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

Select Month :

 
ASCI Recommendations July 2015
 

COMPANY: Lotus Herbals Limited
PRODUCT: Lotus Herbals Phyto RX

COMPLAINT:

1. 100% women discovered firmer, younger skin in 4 weeks. 2. SPF 25/ PA+++ 3. Active Organic Ingredients - Ginseng, Ginger & Whey Protein 4. See the difference in 4 weeks: - Firmer skin. - Reduction in fine lines, wrinkles & dark spots.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The claim support data submitted for Review, was reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response for Review as well as the opinion of the Technical expert presented at the meeting. The CCC concluded that the claim (i) “100% women discovered firmer, younger skin in 4 weeks” is based on consumer perception among a small base size of 33 female subjects. Clinical evaluation would require unidentified product’s use on a statistically significant sample size and technical evaluation of results either vide instrumental measurement or by panel of experts. Therefore CCC considered substantiation provided for this claim as inadequate. For Claim (iv) “See the difference in 4 weeks: - Firmer skin. - Reduction in fine lines, wrinkles & dark spots”, support data shows only the conclusions e.g. "Corneometry showed significant improvement in skin moisturization". Since no numerical data is shown, it is not possible to opine if the conclusions are satisfactory. As far as Claim no. (ii) “SPF 25/ PA+++” is concerned, the CCC noted that the Australian Photobiology Testing Facility itself suggests that the said claim support data is only indicative and cannot be used for label claims and therefore the claim is not adequately substantiated. Data provided for claim no. (iii) “Active Organic Ingredients - Ginseng, Ginger & Whey Protein” and having its mention in the manufacturing license - supports only presence of Ginseng, Ginger and Whey Proteins; however, does not prove the ingredients being present are effective and at levels responsible for providing claimed product efficacy. In view of the above findings, contents of Print Advertisement are liable to be upheld as misleading and contradistinction to claims substantiated by advertiser Lotus Herbals (P) Ltd and therefore is in violation of the ASCI Code on Advertisement. The advertisement contravened Chapter I.1 of the ASCI Code. The decision of complaint being Upheld stands on Review.

 

COMPANY: Dr. Kadam’s Eye Hospital & Institute
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

The advertisement claims to have Bladeless and flapless lasik centre but facility in not available. Misleading or many may/must have under gone treatment by fake name. False representation of the clinic facilities. Need not misguide the public when you don't have such facility. It’s misleading. There need to be audit done if have such facility.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: NOT UPHELD

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 concluded that the Advertiser claiming to have “Bladeless and flapless lasik centre” facility was substantiated with photographs of the machines and installation report. The complaint was NOT UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Hindustan Unilever Ltd
PRODUCT: Pepsodent

COMPLAINT:

I've bleeding gums and gums are sensitive so I saw this ad of Pepsodent stating that all your gum problem would be solved if you use this toothpaste and then I bought this and the results are that my gums bleed even more. I'm highly disappointed and thus want to file a complaint. Complainant referred to an advertisement featuring ShahRukh Khan

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: NOT UPHELD

The CCC viewed the TVC under complaint which was provided by the Complainant. The claim support data was reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. The CCC viewed the TVC under complaint which was provided by the Complainant. The CCC noted the Advertiser’s response that the TVC which is the subject of complaint has not been aired since 2013. The complaint was NOT UPHELD.

COMPANY: Beiersdorf (India) Private Limited
PRODUCT: Nivea Deodorizer

COMPLAINT:

“India’s 1st Body Deodorizer”, “Day Long Odour Control From Just 1 Use”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

The I claim is false, misleading and unsubstantiated. We wish to clarify that there is nothing different between a deodorant and a body deodorizer. The first and most important evidence to that effect is that if “body deodorizer meaning” is searched in Google, the meaning shown is of a “deodorant”. Having said the above, to deodorize means to eliminate or prevent offensive odor. Hence, a “body deodorizer” would work to eliminate offensive body odor. Clearly, that is the functionality of a deodorant as well. A mere play of language cannot be the basis of making such a claim, which clearly fools the consumers into believing that a new product has been launched in India for the first time. The claim has been qualified with an illegible disclaimer stating “From Nivea”. Even if the claim is read with the disclaimer, the above claim is untrue, because (a) it is not the first deodorant from Nivea in India, and (b) because it not the first body deodorizer to be launched in India, from the house of Nivea (as implied). The claim that the Product gives “Day Long Odour Control From Just 1 Use” needs to be substantiated with technical evidence: There are no disclaimers qualifying the claim. It is therefore implied that the product is going to provide day long odour control, irrespective of the conditions involved. It needs to be kept in mind that the claim should hold true in the Indian conditions, and in such climate, temperature and environmental conditions as is found in India

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The CCC viewed the print advertisement, outdoor hoardings, and considered the Advertiser’s response as well as the opinion of the Technical expert presented at the meeting. The CCC concluded that - Claim, “India’s 1st Body Deodorizer”, regardless of the disclaimer “from Nivea”, is misleading by ambiguity as it is not the first deodoriser in India nor the first deodoriser from Nivea in India and contravened Chapter I.4 of the Code. This complaint was UPHELD. As for the data submitted for the product claim of day long odour control, the data shows that the product has proven to have 48hrs of efficacy in moderate climate. The day long efficacy would mean 12 hrs long odour control. The advertiser has not provided data to prove the odour control efficacy on Indian climatic conditions and ethnicity. The claim, “Day Long Odour Control From Just 1 Use”, was not substantiated with evidence and contravened Chapter I.1 of the Code. This complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Hansa Medcell
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

This educational institution claims to provide 1 year distance education of post-graduation programs from prestigious American college of gastroenterology &John Hopkins university school of medicine.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Medical course by distance mode from prestigious institutions through Hansa medcell raises doubts. False claim being made to cheat doctors.

