry of Ayush."

 

COMPANY:"Cenezoic Remedies Pvt Ltd "
PRODUCT:"Diaba Dops Liquid"

COMPLAINT:

"1. Now sugar treatment from the roots."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The advertisement was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act (Item 9 under the DMR Schedule), The Drugs & Cosmetics Act , 1940,(Item 14 under Schedule J) and is being referred to the Ministry of Ayush."

 

COMPANY:"Hair Grow "
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"1. HAIR GROW - Grow natural hair in 120 days with no age limit, whether bald from childhood. 2. Lifetime freedom from unwanted hair 3. Money back if you find no effect 4. Solution to baldness & every kind of hair problems"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The advertisement was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of The Drugs & Cosmetics Act , 1940 (Item 10 under Schedule J) and is being referred to the Ministry of Ayush."

 

COMPANY:"Delhi Clinic"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"1. For a happy married life , meet us 2. Safe & Successful Treatment of Sex Problems 3.Visual in the advertisement"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The advertisement was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of The Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 (Item 47 under Schedule J) and is being referred to the Ministry of Ayush."

 

COMPANY:"Dr. Gupta’s Skin & Hair Hospital"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"1. White spots, Baldness,etc, can be cured from the roots by Homeopathy. Homeopathy is the cheapest treatment and disease is cured from the roots"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The advertisement was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act for White spots- (Item 33 under the DMR Schedule) & The Drugs & Cosmetics Act , 1940 - White spots - (Item 35 under Schedule J), Baldness - (Item 10 under Schedule J) and is being referred to the Ministry of Ayush."

 

COMPANY:"Dr. Sanjeev Cancer & Liver Clinic"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

1.For the first time Indian Scientist Dr Sanjeev Bhardwaj in his research on cancer has seen remarkble improvement in last stage cancer patients. Dr. Sanjeev Bhardwaj has found alternative treatment to chemo and radiation. He has achieved amazing results via this Advanced Treatment for cancer and PET CT Scan reports of patients have shown quick decrease in cancer. 2.Dr. Sanjeev Bhardwaj, has stated in his study that while treating patients in the last stage of Cancer,their PET CT Scan reports showed quick decrease in cancer and near death patients reported suprising improvement. 3. India s first Ayurveda Cancer Super -speciality Clinic with PET CT Scan Facility 4.World's No.1 Ayurvedic Pharmaceutical Company

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The advertisement was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act (Item 6 under the DMR Schedule), The Drugs & Cosmetics Act , 1940 (Item 8 under Schedule J) and is being referred to the Ministry of Ayush."

 

COMPANY:"Naaz Stone Cut "
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"1 By Consuming Naaz Cut Capsule+ Syrup, kidney/urinal stone gets removed. It does not develop again and no need of operation."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The advertisement was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act (Item 22 under the DMR Schedule), The Drugs & Cosmetics Act , 1940 ,( Item 50 under Schedule J) and is being referred to the Ministry of Ayush."

 

COMPANY:"Bhagyesh Health & Beauty Care P.Ltd "
PRODUCT:"Height Grow Range Of Products"

COMPLAINT:

"1. HEIGHT GROW -Ayurvedic Medicine"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The advertisement was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act (Item 47 under the DMR Schedule), The Drugs & Cosmetics Act , 1940, (Item 29 under Schedule J) and is being referred to the Ministry of Ayush."

 

COMPANY:"Ratan Ayurvedic"
PRODUCT:"Ratans Heightop Syrup"

COMPLAINT:

"1. True companion in higher thinking.2. Heightop is helpful in increase the height of your self confidence. Your Helper in making you very different and attractive."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The advertisement was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act (Item 47 under the DMR Schedule), The Drugs & Cosmetics Act , 1940, ( Item 29 under Schedule J) and is being referred to the Ministry of Ayush."

 

COMPANY:"Hercules Healthcare"
PRODUCT:"Long Looks Height Gain Capsule"

COMPLAINT:

"1. World's Trusted Ayurvedic Capsules. 2. Helpful in physical development. 3. Visuals Misleading."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The advertisement was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act (Item 47 under the DMR Schedule), The Drugs & Cosmetics Act , 1940, (Item 29 under Schedule J) and is being referred to the Ministry of Ayush"

 

COMPANY:"Dr. Herring German Homoeo Company (Dr Herring German Homoeo Co Product)"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"1. Increases Height 2. Dissolving stone from kidney"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The advertisement was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act, Height ( Item 47 under the DMR Schedule), The Drugs & Cosmetics Act , 1940,( Item 29 under Schedule J) Kidney Stone - The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act, (Item 22 under the DMR Schedule), The Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940, (Item 50 under Schedule J ) and is being referred to the Ministry of Ayush"

 

COMPANY:"Sidhji Sevashram "
PRODUCT: "Fakiri Tilla"

COMPLAINT:

"1. FAKIRI TILLA - Take 5 drops daily, and see the manly vigour"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The advertisement was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of The Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940, (Item 47 under Schedule J) and is being referred to the Ministry of Ayush."

 

COMPANY:"Sri Ganesh Nisargopchar Kendra"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"1.Successful treatment of Paralysis."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The advertisement was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act (Item 39 under the DMR Schedule), The Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940, (Item 40 under Schedule J) and is being referred to the Ministry of Ayush."

 

COMPANY: "Sahar Herbal Pharmacy Pvt. Ltd"
PRODUCT:" (Sahar Herbal Pharmas Products)"

COMPLAINT:

"1. S.S Oil / Powder - Tested for increasing the power and size of penis. 2. Diaba Cure for controlling sugar. 3. A sure shot medicine for piles P9 - L7 Capsule for Leukoria 4. Rasayankalp Powder - Eliminated discharge, Wet dreams, thinness of semen."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The advertisement was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of The Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940, (Sexual Impotence- Item 47 under Schedule J) Diabetes- The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act (Item 9 under the DMR Schedule), The Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940, (Item 14 under Schedule J) Piles - (Item 42 under Schedule J) of The Drugs & Cosmetic Act, 1940, and is being referred to the Ministry of Ayush."

 

COMPANY: "Dr Rajguru Hair Care & Research Clinic"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"1. HRS is an effective treatment method revised by famous Trichologist Dr. Ajay Rajguru which is prepared by Plant Stem Cells, Homeopathy, Bio Tissue Salts and herbs and is global standard and most beneficial. In which hair diseases are cured from the roots. (reference to baldness - claim is misleadig by implication) 2. HRS Therapy is best option for hair transplant with low cost.- Safe in any age group.3.Visual Misleading."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The advertisement was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of The Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940, (Item 10 under Schedule J) and is being referred to the Ministry of Ayush."

 

COMPANY:"Suneha Health Care"
PRODUCT:"Suneha Fat Cut Churna"

COMPLAINT:

"1. Reduce Obesity without any side effect. 2. SUNEHA FAT CUT is an ayurvedic churna which reduces your stomach without making it weak and reduces excessive fat. Doesn't let increase stomach and obesity again. Makes body beautiful by making figure normal. Very beneficial for the ladies which has got obesity after delivery. 3. Visuals Misleading."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The advertisement was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act (Item 38 under the DMR Schedule), The Drugs & Cosmetics Act , 1940, ( Item 39 under Schedule J) and is being referred to the Ministry of Ayush."

 

COMPANY:"Rajnish Hot Deals Pvt. Ltd-"
PRODUCT:"Playwin"

COMPLAINT:

"Play-Win continues to advertise their products for "Premature Ejaculation" daily. Enclosed the copies for your reference."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

The advertisement was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of The Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940, (Item 47 under Schedule J) and is being referred to the Ministry of Ayush."

 

COMPANY:"Nurture Health care"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"Ayurex continue to advertise their products for" Premat ure Ejaculation" daily. Enclosed the copies for your reference."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The advertisement was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of The Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940, (Item 47 under Schedule J) and is being referred to the Ministry of Ayush."