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

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 opinion of the Technical expert presented at the meeting. The CCC concluded that the claim in the advertisement, “Gain specialist skills without sacrificing daily clinical practice”, is misleading since “Distance Education” can’t allow one to gain specialist skills in gastroenterology, cardiology etc., since all these specialities involve very special procedures like OGD Scopy & Colonoscopy (Crastroenthrology) & Angiography, Angioplasty (Cardiology) etc. As per clause 7.20 of MCI Act (Amendment 2002) one can’t call oneself a specialist unless one has acquired Special qualification. The distant education does not give registerable qualification with the Medical Council. The claim, “provide 1 year distance education of post-graduation programs from prestigious American college of gastroenterology &John Hopkins university school of medicine”, is false and misleading by ambiguity. 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: Epson India Pvt. Ltd
PRODUCT: Epson

COMPLAINT:

Epson states, “Maximise your savings with Epson 143 ink cartridges that yield up to 945 black and 755 colour A4 pages. With a very low cost per page of US$0.016# for black and US$0.048# for colour, running costs are reduced by up to 50% compared to laser printers. The WF-7511 utilises only 20W in printing or standalone copying mode, helping to cut energy consumption by up to 70% versus laser printers” I recently purchased a printer from Epson with model number WF-7511 with serial number RDFY002810 according to company advertisement and specifications mentioned on there website the printer is capable of printing 985 normal A4 prints for black and 755 prints for color but just after 520 prints my printer black cartridges is showing below 10% ink level warning and for just about 5 to 10 prints the color cartridges are showing a reduction of over 25% ink level, apart from that the printer speed also get very slow after some repeated given prints I registered the complained with the company and they replied me that under certain lab print conditions only the print yield capacity can be achieved.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

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 Advertiser has not provided details of the test from which the advertised page yields (945 black and 755 color) are derived. They mention this "Results based on Epson internal testing conducted using US equivalent 120V models" and have not provided all details for this test: printer settings, temperature, humidity, paper type and most importantly the exact test pages printed. The CCC concluded that the Website claims, “Maximise your savings with Epson 143 ink cartridges that yield up to 945 black and 755 colour A4 pages. With a very low cost per page of US$0.016# for black and US$0.048# for colour, running costs are reduced by up to 50% compared to laser printers. The WF-7511 utilises only 20W in printing or standalone copying mode, helping to cut energy consumption by up to 70% versus laser printers”, were not substantiated with detailed supporting data. Also, the claim was misleading by omission of applicable specific conditions. The Website advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Southern Academy Maritime Studies
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“The Ad says that if anybody who is willing to study in this college, can, they say CAN get a job as a Captain in a Ship and CAN earn upto 60Lakhs per Annum.” This is one of the advertisements that have made me to look for some time in my schedule to bring this to your knowledge. I’m glad to do this because few of the advertisements do not really care about the false promises that they dare to publish. I m a person who has a strong belief in democracy and legislature. I’m hereby spotlighting this to you expecting necessary actions from you guys. The Ad says that if anybody who is willing to study in this college, can, they say CAN get a job as a Captain in a Ship and CAN ear upto 60Lakhs per Annum. I appreciate if they are able to do this to the students they teach. But who true is this?? It irritates when the Ad comes, when a actress supports for it without thinking how true is that. Their Ads similar to this behave likewise and intending false promises to the students. They should know the standards of Advertising and be responsible for what they are posting in the TVs”.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The CCC viewed the TVC and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC concluded that the claim in the TVC, “if anybody who is willing to study in this college, can get a job as a Captain in a Ship and can earn upto 60 Lakhs per Annum”, was not substantiated and is misleading by ambiguity and exaggeration. The TVC 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: Netralaya Super Specialty Eye Hospital
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

1) Freedom from Glasses and contact lens 2) First time in Ahmedabad to get all types of eye treatments under one place 3) World's best and fastest Laser 4) Removal of 1 number in 1.4 second

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

As per knowledge they can’t completely free everyone from glasses and contact lens and there are Nagri eye hospital, Civil Eye Hospital which provide comprehensive eye care treatments in Ahmedabad since long long time so Netralaya people are not the first one to offer this and fastest laser is of Schwind's amaris 1050 Hz and carl zeiss mel 90 and not the one which they are having.

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC concluded that the claims, “Freedom from Glasses and contact lens”, “First time in Ahmedabad to get all types of eye treatments under one place”, “World's best and fastest Laser”, “Removal of 1 number in 1.4 second”, were not substantiated at all with supporting technical and factual data. The advertisement contravened Chapter I.1 of the Code. The complaint was UPHELD

 

COMPANY: Honda Cars India Ltd
PRODUCT: Amaze

COMPLAINT:

Honda Amaze that they are selling one car in every 7 min in the outdoor in Mumbai @ Sion Chunabhatti If we assume the claim is write there sales Honda Amaze sales should be 75000 units in last 12 months but I check there sales number where not more than 55000 which is misleading to the consumer about its brand sales.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: NOT UPHELD

The CCC viewed the Ad – hoarding and considered the Advertiser’s response. The claim, “An Amaze is brought every 7 mins”, was supported by a disclaimer qualifying the terms and conditions of the sales figures. Also the source for the claim was mentioned on the hoarding. The CCC concluded that the claim is not false or misleading. The complaint was NOT UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: CP Plus India Private Limited
PRODUCT: CP Plus

COMPLAINT:

“India’s no.1 CCTV Brand”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

There are several electronic and print Advertisements of the said brand in which they are claiming to be India’s no.1 CCTV Brand and not substantiating the claim with any data or source. Without disclosing the source substantiating the Claim made by CP PLUS, this advertisement is completely misleading, factually incorrect, unsubstantiated and even disparaging to the other same products available in the market. Further, I would like to bring to your notice that CP Plus is claiming to be ‘India’s no.1 CCTV Brand’ without disclosing any source to substantiate their claim is grave violation of ASCI Code. The claim was not substantiated with supporting data; (ii) the source and date of the research / assessment for the claim was not indicated in the advertisement; and (iii) the advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.2 of the ASCI Code. Without paying heeds to the general advertising guidelines, CP Plus made unsubstantiated and misleading claims by blatantly making a mockery of the guidelines and the standard industry practice that is generally followed by all the channels. We hereby further point out that this advertisement is totally in contravention of the provisions of Chapter IV of the ASCI’s Self Regulation Guidelines. Therefore, we request you to take such steps and actions as may be required and as you deem fit to immediately disallow and discontinue this pattern followed by CP Plus and deter CP Plus or such other brands who take the guidelines casually and misinterpret it to their own advantage deceiving and misleading the public. We also request you to please look into the matter diligently.

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The claim support data was reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. The CCC viewed the print Ad, hoarding, youtube Ad and considered the Advertiser’s response as well as the opinion of the Technical expert presented at the meeting. The CCC concluded that the claim, “India’s no.1 CCTV Brand”, was substantiated with the market share data based on IHS report. This complaint was NOT UPHELD. However, the Advertiser did not mention the source and date of research and criteria for assessment for the claim made in the Ads as required by provisions of ASCI’s Chapter I clause 2. The Print Ad, Hoarding, Youtube Ad therefore contravened Chapter I.2 of the Code, and complaint in this regard was UPHELD.

COMPANY: Vector E Commerce Pvt Ltd
PRODUCT: Myntra.com

COMPLAINT:

Deceptive advertising wherein myntra contacts existing members with referral bonus if another member referred by said member makes a purchase. Myntra contacts a member by e-mail informing him that his account has accrued Rs. 1000 referral bonus as another member referred by him made a purchase. In reality, they do not credit a member account with the amount they mention but it is in form of discount coupons wherein the member getting such coupons can avail discount on making further purchase. In effect, while they come across offering “cash benefit” to customers by crediting their account, in effect it is only a marketing tactic to unscrupulously deceive a member into making further purchases. This is not made sufficiently clear in their advertisement. The complainant has received such e-mail from myntra.com (screenshot attached) and have been deceived by the same. When contacted, their customers care executive was evasive and said he does not know of any such mails being sent. When contacted over email, their response was again deceptive and not clear.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: NOT UPHELD

The CCC viewed the Website advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. The advertiser also provided specifically with the product under criticism detailed explanation that such programs have been discontinued and bonus of Rs.1000 is subject to terms and conditions mentioned on the website. The CCC concluded that ‘Mynt Club Rewards and Loyalty Program’ claiming to offer “Rs.1000 credited to your Mynt club account”, is not false or misleading as the amount of INR 1000/– is clearly highlighted by an asterix that redirects the attention of the recipient of the email to the applicable terms and conditions. The complaint was NOT UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Jivo Wellness Pvt Ltd
PRODUCT: Jivo Canola Cooking Oil

COMPLAINT:

“Jivo Canola Oil is effective for Heart problems, Diabetes, High Blood Pressure, cancer, memory Loss and bad Cholesterol”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

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 concluded with respect to the claims that - “Effective for healthy Heart and in reducing bad Cholesterol”, “Effective against diabetes, heart diseases”, “Effective against Cancer”, were not substantiated with clinical evidence specific to the product.. The claims indicating efficacy against diabetes, heart disease and cancer were considered to be misleading by exaggeration as no specific credible clinical research was submitted to prove efficacy claims against serious diseases. The TVC contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code and Guidelines on Advertising of Foods & Beverages. The complaint was UPHELD.

COMPANY: Max Bupa Health Insurance Company Limited
PRODUCT: Max Bupa Health Insurance

COMPLAINT:

“Cashless Approval in 30 minutes”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Policy No. 30137617201402 - I had informed over phone and through email on 28/10/2014 regarding hospitalization of my wife on 03/11/2014 and submitted the required documents through Apollo Hospital, Kolkata on 01/11/2014 through Fax and requested for cashless approval (Pre-auth request ID 59015). But Max Bupa intimated denial for cashless approval on 02/11/2014 after my enquiry with them. After discharge from hospital, I submitted the claim documents which was received by them on 11/11/2014. Claim reported date was 13/11/2014 and Claim No.108950. Max Bupa intimated regarding denial of claim on 20/12/2014 after my enquiry with them only. Their denial of my claim is not as per norms and on baseless grounds. There is irresponsible behaviour on their part since beginning in processing of my claim. They are not only supposed to take huge premiums by luring / influencing the public, but settle the genuine claim smoothly with positive attitude also

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The CCC viewed the Website advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. The Advertiser did not provide evidence of the customers who have availed this offer. The CCC concluded that the claim, “Cashless approval in 30 minutes”, was not substantiated. The Website advertisement contravened Chapter I.1 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Cure Sight Laser Centre
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“They false claim that they are 1. India's number 1 LASIK centre 2. Complete removal of (freedom from)Glasses and contact lens without operation 3. The Most experienced team of doctors for LASIK in Gujarat and whole India 4. Worlds the best technology and fastest Refractive suit by Alcon Now a days world's best and advanced technology is SMILE procedure which is offered by visumax carl zeiss machine and not by alcon company refractive suit.”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant. However, no response was received from the advertiser. The CCC viewed the print advertisement. In the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claims in the advertisement, “India's number 1 LASIK centre”, “Complete removal of (freedom from) Glasses and contact lens without operation”, “The Most experienced team of doctors for LASIK in Gujarat and whole India”, “Worlds the best technology and fastest Refractive suit by Alcon”, were not substantiated. The advertisement contravened Chapter I.1 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Vasan Healthcare Private Limited
PRODUCT: Vasan Eye Hospital

COMPLAINT:

They falsely claim that: 1) They are World's Largest eye care network 2) Get rid of glasses permanently 3) They give accurate without fail eyesight in just 15 mins and 4) One can enjoy vacation without glasses 5) ICL can be implanted in dry eyes and thin cornea.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

ICL requires so many parameters like ACD (Anterior Chamber Depth) more than 2.8 mm from corneal endothelium to lens, White to White diameter of more than 10.8 mm in all eyes so patients who have dry eyes and think cornea but not the above criterion one cannot implant ICL in those eyes. They can’t promise everyone removal of glasses permanently and without fail accurate eyesight in just 15 mins