 

COMPANY: "Rajnish Hot Deals Pvt. Ltd-"
PRODUCT:"Playwin capsules and oil"

COMPLAINT:

"It is quite surprising that the ads since past couple of months are directly claiming near cure for Symptoms like Premature Ejaculation, Erectile Dysfunction etc. Presumably, even if there is cure for these symptoms, DMR Law doesn't permit publicizing it through Advertising in any medium."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The advertisement was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of The Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940, (Item 47 under Schedule J) and is being referred to the Ministry of Ayush."

 

COMPANY:"Kent RO Systems Ltd"
PRODUCT:"Kent Air Purifiers"

COMPLAINT:

“Sabse Shudh Hawa”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"“I would like to bring to your attention a recent advertisement in a leading daily newspaper by a wellknown consumer care products manufacturing brand Kent. In the said advertisement, Kent has claimed that its product Air Purifier provides Sabse Shudh Hawa This to me as a consumer translates into meaning that the said Product provides the purest air when used. In my mind, the said claim of Kent is ill founded and grossly exaggerated. It is intended to mislead the innocent consumer into believing that the said product is capable of providing the purest air for breathing and protecting the consumer from air borne diseases as the said advertisement does not provide a reference to any support research or an independent third party study to corroborate such a sensitive medical claim. I would like to quote the relevant provision within the ASCI codes for self-regulation in advertising which clearly provides that Advertisements shall not be so framed as to abuse the trust of consumers or exploit their lack of experience or knowledge. No advertisement shall be permitted to contain any claim so exaggerated as to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers The Code also provides further that care and restraint has to be exercised in advertisements addressed to those suffering from weakness, any real or perceived inadequacy of any physical attributes such as height or bust development, obesity, illness, impotence, infertility, baldness and the like, to ensure that claims or representations directly or by implication, do not exceed what is considered prudent by generally accepted standards of medical practice and the actual efficacy of the product In the days when the air pollution and its hazards are becoming a global hazard, such advertisements have an even increased likelihood of hoodwinking the innocent consumer. Hence, I would urge you to take cognizance of this grave misrepresentation by kent which is clearly designed to dupe the innocent consumer. I am attaching the relevant advertisement for your reference. Hoping for a quick action.”"

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The advertiser was granted an extension of nine days to the standard lead time of seven days to submit their reply in response to their request for extension. Advertiser responded stating that they have temporarily withdrawn the said advertisement, but they reserve their right to defend the claims made in the advertisement. Advertiser did not provide any comparative technical data to show that Kent air purifier provides the purest air or air that is superior to any other air produced by other air purification systems. In the absence of claim support data, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Kent Air Purifier de sabse shudh Hawa”, was not substantiated and is misleading by exaggeration. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the Code. The complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Global Consumer Products Private Limited"
PRODUCT:"DND Turblo liquid vaporizer"

COMPLAINT:

"1. To spread vapour efficiency 2. Corner to corner mosquito prevention 3. 5x action"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"“I am a regular consumer of mosquito repellent products as I like so many others abhor mosquitoes and I am extremely concerned about the diseases that are spread by mosquitoes since they are so deadly. Recently I noticed in television advertisement, a new range if mosquito repellent products with claims of superior action getting advertisement and I noticed such products being branded as DND. I am an informed consumer and am aware of all the mosquito repellents that are available in the market and their effectiveness since I strive to my home free of mosquitoes and prevent my family contracting dangerous diseases such as dengue, chikungunya and malaria. This communication relates to an advertisement on the television channel (TVC) Life Ok aired in October 2016 for DND brand product. The said TVC advertisement of DND is very different in its presentation of the product and its claims. I was intrigued by the claims made about the product and its efficiency given that all the products in the market for controlling mosquito menace have been approved after going through stringent checks by a Central Government body. I am aware that there are several companies producing mosquito repellents under distinct there all such products, while the brand names are distinct, ingredients do not differ much and the product efficiency is the same."

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The advertiser representatives were given personal hearing by ASCI. The advertiser submitted their written response. Advertiser states that they have tested their product at an independent laboratory against another equivalent product which is commonly available in the market. The test report indicates that the advertised product was five times more effective than the commercial formulation compared against. The insecticide in the product is distinctive from most other products available in the market. As claim support data, the advertiser provided a copy of the third party test report. The claim support data 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 the Technical expert presented at the meeting. The CCC noted that the test results show that the DND vaporiser+liquid was five times more effective than the commercial formulation compared against in terms of speed of action. Based on the claim support data, the CCC concluded that - Claim, “…. Spread vapours effectively”, was substantiated, as the presence of a fan in the vaporizer helps achieve this through forced convection. This complaint was NOT UPHELD. Claim, “5 X more effective”, was substantiated. This complaint was NOT UPHELD. Claim, “…. to give corner to corner mosquito prevention”, was inadequately substantiated as the test conducted did not check efficacy in the corners of a room of realistic shape and size, where stagnant dead spaces would be present despite forced convection. The claim is misleading by exaggeration. The disclaimers in the TVC are not in the same language as the audio of the TVC (Hindi), and the hold duration of the disclaimers are not in compliance with the ASCI guidelines. The CCC concluded that the TVC contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code and Clauses 4(I), and 4(X) of ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers. This complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Global Consumer Products Private Limited"
PRODUCT:"DND - Nanosol flying insect killer spray"

COMPLAINT:

"1. 12-hour corner to corner mosquito prevention 2. Power of 5 ordinary cans 3. Quick knockdown formula"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"“I am a regular consumer of mosquito repellent products as I like so many others abhor mosquitoes and I am extremely concerned about the diseases that are spread by mosquitoes since they are so deadly. Recently I noticed in television advertisement, a new range if mosquito repellent products with claims of superior action getting advertisement and I noticed such products being branded as DND. I am an informed consumer and am aware of all the mosquito repellents that are available in the market and their effectiveness since I strive to my home free of mosquitoes and prevent my family contracting dangerous diseases such as dengue, chikungunya and malaria. This communication relates to an advertisement on the television channel (TVC) Life Ok aired in October 2016 for DND brand product. The said TVC advertisement of DND is very different in its presentation of the product and its claims. I was intrigued by the claims made about the product and its efficiency given that all the products in the market for controlling mosquito menace have been approved after going through stringent checks by a Central Government body. I am aware that there are several companies producing mosquito repellents under distinct there all such products, while the brand names are distinct, ingredients do not differ much and the product efficiency is the same. The DND product advertisement (s) in TVC concentrate and appeal to the consumers to change from the existing products. The claims are obnoxiously taller as compared with any other mosquito aerosol products. As a consumer, I want to know before using such products as to whether the claims made by the advertiser of DND products are capable of being categorized as better to change based on any product approval superiority approved by any Central Government body about which the advertisement is completely silent. The claims of advertisements are: The DND Nanosol flying insect killer with just 4 sprays gives: 1. 12-hour corner to corner mosquito prevention 2. Power of 5 ordinary cans 3. Quick knockdown formula Does this product have any approved and registered unique formula which is different from the existing insect repellent products which makes it most appealing to a consumer to change? On what bases the DND product advertiser is able to project a picture that the existing insect killer products are not effective and DNDs product is able to kill mosquitoes and therefore the consumer should go in for a change? Further I find the advertisement demeaning and biased against working women especially in today work place where gender equality which has been stressed upon by the government and by corporates. This advertisement projects working women in bad light by projecting through the characters in the TVC advertisement that women working in start-ups or MNCs when they dont have any assignments/projects at hand only think of driving away mosquitoes while sitting idle. The DND product advertisement is promoting a thought in general public through its TVC advertisement that women at work places while away their time killing mosquitoes . The general publics understanding of the term Macchar Marna is attributed to doing no work. The advertisement infers that women in start ups and other corporates basically have no work except to kill mosquitoes. The DND advertisement is perpetuating gender bias and is gender -discriminatory. The advertisement is degrades and insults working women like me. I would like to know the basis on which DND Products is making this claim and have these claims been substantiated. Has DND Products produced any evidence to back these claims? This 10 second advertisement gave no basis on which the claims have been made and further I was also unable to verify the dozens of disclaimers appearing on the TV screen since they were blurred. I humbly request you to verify all the claims that have been made by DND Product in this advertisement so that I or any other consumer is not misled by the contents of the advertisement. I am aware that all products in the market which to seek to protect consumers against mosquito bites are pre-approved by only one single Central Government body for one and the same purpose. Has DND Products produced any evidence to substantiate its claims while obtaining the needed approvals?"