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant. However, no response was received from the advertiser. The CCC viewed the print advertisement. In the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claims in the advertisement, “World's Largest eye care network”, “Get rid of glasses permanently”, “They give accurate without fail eyesight in just 15 mins”, “One can enjoy vacation without glasses”, “ICL can be implanted in dry eyes and thin cornea”, were not substantiated. The advertisement contravened Chapter I.1 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Kent RO Systems Limited
PRODUCT: Kent Mineral RO Water Purifier

COMPLAINT:

“Sabse Surakshit pani”, “100% protection”, “100% Health”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

The following claims in the advertisements referred above are unsubstantiated as well as highly misleading to consumers. The reasons for the same have been elaborated below: “Sabse Surakshit Pani” At the outset, the claim of Sabse Surakshit Pani is a superlative claim of superiority of protection i.e. providing the safest water available anywhere in the world. In the absence of data in comparison with purifiers, bottled water and other sources from the entire world, the claim is false and misleading. Such a superlative and absolute claim should be prohibited in the absence of a very high degree of substantiation establishing total superiority against all competition water purifiers, bottled water and any other drinking water source. The claim connotes that the Advertiser provides the safest water anywhere in the world. Further, there are several sources and manufacturers of drinking water which provide drinking water that is superior in quality to that of the Advertiser. “100% Protection; Total Protection” Claim “100% protection” claimed by the advertiser in the TVC as well on its website is unsubstantiated and misleading. The use of the statement 100% protection implies that the water purifier has the capability of complete protection against all diseases and contamination possible in water. The Advertisements makes claims of 100% Protection. These are absolute and superlative claims. They should not be allowed in the absence of robust and independent data establishing the claim. The Advertiser’s claims are baseless, unsubstantiated and misleading. “100% Health” Further, the advertiser has also made an unsubstantiated health claim to mislead a consumer. Consumers are being misled through the above absolute claim to think that the water from the device is 100% healthy i.e. without any health risks. As 100% is an absolute claim, the use of the same can mislead the consumers to believe having been protected from all illness while drinking such water. As established above that meeting enforceable standards for safe drinking water would not mean absolute protection as the standards (MCLs) do not prescribe for absolute removal of contaminants as desired under the MCLGs, which are non-enforceable. International standards recommend high regulation of health claims as health is an important and sensitive issue which easily sways or misleads the consumer on purchasing decisions. Allowing such claims on essential consumption items like food and water without specific substantiation would allow the consumers to get easily mislead. Being a health claim, allowing absolute claim would be also against public interest as it would provide a false sense of security to all consumers of the product.

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

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 concluded that – Claim, “sabse surakshit pani” - No comparative technical data has been provided to show that Kent RO produced water is superior to any other pure water like those produced by competitive RO or other water purification systems. The technical data provided shows that Kent RO produced water meets National standards, and also some international standards. The advertiser has referred to a case of Reckitt & Coleman of India v Kiwi TTK Ltd (63(1996)DLT 29) citing the judgement “The settled law on the subject appears to be that a manufacturer is entitled to make a statement that his goods are the best and also make statements for puffing of his goods and the same will not give a cause of action to other traders or manufacturers of similar goods to institute proceedings as there is no disparagement or defamation to the goods of the manufacturer so doing” . The CCC referred to another recent judgement of the Delhi High Court in the matter of Colgate V/s HUL in 2013 that while hyped up advertising may be permissible, it cannot transgress the grey areas of permissible assertion, and if it does so the advertiser must have some reasonable factual basis for the assertion made. It is not possible therefore for anybody to make an off the cuff or unsubstantiated claim that his goods are the best in the world or falsely state that his goods are better than that of a rival. The claim "sabse surakshit pani" was not substantiated and contravened Chapter I.1 of the ASCI Code. This complaint was UPHELD Claims, “100% protection”, “100% Health” - No technical data has been provided to show that Kent RO produced water provides 100% or total protection and 100% health. These claims imply complete absence from illness, no matter what the cause. While potable water of a high standard of purity can help prevent illness transmitted by water borne causes, but they confer no additional health-promoting effects. These claims have not been substantiated and are considered to be misleading. The TVC contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. This complaint was UPHELD.

COMPANY: Kent RO System Ltd
PRODUCT: Kent Mineral RO Water purifier

COMPLAINT:

“Give your family total protection from waterborne diseases”, “Give your family 100% protection from waterborne diseases”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

100% Protection; Total Protection Claim- “100% protection” claimed by the advertiser is unsubstantiated and misleading. The use of the statement 100% protection implies that the water purifier has the capability of complete protection against all diseases and contamination possible in water. The Advertisements makes claims of 100% Protection. These are absolute and superlative claims. They should not be allowed in the absence of robust and independent data establishing the claim. Another absolute claim of “Total/100% Protection from Waterborne diseases” is also incorrect and misleading for the reasons aforementioned. Due to the aforementioned albeit the compliance with any standards, no manufacturer, including the Advertiser, can claim absolute safety without extensive support.

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The claim support data was reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. The CCC viewed the Website advertisements and considered the Advertiser’s response as well as the opinion of the Technical expert presented at the meeting. Advertiser did not provide technical data to show that Kent RO produced water provides 100% or total protection. These claims, “100% or total protection” imply that the Kent water purifier has the capability of complete protection against all diseases and contamination possible in water, which is misleading by exaggeration. Also, the claim, 100% protection/Total Protection from waterborne diseases”, is an absolute claim which was not substantiated. The Website advertisements contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Asianet Communications Ltd
PRODUCT: Sell me the answer

COMPLAINT:

Two children sitting, one carrying 3 toffees the other one asks to share with him the boy says no. The next scene shows a class room set up were the teacher is asking a question and those who are not able to answer are being hit on the palm with a sick. Seeing this the boy carrying toffee being afraid asks help from the boy who asked for toffees , after bargaining on two toffees the boy helps the other boy with answer. The theme is to show how people who are smart sell the answer for their benefit. Corporal punishments are banned in India and the ad shows the same practice and subtly promotes the same without bringing up the problem as an issue but as an ignition for the ad. Taking up a controversial issue in such a light note does not help the abuse being faced by millions of kids in our country.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The CCC viewed the TV advertisement for launch of a TV programme. The CCC reviewed the Advertiser’s response. The CCC concluded that the scene showing ‘the school teacher hitting the student on his palm with a stick”, is in violation of Article 21 of the Protection of Children against Corporal Punishment in Schools and Institutions. Also, the TVC might result in the physical, mental or moral harm of the children. The TVC for launch of a program contravened Chapters III.3 and III.4 of the Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

COMPANY: Fore School of Management
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

Advertisement on newspaper projects that Fore School of Management Institute which provides a Post Graduate Diploma Degree to students have excellent placement for students with multiple offers. Whereas this is not the scenario and students are not allowed and debarred from further placements process which is wrongly depicted in the advertisement. They are basically trying to lure students to join their institute and mint in more money by charging heft fees from the students by giving them false hopes and are basically playing with their future.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: NOT UPHELD

The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC concluded that the claim in the advertisement, “Excellent placement with multiple offers”, was not false or misleading. The complaint was NOT UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Aakash Educational Services Pvt. Ltd.
PRODUCT: Aakash Institute

COMPLAINT:

Twins Rahul Bansal and Sahil Bansal (AIIMS-2015 ranks 23 and 40) are from their coaching institutes. There is no credibility in advertisement from this coaching institute. They are taking fees running up to 2 lakhs (+1 and +2) and they cheat parents by making false claims about good rank holders being their students. They are claiming that these two students belong to their classroom programs. They are blatantly lying as it is not possible for them to have taken classroom coaching from these two simultaneously. Now that I was uploading photos of ads, I noticed another rank holder on the list (Yuvraj, AIIMS-2015 rank 11).

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant. However, no response was received from the advertiser. The CCC viewed the print advertisement. In the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the advertiser claiming that Twins Rahul Bansal and Sahil Bansal (AIIMS-2015 ranks 23 and 40) and Yuvraj, (AIIMS-2015 rank 11) are from their coaching institutes, is false and was not substantiated. The Ad contravened Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapter I.1 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Vi-John Group of Companies
PRODUCT: Cobra Deo

COMPLAINT:

Kindly ban the advertisement of COBRA DEO MANLY DEO which has been published by Kiran TV in Kerala. Advertisement 5 Deo bottles have been fingered in a seductive fashion with the fingers of a woman. The first four get succumbed to inactive mood but the last one gets enlarged as a result of the fingering. This advertisement has dual meaning. The hidden meaning is more active. The first four 'Deos' represent fucking failure of men and the fifth one becomes a successful fucker. This kind of advertisements stand equally with porn videos. This ad will affect family viewer and kids. So kindly take measures to ban this advertisement

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: NOT UPHELD

The CCC viewed the TVC / Youtube advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC concluded that the TVC showing five deo bottles out of which four not being able to hold their shape is not likely to cause grave or widespread offence. The complaint was NOT UPHELD.

COMPANY: Spencer’s Retail Pvt Ltd
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

Their Advertisement is unclear and grossly misleading. HOWEVER, Inspired by this advertisement, I have made shopping in one of your Spencer's Retail in Kolkata worth of Rs. 1114.00 (Rupees One Thousand One Hundred and Fourteen only), using by State Bank of India Debit Card. And now they are denying to give me Cash Back of Rs.100/-as they say that this offer is only for the Credit Card payments. But in the Advertisement nowhere it is mentioned so. In the advertisement they write to visit some website, which is not even can be read with naked eye. I had not Internet Access before shopping and it not desirable too that one will go through website to read terms and conditions. If they had good will and bonafide intention, then they could have mention it clearly and legible way that this offer is only for credit card holders. And Their Customer care executives also admitted this find valid points in my arguments. One of their customer care Executive named Krishna also told me that I will get the Cash Back as there is nothing mentioned clearly. You can cross verify the Recordings of my conversation with him on 20th June, 2015 (Saturday) at 11:46 A.M. on their Toll Free Number 18002660134, if you feel so I have other company advertisement also, and in those advertisement they clearly written that what kind of card is eligible for Cash back. But their Advertisement in its present format, is grossly misleading. Feeling Hapless and cheated due to your wrongful and misguided Advertisement. If they had not given such an advertisement, then I would never went for shopping on 17th June, 2015 (Wednesday) and spend over Rs.1000/- ! Frankly and honestly speaking, such an amount of money in a single shopping and at a time, in a middle class family like us matters a lot. I only went there seeing this Advertisement, which is now seems misleading and for that matter an unfair trade practice”.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC concluded that the offer of “Zyada ka Fayda” claiming additional Rs.100 cash back is misleading by omission of a disclaimer qualifying that the offer is only for credit card holders. The advertisement contravened Chapter I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: BMW
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

The advertisement mentions the price of the cars between the ranges of 2-5 lacs but when we enquired at the showroom they say it is the amount of the 1st instalment

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC concluded that the mention of “price” in the advertisement in place of “down payment” is misleading and contravened Chapter I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Shri Maharana Pratap Private ITI
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

Shri Maharana Pratap ITI appearance of the advertisement is just like news from editorial section of the national newspaper, Notification alert given to students to not take admissions from any other institutions or university which provides fire and safety. We have read this article which is further noticed as advertisement says that no university or institutions are valid to provide any certifications in fire and safety except Shri Maharana Pratap ITI. The article says clearly that only 4 institutions in India are valid to provide fire and safety courses. I think this a clear misleading and confusing statement or advertisement which may diversified young generation & students’ community because it is looking and appearing like a true copy of news.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant. However, no response was received from the advertiser. The CCC viewed the print advertisement. In the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claims mentioned in the advertisement and cited in the complaint, “no university or institutions are valid to provide any certifications in fire and safety except Shri Maharana Pratap ITI”, “only 4 institutions in India are valid to provide fire and safety courses”, were not substantiated and were considered to be misleading by ambiguity. 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: Shathayu Ayurveda
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“Redefine your natural curve with detox and fat burning paste massage to enhance metabolism and reduce body fat”. This is displayed on slide shares on homepage How does paste massage burn fat and reduce body fat? How does detox enhance metabolism? Can shathayu ayurveda please substantiate these claims and what do they mean by fat burning paste massages.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant. However, no response was received from the advertiser. The CCC viewed the website advertisement. In the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claims, “Redefine your natural curve with detox and fat burning paste massage to enhance metabolism and reduce body fat”, were not substantiated. The website advertisement contravened Chapter I.1 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Radico Khaitan Limited
PRODUCT: Magic Moment

COMPLAINT:

Magic moments Vodka is an advertisement of an alcoholic Product.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant. However, no response was received from the advertiser. The CCC viewed the print advertisement. In the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the advertisement was a surrogate advertisement for a promotion of a liquor product – Magic Moment Vodka. The advertisement contravened Chapters III.6 (a) and (b) of the ASCI Code and the Guidelines for Brand Extension product or service. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Padmashri K. K. Shastri Educational Campus
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

Padmashri K. K. Shastri Educational Campus ’claims, “The use of Award Padmshri in the name as prefix is illegal as Supreme Court of India in its judgement date. 15/12/1995 upheld the constitution validity of the Padma Awards and directed that the award should not be used as suffix r Prefix to an individuals name. These national awards do not amount to 'Titles' within the meaning of Article 18(1) of the constitution and they should not be used as suffixes or prefixes. If this is done the defaulters should forfeit The National Award Conferred on him or her by following the procedure laid down in Regulation No.10 of each of the four notification creating these national awards. Home Ministry, Govt. Of India has issued a notification on 16/05/2014 to abide by the above direction if the Honorable Supreme Court.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC concluded that the use of Padmashree prefix before a name as used in the advertisement confers an unjustified advantage on the advertised product (Educational Campus) as such reference. The advertisement contravened Chapter I.3 of the Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

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

COMPLAINT:

1. Nano Crystalline Silver in Heal-O-Kind. 2. Has strong anti-bacterial action. 3. Reduces swelling, doesn’t allow scarring of wound. 4. First Aid ka All-Rounder. 5. Injury, burns, bruises, cuts and diabetic foot ulcer (these terms shown in ad with a checkmark implying Heal-O-Kind gel is useful for these conditions). 6. The healing power of Nanofine Technology.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

1. What is Nano Crystalline Silver? In what percentage is it present? 2. The claim that Heal-O-Kind gel contains Nano Crystalline Silver needs to be substantiated with data from independent scientific studies. 3. What is Nanofine Technology? 4. Claims 2 to 6 about medicinal effectiveness and usefulness as claimed in the ad should be substantiated with independent scientific studies.

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

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 concluded that – Claim, “Nano Crystalline Silver in Heal-O-Kind”, was substantiated. This complaint was NOT UPHELD. Claims, “Has strong anti-bacterial action”, “Reduces swelling, doesn’t allow scarring of wound”, “First Aid ka All-Rounder”, “Injury, burns, bruises, cuts and diabetic foot ulcer (these terms shown in ad with a checkmark implying Heal-O-Kind gel is useful for these conditions)”, “The healing power of Nanofine Technology”, were not substantiated with product efficacy data. No clinical data have been provided to justify efficacy of the product in the conditions claimed in the advertisement. The advertisement contravened Chapter I.1 of the ASCI Code. This complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Keva Ayurveda
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“Increases Immunity. Improves memory, concentration & learning ability”, “Improves digestion & skin tone”, “Prevents recurrent infections, asthma & other allergic conditions”, “Improves speech, hearing & visual acuity”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Svarna bindu prashana is a simple immune booster given to kids. But the benefits and features like improving memory, concentration, and learning abilities are exaggerated. If that were the case there would had been no dearth of intelligent children on this world. Every kid would had be outstanding with svarna bindu prashna. Give proper substantiation.

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant. However, no response was received from the advertiser. The CCC viewed the website advertisement. In the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claims, “Increases Immunity. Improves memory, concentration & learning ability”, “Improves digestion & skin tone”, “Prevents recurrent infections, asthma & other allergic conditions”, “Improves speech, hearing & visual acuity”, were not substantiated. The website advertisement contravened Chapter I.1 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: MT Educare Ltd.
PRODUCT: Mahesh Tutorials

COMPLAINT:

1. “Mahesh Tutorials provides a free Samsung Tab with each admissions. 2. The VO claims that it will help the student to Top. It implies very clearly, that every student will top (the exams) due to Mahesh Tutorials and its free Tab. Hence misleading. How can Mahesh Tutorials RADIO spot say, to he effect, "bachcha top karega? ".”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: NOT UPHELD

The CCC heard the radio spot and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC concluded that in the context of the advertisement, the radio spot was not misleading. As for the voice over claim, "bachcha top karega”, `Top' is the symbolic meaning to say grade improvement will happen when the child studies. The complaint was NOT UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Torque Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd
PRODUCT: No scars Cream

COMPLAINT:

by Birth. So don’t try to humiliate such people with White colour Scars will spotted on ones skin with various reasons and we can remove it with medicines and facial creams. But to circulating message through an advertisement to remove ones SKIN is clearly punishable

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The CCC viewed the TVC and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC concluded that the claims in the TVC of the product “changing dark skin and scars and resulting in facial skin glowing in one week” were not substantiated. The TVC contravened Chapter I.1 of the ASCI Code. The visuals in the TVC showing transformation depict the protagonist as unhappy in pre-use state. This contravened Clause 2 of the ASCI guidelines for Advertisement of Fairness Improvement Products. The complaint was UPHELD.