Recommendation: NOT UPHELD

"The advertiser representatives were given personal hearing by ASCI. The advertiser submitted their written response. Advertiser states that their product contains transfluthrin which diffuses in the air over a period of 12 hours and which therefore provides protection against mosquitos for 12 hours as against any other ordinary mosquito repellent spray which do not contain transfluthrin. Advertiser provided copy of two third party test reports which showed that the Product is effective upto 12 hours against the test subject mosquito i.e. Aedes Aegypti. The test reports which compared the efficacy of the Product with other similar products, indicates that “••• Trans/luthrin -12.0% AE has five times more active [effect] than the d-Allethrin -0.25% w/w formulation. The claim support data 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 the Technical expert presented at the meeting. The CCC noted that the basis of comparison was DND vs another commercial spray. The test report/s confirmed the 5X better efficacy of the DND product as compared to the conventional product. Also, the effectiveness of the product was for 12 hrs. Based on this data, the CCC concluded that in the context of the product and the TVC – Claims, “get 12 hour corner to corner prevention”, “Power of 5 cans”, and “Quick knockdown” were substantiated. This complaint was NOT UPHELD. However, the disclaimers in the TVC are not in the same language as the audio of the TVC (Hindi), and the hold duration of the disclaimers are not in compliance with the ASCI guidelines. The CCC recommended that the advertiser should make necessary changes in the TVC. The CCC did not consider the TVC to be demeaning against working women nor it is gender discriminatory. This complaint was NOT UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Sapna Infoway Private Ltd(www.sapnaonline.com)"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"Myself is Senior citizen having age about 70 years and wish to inform you that M/S.Sapna Infoway pvt ltd, No.24,2nd cross , Gandhi Nagar, Bangaluru – 560009 displaying our book on his website with wrong price and information as below: Book with wrong price of Rs. 491 less 5 % off. i.e.Net Rs. 466/- as well as wrong information that book is “out of stock”. In fact the current price of our book is Rs. 240/- and it is available with us in “ready stock”. They are doing this to spoil reputation of our company as well as they misguide to people in large. Their interest is to damage our company’s name as well as value of our product by displaying wrong information on their website. Further we have sent letter dt: 13.06.2016 to them which is remain unreplied till today. i.e 60 days passed. In this regard we would like to request you to please obtain the reply of our letter dt: 13.06.2016 from the said party. In order to save further damage, kindly take necessary action and furnish the required detail at the earliest and oblige."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The 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. The advertiser representatives did not seek personal hearing. The CCC also noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the due date for this complaint. The complainant provided evidence to show that Book Peadiatric Nursing by R.S.Tambulwadker bears the MRP of Rs. 240/- and it is currently available in ready stock with the author. The CCC viewed the website advertisement. In the absence of comments from the Advertiser and based on the information provided by the complainant, the CCC concluded that the price claim of “Rs. 491 less Discount 5 % off i.e. Net Rs. 466” and the claim that the “book is out of stock”, is false and misleading. The website advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Greek Retail P. Limited Inocos Herbal Industries"
PRODUCT:"Radyance Instant Skin Brightener"

COMPLAINT:

"“Online advertisement as advertorial. Make claims which need substantiation.” Link of Website/Internet Advertisement: http://cb.17trk.com/80e4d7a6-9809-48c8-a7fb-0ab7a7f6e266?adid=M14ios"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant. To get correct contact details for the advertiser, the ASCI placed an order for the said product and received regular e:mail correspondence from their representative as well as received delivery of the said product as well via courier. The additional contact details for the advertiser based on product packaging were perused by the ASCI. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek personal hearing. The CCC also noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the online advertisement (http://cb.17trk.com/80e4d7a6-9809-48c8-a7fb-0ab7a7f6e266?adid=M14ios). In the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claims, “5 shades fairer in 2 minutes”, “Instant Fairness by 5 shades”, “…. getting 5 shades fairer in mere minutes–and without the pain or high cost (40,000-50,000 rupees) of skin peels and laser treatments…..” are false, not substantiated with product efficacy data, are misleading by gross exaggeration and exploits consumers’ lack of experience and knowledge. The online video and the advertorial displays pictures showing the efficacy being depicted via images of before and after usage of the product which are grossly misleading. The online/website advertisement contravened Chapters I.1, I.4 and I.5 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Philips Electronics India Ltd"
PRODUCT:"Philips Electric Shaver"

COMPLAINT:

“Electric Shaver - Cut the hair not the skin”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"“The Advertiser in its advertisement on its website has disparaged and denigrated razors in more than one way. Advertiser has depicted a shaving razor as a 'cactus', Use of green colour along with thorns is clearly asymptomatic of a cactus plant and substitution of a shaving razor with a cactus clearly depicts that the Advertiser is implying that the feel of shaving with a razor is equivalent to shaving with a cactus. The Advertiser by shrouding a razor as a cactus is also causing a consumer of 'ordinary intelligence' to believe that shaving with a razor shall be painful and prickly which is absolutely untrue and unsubstantiated and hence is generically disparaging to razors as a method of shaving. Further, the Advertiser in its efforts to denigrate razors and thwart the reputation and reliance of people on razors as their trusted everyday method of shaving has not stopped by depicting a razor as a cactus, rather has gone a notch above by making the claim ‘Electric Shaver - Cut the hair not the skin.’ The above mentioned claim, has a two prong effect in order to denigrate razors, which is as follows: a. It implies that razors do not cut the hair; and b. It implies that razors cut the skin. The aforesaid claim is therefore: a. misleading by exaggeration; b. untrue and unsubstantiated; c. unfairly denigrates and discredits razors and by implication the products of the Complainant, as Gillette is a market leader in terms of sales of razors. It is also pertinent to note that the Advertiser has used a famous celebrity to convey its message and the actor's expressions exhibits 'fear' and 'reluctance' as he looks at the razor. This has been done on purpose to discourage consumers from using razors. Since actors are social icons, the public at large tend to follow them. It is on amount of their tremendous popularity and influence that famous actors and actress are selected as brand ambassador. If consumers see a famous actor telling them using razors is like using a cactus, they will tend to believe it and thereby hurt and disparage! denigrate the reputation of razors where Gillette is a market leader.”"