COMPANY: Odisha Television Limited
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

Odisha Television Network (odishatv.in) advertised performance on the basis of TAM data for wk 15(2015). The caption in the advertisement read as OTV repeat history again. Ahead of not only News but also entertainment channel. The advertisement is having many faults and errors. 1- The text of source is very small and unreadable. 2- The data period selected as a period of comparison is of one week. This claim quoting TAM as a source violated the TAM Guidelines. 3- The data provided comparison in terms of Reach%. But reach % is not the parameter to evaluate viewership as it doesn’t include Time Spend figure in it. 4- The GRP as per TAM for the week 15 with the same TG-CS 15+ (Market Orissa.1 to 1mn.) for top 10 channels is Sarthak TV- 486, Star Plus- 275, Tarang-263, OTV- 178, Colors Viacom18-151, MBCTV-133, Prarthana-100, Sony Entertainment-100, Zee TV-98, Colors Odiya-64Which clearly indicate that the claim of OTV is completely false. All the above points indicate that Orissa Television Network by means of wrongful presentation of data clearly misleading the viewers and they are doing it again and again with an ill motive to bias the common man and the advertisers for their individual gain in terms of such publicity.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

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. TAM data for weeks 11 to 14 shows that OTV stands at #4 by average reach across weeks and at #5 by TVTs. Sarthak, Star Plus and Tarang have been consistently ahead of OTV. The claim, “OTV repeat history again. Ahead of not only News but also entertainment channel”, is false. The advertisement runs against Rule 5 of TAM guidelines regarding use of averages as only one week’s data has been shown. Any estimate of channel ranking whether based on reach or tv ratings must be based on at least 4-8 weeks to be conclusive. Rule 7 also not observed as the estimate is in fine print at the bottom of the ad and not clearly stated. This confers an artificial advantage upon the advertiser so as to suggest that a better bargain is offered than is truly the case. The CCC concluded that the advertisement contravened Chapters I.1, I.3 and IV.1(b) of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Britannia Industries Limited
PRODUCT: Nutrichoice Heavens Cookies

COMPLAINT:

1. Incredibly delicious yet healthy. 2. Find delight in a bed of blissful sun kissed oats, loaded with ripe bananas and crackling almonds. 3. Heaps of goodness in a cookie so glorious, we call it Heavens.. 4. After all, that’s where all good things go.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

1. The claim yet healthy needs substantiation from independent research studies. 2. Delicious yet healthy implies that delicious food is not healthy. Such a statement is misleading. 3. What is the proportion of oats in the cookies? Is it the main ingredient? Having the benefits of oats can be claimed only if there is significant proportion of oats in each serving. 4. Loaded with bananas and almonds - claim should be substantiated with independent studies showing actual proportion of bananas and almonds. 5. Claims 1 to 4 need to be substantiated with independent research studies.

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The claim support data was reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response response as well as the opinion of the Technical expert presented at the meeting. Advertiser did not provide quantitative data, composition certification of the product. The CCC concluded that the claim of “….yet healthy”, was not substantiated, and the claim, “loaded with ripe Bananas and crackling almonds”, is misleading by exaggeration. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the Code. This complaint was UPHELD. The claims, “Incredibly delicious”, “Find delight in a bed of blissful sun kissed oats”, “Heaps of goodness in a cookie so glorious, we call it Heavens” “After all, that’s where all good things go”, are generic claims which were not considered to be objectionable. This complaint was NOT UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: L’Oreal India Pvt Ltd
PRODUCT: Garnier Fructis Oil In Cream

COMPLAINT:

Fast Track complaint received against the TVC, Youtube Ad of “L’Oreal India – Garnier Fructis Oil In Cream” As per the complaint, the advertisement as published in above media/online platforms makes false and misleading claims about Product, denigrate entire hair oil category, content for comparison is chosen to derive artificial advantage. The Advertiser is making the following misleading claims through above referred means:- 1. Now get twice the nourishment* of hair oils in a non sticky cream format (*Instrumental test - 3 pre-wash applications). 2X Nourishment of Hair Oil. [Advertiser is drawing a comparison between nourishment from their Product and nourishment from Hair Oil and reached a conclusion that their Product gives 2X nourishment. Whenever a consumer describes “hair nourishment”, it is a holistic experience of end to end hair benefits. These benefits (as described above) have several technical parameters and are assessed by consumers through different sensorial perceptions. Many hair products can offer few of these benefits, but there is no hair product which matches the holistic, multi- benefits offered through hair oils containing more than 20% of vegetable oils. The current product is a cream and as the manufacturer claims that it is non-sticky, hence it contains a minimal level of oil (as per our analysis) to give any benefit that is comparable to hair oils, leave alone 2X. Vegetable Oil based hair oils have been used for hair in India since centuries. Their primary benefit is to provide holistic nourishment to hair. The hair nourishment benefits of vegetable oils have been proven through multiple scientific studies, several of which have been published in peer reviewed journals. Following are instances of the hair nourishment benefits provided by hair oils like Penetration into hair Cortex, Strength of Hair, Prevention of Protein Loss, Reduction in Hair Porosity, Protection against chemical treatments, Hair Breakage Index, Faster hair Growth, Elasticity of hairs, Toughness to hair strands, Prevention of Lipid Loss, Scalp Echo Texture etc. The Advertiser has chosen to make this general comparison to represent consumers that their product is best/better for giving nourishment. The advertiser is presenting distorted facts to promote its Product by drawing misleading comparison. This is a completely misleading and false representation by Advertiser. Further the Advertiser has given a misleading disclaimer, and they do not comply with ASCI guidelines related to disclaimers. Zero stickiness [How can there be ZERO stickiness if Advertiser claims its Product contains oil. Zero is an extreme claim, the Advertiser should be asked to substantiate this claim since this claim/depiction itself proves the Advertiser’s ulterior motive and dishonest representation. Such statements are disparaging and denigrating of the entire category of Hair Oils as it seeks to represent that use of Hair Oil leads to the creation of a mess. In the advertisement, the protagonist is shown touching her mother’s hair stating “aapne oil lagana chore diya hai”.This seeks to give an impression that all Oils result in stickiness. This is an incorrect statement as there are several non-sticky oils in the market.] Oil replacement cream. [The Advertiser is suggesting that the Product is a substitute for Hair Oil. However, the Advertiser’s product purportedly contains oil, and hence, it is misleading the consumer by stating that Oil itself does not give sufficient nourishment. This claim is nothing but an exaggeration of the Product and an attempt to mislead the consumer. This claim in the advertisement gives a false impression that Garnier Fructis Oil In Cream is a substitute of Hair Oil. The Advertiser should be put to strict proof to justify this claim. All statements claims are intended to mislead the consumer for commercial gain. They are not based on any adequate scientific study and in gross violation of the ASCI Code. The advertiser is not complying with the guidelines of Super as per ASCI code.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The claim support data for Review was reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. The CCC viewed the TVC and considered the Advertiser’s response for Review as well as the opinion of the Technical expert presented at the meeting. Advertiser has not provided any new data in support of the claim and have argued that they have "defined" what they have meant by the word "nourishment" in the context of their advertisement. The use of the word "nourishment" is likely to convey to the consumer that their product does something more than just making hair more smooth and manageable. The claim “2X Nourishment of Hair Oil” was considered misleading by ambiguity and implication and contravened Chapter I.4 of the ASCI Code. The decision of this complaint being Upheld stands on Review.