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek a personal hearing and submitted their written response. The CCC viewed the website advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. Advertiser states that the advertisement makes no mention of the complainant’s brand and the claim is based on consumer surveys. However, the Advertiser did not provide a copy of this survey report prior to the due date of response. In the absence of the details of the consumer survey details, the CCC concluded that Also, the visual depiction of a shaving razor as a cactus and a concerned look on the model, read in conjunction with the claim, “Electric Shaver - Cut the hair not the skin”, is misleading as it implies that shaving razors cut the skin and not the hair (which was not substantiated), and unfairly denigrates shaving razors in general. The website advertisement contravened Chapters I.1, I.4 and IV.1(e) of the Code. The complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Accelyst Solutions Pvt. Ltd(Freecharge)"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“ Upto FLAT 100% cashback on freecharge across lakhs of stores”.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek a personal hearing and submitted their written response. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. Advertiser states that the terms of the offer is explicit and commonly understood by the Customers that if the transaction size or transaction amount is exceeding Rs.100/- then Customer will be eligible to a cash back of Rs.100/- only. The CCC noted that while the advertisement claims “Upto Flat 100% cashback”, in smaller text it says, “Maximum cashback Rs.100”. The CCC also noted that a vast majority of items are well above Rs.100 and would thus not be able to get the 100% cashback. The CCC noted that this claim is contradictory to the conditions stated and concluded that the claim offer is misleading as the cashback being offered is limited to Rs.100/-. The advertisement contravened Chapter I.4 of the ASCI Code, and Clause 1 of ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers. The complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Siva Sivani Institute of Management"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"Voice over says- “to have secured a track record of almost 100 percent placements.”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek a personal hearing and submitted their written response. As claim support data, the advertiser provided summary of details of the students from Batch 2014-2016 who had passed out. ASCI further requested the advertiser to provide exhaustive data in support of the claims made. In the absence of this data, the CCC concluded that the claim, “secured a track record of almost 100 percent placements”, was inadequately substantiated with authentic data such as contact details of students for independent verification, enrolment forms and appointment letters received by the students, nor any independent audit or verification certificate. The advertisement is misleading by omission of a mention that Past record is no guarantee of future job prospects. Also, the claim “almost” is misleading by ambiguity and implication. 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 UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Matru-Chhaya Clinic"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“Successful treatment of childless couples”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek a personal hearing and submitted their written response. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. Advertiser states that they do not claim use of any drugs or magical powers for treatment of infertility. The hospital does not claim any guarantee or 100% assurance in the Treatment of Infertility. Advertiser did not provide any supporting data for the claim made. The CCC noted that the claim, “Successful treatment of childless couples” implies an assurance of prevention or cure of infertility, and this was not substantiated with clinical evidence. Also, the claim is misleading by exaggeration. Specific to the claims related to successful treatment for Infertility (childless couple), the advertisement is in Breach of the law as it violated The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act (item 48 under the DMR schedule). The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1, I.4 and III.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Datatec Group Of Institutions"
PRODUCT:"Hannas Eng Inst"

COMPLAINT:

“100% Job”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek a personal hearing and submitted their written response. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. Advertiser states that they have started the KGCE Engineering courses of the Department of Technical Education from current year onwards only and will be in a position to provide 100% placement for the current year students, based on their tie-up with various Companies. Advertiser did not provide any supporting data for the claim made and the CCC noted that the advertiser is positioning this claim as a future promise. In the absence of claim support data, the CCC concluded that the claim, “100% Job” was not substantiated and the claim is misleading by exaggeration. 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 UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Global Consumer Products Private Limited"
PRODUCT:"DND Nanosol Flying Insect Killer"

COMPLAINT:

“Just 4 sprays of its quick knock down formula gives 12 hour corner to corner mosquito prevention”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: NOT UPHELD

"The advertiser representatives were given personal hearing by ASCI. Subsequently, the advertiser submitted their written response. Advertiser states that their product contains transfluthrin which diffuses in the air over a period of 12 hours and which therefore provides protection against mosquitos for 12 hours as against any other ordinary mosquito repellent spray which do not contain transfluthrin. Advertiser provided copy of product approval licence / certificate of registration, copy of two third party test reports. The claim support data was reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. The CCC viewed the TVC (in Tamil) and considered the Advertiser’s response as well as the opinion of the Technical expert presented at the meeting. The CCC noted that the test results show that the effectiveness of the DND aerosol was for 12 hrs. Based on this data, the CCC concluded that in the context of the product and the TVC the claim “Just 4 sprays of its quick knock down formula gives 12 hour corner to corner mosquito prevention” was substantiated. This complaint was NOT UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Goodwill Institute of Security System and Automation Technology"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“100% placement”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek a personal hearing and submitted their written response post the due date. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. Advertiser states that they have applied for PMKVY‘s project systems recognition for Goodwill Institute of Technology and after obtaining the sanction and confirmation of placements, they will start the course. Advertiser did not provide any supporting data for the claim made and the CCC noted that the advertiser is positioning this claim as a future promise. In the absence of claim support data, the CCC concluded that the claim, “100% Placement”, was not substantiated and the claim is misleading by exaggeration. 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 UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "National Healthcare"
PRODUCT:"National Plato Plus Ras"

COMPLAINT:

"Benefits of Plato Plus :- - Extremely beneficial in Dengue, Chicken guniya, Viral Fever, Kalajar Fever, Malaria, Typhoid. Increases Platelets, Eliminates pain of joints, Increases immunity power and eliminates the pain due to arthritis.”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek a personal hearing and provided only a copy of their advertisement. The CCC viewed the print advertisement, and noted that the Advertiser did not submit their written response along with product sample and claim support data. In the absence of claim support data, the CCC concluded that the claims, “Benefits of Plato Plus - Extremely beneficial in Dengue, Chicken guniya, Viral Fever, Kalajar Fever, Malaria, Typhoid. Increases Platelets, Eliminates pain of joints, Increases immunity power and eliminates the pain due to arthritis”, were not substantiated with evidence of product efficacy, and are misleading by exaggeration. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Vaayu Home Appliances (India) P. Ltd"
PRODUCT:"Vaayu Chiller"

COMPLAINT:

"1) To give Ac like cooling in the budget of a cooler. 2) To save up to 90 percent of electricity compared to an AC."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek a personal hearing and submitted their written response. The CCC viewed the TVC and considered the Advertiser’s response. Advertiser states that the Hybrid cooling technology gives cooling comfort similar to AC but at running cost of only 10 percent of that of an AC. It runs on 250 Watts as compared to 2500 Watts of that of a similar capacity AC. The revolutionary cooling technology cuts down the running cost/ electricity consumption upto 90% depending upon their various models. The CCC noted that the advertiser has made several assertions about their product, but did not provide a technical report indicating various temperatures measurements, cooling effect of the Vaayu Coolers and electricity consumption as compared to an AC. The CCC concluded that the claims, “gives Ac like cooling in the budget of a cooler”, “save up to 90 percent of electricity compared to an AC”, were not substantiated. Also, the claims are misleading by exaggeration. The TVC contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Wipro Enterprises Ltd"
PRODUCT:"Chandrika soap"

COMPLAINT:

"9 out of 10 girls claim that Chandrika soap gives them clear skin because it has 2 times more oil and ayurvedic contents than any other natural soaps."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek a personal hearing and submitted their written response. Advertiser states that the claim, “9 out of 10 women recommend that Chandrika gives them clear skin” is based on endorsement study done among Chandrika consumers as compared to leading soaps with natural ingredients. The claim, “2 times more Coconut Oil and Ayurvedic herbs than any other natural soap"", is basis an internal comparative analysis conducted between Chandrika and other leading natural soaps containing coconut oil. As claim support data, the advertiser provided a copy of quantitative and endorsement study, an internal comparative analysis report between Chandrika and other natural soaps containing coconut oil, and an NABL report evidencing comparative analysis conducted between Chandrika and a leading natural soap in the market. The claim support data was reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. The CCC viewed the TVC and considered the Advertiser’s response as well as opinion of the Technical expert presented at the meeting. The CCC noted that the Quantitative study carried out by the advertiser is a consumer perception study conducted in year 2012 among users of Chandrika soap regarding product efficacy. The survey does not compare the product on the basis of content of Coconut oil or ayurvedic ingredients versus competition. The composition data submitted in substantiation report shows that Chandrika has 52.97% Coconut oil compared to 25.81 in Medimix and 18.74 in Rexona. The CCC observed that this quantity of coconut oil would not be present in free form in a soap. There was no technical or clinical efficacy data presented to correlate the ingredients in the soap to product efficacy. There is no data submitted regarding the content of Ayurvedic herbs and it’s impact on product efficacy. The CCC concluded that the claim “9 out of 10 girls claim that Chandrika soap gives them clear skin because it has 2 times more oil and ayurvedic contents than any other natural soaps” was not substantiated and was misleading by ambiguity and implication. The TVC contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The disclaimers in the TVC were not legible, and contravened Clause VII (ii) of the ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers. The complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Guduchi The Ayurvedism"
PRODUCT:"Obesidat"

COMPLAINT:

“lose 6 kgs in just 12 weeks.”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek a personal hearing and submitted their written response. The CCC viewed the TVC and considered the Advertiser’s response. Advertiser states that they have launched Obesidat as their first product and also the TVC for the first time and subsequently, they have modified the TVC. Advertiser provided a copy of the modified TVC; however, no claim support data was submitted by the advertiser. The CCC concluded that the claim, “lose 6 kgs in just 12 weeks”, was not substantiated with evidence of product efficacy, and is misleading by exaggeration. Also, specific to the claims implying cure for obesity, and the visual showing obese persons, the TVC is in Breach of the law as it violated The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act (item 38 under DMR schedule). The TVC contravened Chapters I.1, I.4 and III.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Vcare Skin & Slimming Clinic"
PRODUCT:"Vcare Slim N Skin Clinic"

COMPLAINT:

“Reduce weight in just 24 hours.”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek a personal hearing and submitted their written response. The CCC viewed the TVC and considered the Advertiser’s response. Advertiser states that they are using an advance machine to reduce the weight which will need 24 hours treatment, and each sitting duration may vary depending upon the area to be reduced. The CCC concluded that the claim, “Reduce weight in just 24 hours”, is misleading by ambiguity and implication, as the advertiser is offering treatment for weight reduction in 24 sessions. Also, the advertiser did not submit any evidence of efficacy of their treatment and prove the weight reduction claims. The TVC contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Active Roots"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"India’s choice for hair transplant”, “India s largest and most trusted hair transplant company”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek a personal hearing and submitted their written response. The CCC viewed the TVC and considered the Advertiser’s response. Advertiser states that they are the largest hair transplant company in India presently having 20 clinics in 20 cities and 5 clinics in 5 cities are coming up shortly in India. They have done/ treated hair transplant to over 15000 patients in comparison to 10000 patients of Igraft Global Hair Services in Pune, 8500 client of Looks Studio Hair Transplant & Hair Labs and others also having less satisfied clients as per the data available with them. The CCC noted that the advertiser has only given assertions about their clinic but has not provided any evidence in support of the claims made. The CCC concluded that the claims, “India’s choice for hair transplant”, and “India’s largest and most trusted hair transplant company”, were not substantiated with comparative data versus other similar clinics in the same category, or any third party validation or market research report to prove these claims. Also, the claims are misleading by exaggeration. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD."

 

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

COMPLAINT:

"1. World’s first scientifically proven non-surgical treatment for Osteoarthritis 2. Non Invasive and Safe 3. No Side effects 4. Cost Effective 5. An option for people with diabetes or heart disease”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

“Product - Healthcare Company - SBF Healthcare & Research Centre Pvt. Ltd. #34 1st Cross Street Ellaiammam Colony Chennai - 600086 Appeared - In Times of India, Chennai, 9 September 2016 Language - English Description - Print ad Claims: 1. World’s first scientifically proven non-surgical treatment for Osteoarthritis 2. Non Invasive and Safe 3. No Side effects 4. Cost Effective 5. An option for people with diabetes or heart disease Our objections: 1. How does SBF Healthcare claim it is “World’s first scientifically proven non-surgical treatment for Osteoarthritis”?? Are there independent studies to prove the claim? 2. Claims 2 and 3 need to be substantiated by independent studies and research data. 3. What treatment options is it compared to when claiming it is ‘cost effective’? Are there independent studies to prove the claim? 4. With respect to claim 5, how is the advertised treatment specifically taking care of people with diabetes or heart disease? Need to be substantiated. Action to be taken ? We propose that this advertisement should be immediately withdrawn.”

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek a personal hearing and submitted their written response post the due date. Advertiser states that their treatment is cost effective as it is based on the alternatives to treat Osteoarthritis which is Total Knee Replacement which costs approximately Rs.4.00 lakhs. The other drugs (mainly pain killers) that are prescribed are highly toxic. Whereas the therapy termed as “Sequentially Programmed Magnetic Field (SPMF)” is safe and has no side effects. As claim support data, the advertiser provided research articles/references published in scientific journals, copy of patent granted by United States Patent Office, and copy of patients testimonials. 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 presented at the meeting. Based on this data, the CCC concluded that the claims, “Non Invasive and Safe “, “scientifically proven non -surgical treatment” and “No Side effects”, were substantiated. This complaint was NOT UPHELD. Claims, “Cost Effective” and “An option for people with Diabetes or Heart Disease” were not adequately substantiated with supporting evidence, and are misleading. The CCC noted that while the treatment is “scientifically proven non-surgical treatment”, as there could be other such scientifically proven non-surgical treatments, claiming it be the “World’s first” is misleading by exaggeration. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. This complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Adani Wilmar Ltd "
PRODUCT:"Fortune Rice Bran Health Oil"

COMPLAINT:

“Rice Bran Oil keeps Heart healthy & lowers cholesterol levels. Misleading of people advertisement.”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: NOT UPHELD

"The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. Advertiser states that the ingredient namely Oryzanol, which is present in Rice Bran Oil is very much instrumental in keeping the HDL/LDL Ratio, which is very much essential to heart health. It has been established that the unsaponifiable components of Rice Bran Oil mainly gamma Oryzanol, have the property of reducing LDL Cholesterol without lowering the HDL Cholesterol, thereby lowering the Total Cholesterol and improving the HDL/LDL ratio. As claim support data, the advertiser provided scientific articles/journal references on Rice Bran written by various Doctors and experts. 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 presented at the meeting. Based on this data, the CCC concluded that the claim (in Marathi), as translated in English, with reference to action of Oryzanol, “It has Oryzanol, lowers cholesterol, keeps Heart healthy”, was not considered objectionable. The complaint was NOT UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Sundar Dezire Good Life Pvt Ltd"
PRODUCT:"Dezire Goodlife Range Of Products"

COMPLAINT:

“Dezire - Sugarless Sweets”, “Low GI”, “Helps Blood Sugar Control”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The advertiser was granted an extension of three days to the standard lead time of seven days to submit their reply in response to their request for extension. The advertiser representatives did not seek personal hearing. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the extended due date. The CCC viewed the print advertisement. In the absence of claim support data and specific comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claims, “Dezire - Sugarless Sweets”, “Low GI”, and “Helps Blood Sugar Control”, were not substantiated with technical data or test reports. Also, the claims are misleading by exaggeration. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. This complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Abbott Health Care Pvt Ltd"
PRODUCT:"Pediasure Vanilla Delight"

COMPLAINT:

“Almost 50% - Less Infection, More Growth”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant. The Advertiser submitted their written response and they were also given personal hearing by ASCI. Advertiser states that the claim is based on the findings of the Alarcon 2003 study. The study shows that the percentage weight gain in the intervention group when compared to control group was 168% and height gain was 54.6%. For easy consumer understanding, this data (54.6%) has been rounded off and presented as 50% more growth. In the same study, it was also found that 28% of subjects in the intervention group developed upper respiratory tract infection (URTI) versus 51% in the control group. For ease of consumer understanding, the data from the above findings have been rounded off as 50% (instead of 45.1%). As claim support data, the advertiser provided articles/references from Clinical Pediatrics Journal. 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 presented at the meeting. The CCC noted that the author of the only publication submitted by the advertiser is from Abbott itself and is dated 2003 and all the cross references are between the years 1970 to 2001 and on different themes and providing general information on role of immunity/infections and malnutrition and Growth faltering. The sample size is 104 (split in two countries) out of which only 92 (average age 4 years) have completed the study and 82% subjects consumed the required volume of nutritional supplement for at least 63 days (about 2 months). Authors admit that definition of ""Picky eaters"" was essentially as per subjective assessment. The study is an observational study with feeding of subjects' records done at home through a daily diary by parents without direct observation by authors. With complex factors responsible for picky eating behavior of subjects this study cannot be termed as an Intervention Trial. A general Growth related claim also is a misnomer since the study has been done for only 90 days, which is inadequate for making a definitive claim. Also, themes of nutritional Counselling were general and apart from theme no 4 (about caloric consumptions ) and not specific either in relation to immunity/infections/malnutrition /growth faltering which are the themes of the print Ad. Upper respiratory tract infections (essentially colds and coughs) was the single indicator for evaluation of immunity, there being no significant differences in GI symptom scores from baseline to 90 days. The author admit that ""the effectiveness of physician-directed nutritional counselling in increasing nutrient intakes could not be measured directly, because the intake of foods other than the nutritional supplement was not measured. They also mention that ""unfortunately, it was beyond the scope of this study to analyze total dietary intake "" and they further add an assumption or presumption 'but, the significant catch-up growth could not have occurred without a significant net increase in total energy intake."".. Based on this data, the CCC concluded that while the paper might have been published in ""Clinical Pediatrics"", the contents do not unequivocally and adequately support the claim, “Almost 50% - Less Infection, More Growth”. The CCC also did not agree that the values can be rounded off by several units to 50 as done for the claim. The claim is misleading by ambiguity and implication. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Hershey India Pvt Ltd"
PRODUCT:"Hersheys Spread’s"

COMPLAINT:

“Goodness of almonds”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The advertiser representatives were given personal hearing by ASCI, at which time they submitted their written response with a sample of product. The CCC viewed the TVC and considered the Advertiser’s response. Advertiser states that their product has Almonds as its ingredient and the claim made is based on the basis of the scientific data available related to the benefits of Almonds. As claim support data, the advertiser provided references of various researches and scientific studies conducted on almonds. The CCC noted that the generic references submitted by the advertiser describe the benefits of 100% almonds as a source of various nutrients. There was no data to show benefit of the advertised product due to it’s almond content. The CCC was of the view that attributing almond benefits as a generic claim of “Goodness of almonds” for a chocolate spread containing 3.0% almond paste, seen in conjunction with gesture in the visual implying improvement of intelligence and a voice over stating “badhate Bacchon ke liye” is misleading by ambiguity and implication. The TVC contravened Chapter I.4 of the ASCI Code and clause 1 and 2 of the F&B Guidelines. The complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Dabur India Ltd "
PRODUCT:"Real Wellnezz Jamun "

COMPLAINT:

"1. 100% Juice content 2. 900g of Jamun in a pack 3. No added preservative 4. Pack label shows ‘Jamun and mixed fruit juice"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"“Product: Fruit juice Company: Dabur India Limited 8/3, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi 110002 Appeared: In Times of India, Delhi, 24 October 2016 Language: English Description: Print ad Our objections: 1. Claims 1 to 3 need to be substantiated by independent research data. 2. ‘900g Jamun in a pack’ conveys a large quantity of Jamun which is misleading. The pack size is not mentioned anywhere on the advertisement. So what does 900g Jamun mean in context? How much juice is it equivalent to? Please explain. 3. Claim 1 and 2 convey to the consumer that the juice is made up of Jamun only (assuming a pack size of 1 liter). This is misleading considering the claim 4? That it contains ‘Jamun and mixed fruit juice’ 4. What is the percentage of Jamun juice and mixed fruit in the total content? Needs substantiation and certification by competent independent authority. 5. What is the basis of stating that the product is Jamun juice? Is the percentage enough for it to be called Jamun juice? Needs substantiation and certification by competent independent authority. According to us, the advertisement contravenes Chapter 1.1 and 1.4 of ASCI code. Action to be taken? We propose this advertisement should be immediately withdrawn.”"

Recommendation: NOT UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant. The Advertiser submitted their written response and subsequently they were given personal hearing by ASCI. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the advertiser’s response. Advertiser states that 100% Juice Content of the product refers to juice contribution from 40% Jamun pulp and 60% Juice from reconstituted Mixed Fruit Concentrate in the final product which is equivalent to 100% Juice. As claim support data, the advertiser provided an analysis Report, external laboratory report, data for calculation of average weight of Jamun, and a sample of product. The CCC noted that the claim “900 g of Jamun in a pack” was qualified in the print advertisement to show basis of this calculation for the Jamun Fruit (including seed and pulp). The claim “No added preservatives” was supported by self-declaration by the advertiser citing tetra-pack technology and product composition details. These complaints were NOT UPHELD. The CCC noted that as per product composition and calculations, the product may be considered as 100% juice consisting of Jamun and mixed fruit juice. Based on this data, the CCC concluded that whilst the claim, “100% Juice content”, was substantiated, the visual presentation of this claim in the advertisement is misleading by implication as it overly emphasizes on the visuals of Jamun in and around the 100% numerical drawn in purple juice, which implies that the product contains 100% jamun juice. The reference to Mixed fruit juice in the advertisement is, in comparison, very fleeting. The advertisement contravened Chapter I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Gajanand Foods Private Limited"
PRODUCT:"Gajanand Hing"

COMPLAINT:

"1. New & Improved. 2. Controls Blood Sugar. 3. Controls high blood pressure. 4. Gives Relief in body pain. 5. Effective for the problems of the teeth. 6. Reduces the risk of cancer. 7.Gives relief from skin problems."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek a personal hearing and submitted their written response. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. Advertiser states that they have taken the advantages of the use of Hing from their Ayurvedic Veda. Advertiser did not provide any supporting data for the claims made. In the absence of specific comments and claim support data, the CCC concluded that the claims, “New & Improved.”, “Controls Blood Sugar”, “Controls high blood pressure”, “Gives Relief in body pain”, “Effective for the problems of the teeth”, “Reduces the risk of cancer”, “Gives relief from skin problems”, were not substantiated with evidence of product efficacy, and are misleading by exaggeration. The CCC expressed their concern for promotion of this food product as a medical product with therapeutic claims. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Nature And Science Ayurveda"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"1. Eliminate Obesity, get healthy life. 2. FAT‐YPAR ‐ Enriched with Shilajeet. 3. Fat Ypar Juice is made by ayurvedic herbs. It is helpful in removing additional fat from the body. It also controls weight and makes body atheletic. It aslo does not allow body weakness to come as it is enriched with Medohar Guggul and Shilajeet. 4. For getting more benefits also use Fat Ypar Capsules. 5.DICURA PLUS SYRUP ‐ Worried from Sugar (Diabetes). 6. Dicura Plus Syrup from the 1st 15 days, conrtols the sugar related problems such as going for urination repeatedly, burning sensation in soles, pain in joints, Repeatedly being thirsty, Stiffness of hands and legs, etc. 7. Dicura plus controls the sugar in 1 month."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The advertisement was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act, Obesity ( Item 38, under the DMR Schedule), The Drugs & Cosmetics Act , 1940,( Item 39 under Schedule J), Diabetes - The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act, (Item 9 under the DMR Schedule ), The Drugs & Cosmetics Act , 1940, (Item 14 under Schedule J ) and is being referred to the Ministry of Ayush"

 

COMPANY:"Juvenor Pharmaceuticals"
PRODUCT: "Muslinites Gold"

COMPLAINT:

"Helps in boosting vitality with the power of Swarna Bhasma Muslinites gold helps in overcoming fatigue, tiredness and revitalizing your energies with the proven benefits of time tested Ayurvedic Herbs like Musli, Shilajeet, Shatavari & Ashwagandha Advertisement also referes to MusliNite Tripti oil"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The advertisement was considered to be, prima facie, in violation The Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 – Improvement of capacity of the human being for sexual pleasure-(Item 36 under Schedule J) and is being referred to the Ministry of Ayush."

 

COMPANY: "Oplus Heart Center"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"1.First time in jharkhand successful treatment of heart blockage without operation, cuts, bypass and Angioplasty. 2. Successful treatment of hundreds of patients till now."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The advertisement was considered to be, prima facie, in violation The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act, Heart Diseases- (Item 26 under DMR Schedule) and is being referred to the Ministry of Health."

 

COMPANY: "D S Research Centre"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"An expert team of ayurvedacharya under guidance of the research team has been treating cancer patients successfully for over 50 years now. We shall be showcasing our success stories and spreading the message of Ancient Ayurveda based Nutrient Energy Treatment as a potent weapon against cancer"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The advertisement was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act, Cancer-(Item 6 under the DMR Schedule), The Drugs & Cosmetics Act , 1940 (Item 8 under Schedule J) and is being referred to the Ministry of Ayush."

 

COMPANY: "Kundan Kidney Care Centre"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"1. Now treatment of kidney fail patients is possible. 2. We are treating kidney fail patients from last 35 years."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The advertisement was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act, Kidney failure- (Item 22 under the DMR Schedule), The Drugs & Cosmetics Act , 1940 ,( Item 50 under Schedule J) and is being referred to the Ministry of Ayush."

 

COMPANY:"Sri Sai Ayurvedic Hospital"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"1. There is a successful treatment of reducing obesity in Ayurveda. 2. Obesity can be eliminated by Utwardan Kiya through Panchkarma."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The advertisement was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act, Obesity ( Item 38, under the DMR Schedule), The Drugs & Cosmetics Act , 1940,( Item 39 under Schedule J) and is being referred to the Ministry of Ayush."

 

COMPANY:"Sri Dharmasthala Manjunatheshwara College Of Ayurveda & Hospital"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"Svarna Amruta Prashana is an unique Ayurveda Sanskara to boost intellect and memory in children's. Camp being conducted by experienced team of Doctors who have helped lacs of children's through this programme"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The advertisement was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of The Drugs & Cosmetics Act , 1940,( Item 28 under Schedule J) and is being referred to the Ministry of Ayush."

 

COMPANY:"Kalpa Foundation "
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"Are you Afflicted by white spots, Leprosy Disease, Rotten‐absorbed and Deformed nails or other skin disease and fed up after doing treatment, then come to our hospital and gain the benefit through Ayurvedic Medicine and Anciet Technique, whose benefit has taken by hundereds of patients till now,"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The advertisement was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act for White spots- (Item 33 under the DMR Schedule) & The Drugs & Cosmetics Act , 1940 -White spots - (Item 35 under Schedule J), Leprosy - (Item 32 under Schedule J) and is being referred to the Ministry of Ayush."

 

COMPANY:"Nature cure 4 all"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"Useful homeopathic Gutika for complaints like Impotency, Premature Ejaculation"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The advertisement was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of The Drugs & Cosmetics Act , 1940, Premature Ejaculation-(Item 47 under Schedule J) and is being referred to the Ministry of Ayush."

 

COMPANY:"Stammering Relief Centre"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"Treatment in only 2 weeks, Don't doubt , keep faith 100% Guarantee"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The advertisement was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of The Drugs & Cosmetics Act , 1940, Stammering - (Item 49 under Schedule J) and is being referred to the Ministry of Ayush."

 

COMPANY:"Dr Nawal Kishore Hospital & Research Centre"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"Cure Diabetes with Stem Cell Therapy Obesity, Allergy, Thyroid, Lipid Clinic."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The advertisement was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act, Diabetes - (Item 9 under the DMR Schedule ), The Drugs & Cosmetics Act , 1940, (Item 14 under Schedule J ) Obesity ( Item 38, under the DMR Schedule), The Drugs & Cosmetics Act , 1940,( Item 39 under Schedule J), and is being referred to the Ministry of Ayush."

 

COMPANY:"Praveen Surana Deaf Cure Centre"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"Remove deafness and increase hearing capacity. 2. Now deafness due to dried nerves and all types of disease of ear are not incurable. ‐ Cure deafness and Improve your hearing loss. ‐ All types of deafness is been successfully removed without operation. Due to which patient starts listening in the 1st hour of treatment and can do treatment of increation the capacity of hearing in contruction of the future. 3. Good news for all aged people suffering from deafness....Remove Deafness 4. Remove deafness successfully without operation. Removes accurately deafness due to birth / because of age / side effect of medicine, Hole in ear drumps, Pus, dirt, smell. This treatment is a boon effective for deaf‐dumb also."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The advertisement was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act, Deafness- ( Item 8, under the DMR Schedule), The Drugs & Cosmetics Act , 1940,( Item 13 under Schedule J), and is being referred to the Ministry of Ayush."

 

COMPANY:"Maa Homeo Chikitsha Kendra"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"Women Diseases ‐ Tumor of Breast, Ovary, Uterus, Whiteness of hair and hairfall. Mental problems. ‐ Stone ‐ Gall blader, Bladder, Kidney stone, etc. ‐ Other Complex Diseases ‐ Male Diseases, Liver, Chronic Rainel Failure, etc."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The advertisement was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act, Female diseases in general- ( Item 18, under the DMR Schedule), Kidney Stones- (Item 22 under the DMR Schedule), The Drugs & Cosmetics Act , 1940 ,( Item 50 under Schedule J) and is being referred to the Ministry of Ayush."

 

COMPANY:"Naik Homeopathy Care & Cure Clinic"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"Successful Treatment of : ‐ Kidney Failure ‐ Heart diseases & Liver failure ‐ Cancer / Mental diseases ‐ Infertility prevention/ Sexual problems ‐ Arthritis / Spondilysis ‐ Skin Diseases (Psoriasis) ‐ (Obesity / Asthma ‐ Depression/ mentally challenged children"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The advertisement was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act, Female diseases in general- ( Item 18, under the DMR Schedule), Kidney Stones- (Item 22 under the DMR Schedule), The Drugs & Cosmetics Act , 1940 ,( Item 50 under Schedule J) , Heart Diseases- (Item 26 under DMR Schedule), Cancer-(Item 6 under the DMR Schedule), The Drugs & Cosmetics Act , 1940 (Item 8 under Schedule J) Obesity ( Item 38, under the DMR Schedule), The Drugs & Cosmetics Act , 1940,( Item 39 under Schedule J) Bronchial Asthama- The Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 -( Item 7 under Schedule J) and is being referred to the Ministry of Ayush."

 

COMPANY:"Gurudev Multispeciality Centre"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"1. Without Operation through Homeopathic. ‐ Disc slip/Sciatica, joint pains, Uterine tumour,Stone."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

""The advertisement was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act, Disease & Disorder of the Uterus- (Item 12 under DMR Schedule), Kidney Stones- (Item 22 under the DMR Schedule), The Drugs & Cosmetics Act , 1940 ,( Item 50 under Schedule J) and is being referred to the Ministry of Ayush.""

 

COMPANY:"Apoorv Hi‐Tech "
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"Get Rid of obesity... ‐ Free from obesity and its related diseases. ‐ Freedom from obesity and diabetes increases your life upto 10 years. 2. Visuals Misleading"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The advertisement was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act, Obesity ( Item 38, under the DMR Schedule), The Drugs & Cosmetics Act , 1940,( Item 39 under Schedule J) and is being referred to the Ministry of Health."

 

COMPANY:"Adila Biotech Pvt Ltd"
PRODUCT:"Asth Prash"

COMPLAINT:

"1. Keep distance from Inhaler (Pump). 2. 100% better and fast result than any other Chawanprash 3. For Asthama Patients ,Ramban Medicine 4. Asthprash Treatment of all these problems. 5. Relief from Asthama and smoking cough."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The advertisement was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of The Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 Bronchial Asthama,( Item 7 under Schedule J) and is being referred to the Ministry of Ayush."

 

COMPANY:"Adila Biotech Pvt Ltd"
PRODUCT:"Asth Prash"

COMPLAINT:

"One Medicine Six Work. ‐ Beneficial in Respiratory related diseases. ‐ Beneficial in Acute and Chronic Bronchitis. ‐ Gives Relief in Asthma and Breathlessness. ‐ Reduces the side effects of pollution. ‐ Increases the immunity power. ‐ Helpful in removing the Taar of Tobacco. 2. Sure shot medicine for Asthma Patients. 3. Keep distance from inhaler. 4. Use Surely for healthy life."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The advertisement was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of The Drugs & Cosmetics Act , 1940 Bronchial Asthama,( Item 7 under Schedule J) and is being referred to the Ministry of Ayush."

 

COMPANY:"SBS Biotech Unit-II"
PRODUCT:"More Power Capsule"

COMPLAINT:

"1. Helpful in Stunted Growth 2. Beneficial ayurvedic capsule for growth deficiency."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The advertisement was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act Stature of Persons-(Item 47 under the DMR Schedule ), The Drugs & Cosmetics Act , 1940, Increase in Height of children/adults- ( Item 29 under Schedule J) and is being referred to the Ministry of Ayush."

 

COMPANY: "TV TODAY NETWORK LIMITED "
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"Fast Track Complaint received against the promotional videos telecast by the India Today group on its English News Channel ‘India Today Television’, from TV 18 Broadcast Ltd. This Complaint is regarding the blatant telecast of misleading and factually incorrect promotional videos published by the Channel are a clear violation of the applicable guidelines issued by Broadcast Audience Research Council of India (“BARC”). Through the Impugned Advertisements, the Network is seeking to undervalue our News Channel, “CNN-News18”. The details of the Impugned Advertisements (Annexure – A Collectively) made by the Network on the Channel on or around 24th November 2016 are as follows: a. “No.1 Prime Time News. Source: BARC, TG – 22-30 Male AB, Mkt – Mega Cities, Period – Wk 46’16” b. “the Undisputed News Leader” (no source line mentioned here) c. “No.1. Source: BARC, TG – 22-30 Male AB, Mkt – Mega Cities, Period – Wk 46’16” d. “India Today 30.8%, Times Now 24.5%, NDTV 23%, CNN News18 15.5%. Source: BARC, TG – 22-30 Male AB, Mkt – Mega Cities, Period – Wk 46’16” e. “India Today – Gold Standard of Journalism” (no source line mentioned here) Additionally, the following mailers were also issued a. “Prime Time Prime Anchor Prime Channel. Source – BARC, TG 22+ Male AB, Mkt: Mega Cities, Period: Wk 46’16, Time: 21:00-22:00, Weekdays, Share% among 5 Eng news channels” b. “The Undisputed No. 1 Prime Time News that makes sense. 41.3 – India Today. 20.6 – Times Now. 20.1 NDTV 24x7. 15.7 CNN News18” Source – BARC, TG 22-30 Male AB, Mkt: Mega Cities, Period: Wk 46’16, Time: 19:00-24:00, All days, Share% calculated among 5 Eng news channels c. “News That Makes Sense. India Today Television. The Undisputed News Leader. Source – BARC, TG 22-30 Male AB, Mkt: Mega Cities, Period: Wk 46’16, Time: 2:00-26:00, Share% among 5 English news channels A perusal of the contents above, shows clearly that the Network has used only one week data as opposed to the four weeks data as is mandated by the BARC guidelines. It is a well-established norm that as per “BARC India Ratings — Principles of Fair and Permissible Usage“, the period of comparison for any claim of leadership should cover at least four consecutive weeks of data. However, the Channel’s claim of being the No. 1 channel amongst English news channels is based on wilful misrepresentation of one single week BARC data and not four consecutive weeks data as prescribed by BARC.” "

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Recommendation: UPHELD

""The Complainant representatives were given a personal hearing with the Technical expert and the ASCI Secretary General to present their case. The advertiser representatives did not seek a meeting with the Technical expert and the ASCI Secretary. The details of the complaint and the advertiser’s response was taken into consideration. The FTCC viewed the promotional videos and the e:mailers and noted the Advertiser’s response. The advertiser argues that they have been in adherence of the BARC guidelines, until they observed that several of their competitors were in violation of the same. The advertiser states that TVTN's advertisement relates to the week of demonetisation. This was a special week on all counts as far news was concerned and in prime time that week. The FTCC was of the opinion, that continuing news flow pertaining to “demonetization” cannot be considered as an “event”. Therefore the basis for the following claims (a to g) was not acceptable. a. “No.1 Prime Time News.” Source: BARC, TG – 22-30 Male AB, Mkt – Mega Cities, Period – Wk 46’16 “the Undisputed News Leader” (no source line mentioned here) b. “No.1” Source: BARC, TG – 22-30 Male AB, Mkt – Mega Cities, Period – Wk 46’16 c. “India Today 30.8%, Times Now 24.5%, NDTV 23%, CNN News18 15.5%.” Source: BARC, TG – 22-30 Male AB, Mkt – Mega Cities, Period – Wk 46’16. d. “Prime Time Prime Anchor Prime Channel. Source – BARC, TG 22+ Male AB, Mkt: Mega Cities, Period: Wk 46’16, Time: 21:00-22:00, Weekdays, Share% among 5 Eng news channels” e. “The Undisputed No. 1.” 41.3 – India Today. 20.6 – Times Now. 20.1 NDTV 24x7. 15.7 CNN News18” Source – BARC, TG 22-30 Male AB, Mkt: Mega Cities, Period: Wk 46’16, Time: 19:00-24:00, All days, Share% calculated among 5 Eng news channels f. “The Undisputed News Leader.” Source – BARC, TG 22-30 Male AB, Mkt: Mega Cities, Period: Wk 46’16, Time: 2:00-26:00, Share% among 5 English news channels The FTCC considered the promo videos and e:mailers to be misleading by ambiguity and implication. The disclaimer appearing for claims did not meet the BARC guidelines as well as ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers (Clause 2). The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1, I.3 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. This complaint was UPHELD. The FTCC did not consider the claim “India Today – Gold Standard of Journalism” to be objectionable. This complaint was NOT UPHELD. " "

 

COMPANY:"BENNETT, COLEMAN & COMPANY LTD (TELEVISION DIVISION) "
PRODUCT:"Times Network – Times Now "

COMPLAINT:

"Fast Track complaint received against the promotional videos of “Times Network - Times Now” which is said to have appeared on English News channel Times Now on 1st December 2016, from TV 18 Broadcast Ltd. As per the complaint, “It is a well-established norm and common knowledge that as per “BARC India Ratings — Principles of Fair and Permissible Usage“ (“Fair Usage Guidelines”/”BARC Guidelines”), the TG, Market and Time Period selections (“Source-Line”) for any claim of leadership should be validated as the BARC Guidelines. Further, as per the ASCI Guidelines, where advertisement claims are expressly stated to be based on or supported by independent research or assessment, the source and date of this should be indicated in the advertisement. On account of the aforesaid, the prevalent industry practices and the BARC Guidelines, the Source-Line is always required to be shown displaying therein at least four consecutive weeks of data and/or four consecutive clock hours data measured across four consecutive weeks. Attached herewith and marked as Annexure – A (Collectively) to this Complaint is a list of the screengrabs showing clearly that the Channel has displayed its claims without providing the Source-Lines. The Times Network’s usage of slides stating “Times Now Always No. 1” and “Times Now Always No. 1, Times Now 46%”, clearly shows no Source-Lines being displayed. Under the circumstances, it can only be assumed that the Channel has presented unsubstantiated or invalid claims. Times Network has, in its slide (“Annexure B” to this Complaint), chosen to call its competition as ‘upstart’ and ‘still struggling’. A perusal of the definitions available online of the term ‘upstart’ also reveal that the term is used in a condescending and derogatory manner. Further, it is not clear what the Times Network means by the words ‘still struggling’. We strongly condemn the repeated and consistent attempts by the Times Network to try and malign us. Please note that despite the repeated attempts of the Times Network group, it is an undeniable fact that CNN-News18 is the preferred English news channel in the 6 mega cities as has been provided by details provided by BARC. Through the Impugned Advertisements, Times Network is disparaging and undervaluing other English News Channels and is constantly trying to show “CNN-News18” and other news channels in poor light. It is also evident that the Impugned Advertisements are unsubstantiated and been so created and telecast with a clear view of deceiving and misleading the public at large by falsely implying that their Channel is the undisputed leader across all categories and across all news channels put together, irrespective of the language.” "

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

""

 
 

 

 
Complaint to
WhatsApp
DID YOU KNOW?

Developed by Wishtree Technologies LLP