COMPANY: HDFC Bank Ltd
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“paperless loan within 12 hours”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Saw the attached banner in online account where HDFC claims to have a “paperless loan within 12 hours” which I found misleading because: 1. The loan does not get processed in 72 hours 2. Its not paperless as once you click on the apply now button,it takes you to this URL https://leads.hdfcbank.com/applications/webforms/apply/hdfc_pl/PersonalLo an.aspx which will ask you for submitting your papers

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

Advertiser representatives were given personal hearing by ASCI. The CCC viewed the website advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response for Review. Advertiser submitted list of few customers availing loans within 12 hours as claimed in the advertisement. ASCI Secretariat verified the details with the customers. For one customer there was a mis-match of the name (VK) and record of the bank and another customer (SN) indicated that the loan was NOT disbursed within 12 hours. The CCC concluded that the claim of “Avail of your pre-approved paperless Personal loan of up to Rs 7.50 lac in just 12 hours”, was not substantiated and is misleading by ambiguity. The Website advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the Code. The decision of this complaint being Upheld stands on Review.

 

COMPANY: Ebay Inc
PRODUCT: Ebay

COMPLAINT:

“EBay Guarantee - Don’t Worry, Buy Happy”, "EBay guarantee" and "100% Satisfaction or refund/replacement"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

This is a misleading advertisement. The buyers tend to believe that any thing that has purchased from EBay site is under EBay Guarantee and if anything goes wrong, EBay will refund or arrange for a replacement. However, in practice eBay does not provide any guarantee. When there is a claim, eBay just passes some excuse and passes it to someone else. The complainant bought a Lenovo P70 smart phone from their site believing eBay guarantee. The item arrived dead. He raised the eBay guarantee. He then received a reply that the item is under manufacturer’s warranty therefore eBay guarantee does not apply. The attached copy of email received from eBay is self-explanatory. The words "Don’t worry, buy happy" and the words "EBAY GUARANTEE-100% Satisfaction or refund/replacement" are misleading and gullible buyers like me fall prey to it. In my case eBay neither provided 100% satisfaction nor refund or replacement. They just passed the buck.

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant. However, no response was received from the advertiser. The CCC viewed the website advertisement. In the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claims, “EBay Guarantee - Don’t Worry, Buy Happy”, "EBay guarantee" and "100% Satisfaction or refund/replacement", were false, not substantiated and were misleading. The website advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Unicharm India Private Limited
PRODUCT: Sofy Bodyfit Antibacteria Sanitary Napkin

COMPLAINT:

cterial sheet blocks 99.9%* bacteria built up for long lasting hygiene; alongwith a disclaimer- *napkin has green antibacterial sheet which gives 99.9% protection from Escherichia coli, Stophylococcus aureus and Candida albicans for long lasting hygiene. “99.9% antibacterial protection”, “all day hygiene”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

The advertiser claims to provide all day bacteria protection wherein the anti-bacterial sheet blocks 99.9% bacteria built up leading to long lasting hygiene all day long. On one hand, the advertiser is making promises to deliver “99.9% antibacterial protection” and “all day hygiene” and on the other hand the tall claim is contradicted by a very illegible disclaimer which states that the claim is applicable on 3 bacteria only. It is advertiser’s known mischief to blur the disclaimers to conceal information from the consumers regarding the limitness of the very broad “antibacterial protection” claim and mislead consumers to believe that they are getting protection from “all” forms of bacteria which may cause skin problems You will appreciate that such antibacterial claims are likely to be treated by the consumers as a medical benefit and as a result of the same, the Impugned Product would come under the purview of Drug Regulations and be subjected to stricter license and selling requirements as required under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. Accordingly, the Impugned Product is trying to circumvent the law by not obtaining required registrations and selling/ marketing the same as a retail product. As mentioned in the TV copy, the Impugned Product has a green antibacterial sheet on the top which provides this benefit. This green sheet perhaps refers to advertiser’s patented technology which is described in patent publication no. US 2010/0062031 A1. Advertiser herein describes a lab method to test bacterial activity on such sheet. A bare perusal of the patent application makes it apparent that the patented technology only starts to deliver the antibacterial benefit after a significant loss of time. Please refer to paragraph [0091] to [0100] which details the Antibacterial Action Evaluation Test of the Impugned product. Pertinent to note is that the said test was done under specific technical conditions i.e. 35C for 20 hours on Stophylococcus epidermis. Clearly, such testing methodology does not represent consumer usage conditions which the Impugned Product will be subjected to. Under actual use, there is continuous blood gush throughout the day and it is important that the Impugned Product would provide the anti bacterial benefit from the start of blood gush and continue throughout use period, which is further substantiating that the benefits claimed are sparse and not consumer relevant. The veracity of the claim communication on “99.9% anti bacteria protection and “all day hygiene” is such that consumer will perceive that the sanitary pad will provide 99.9% protection from bacteria throughout wear of the pad which can be worn all day. In the event this was true, which we strongly contest it is (as shown above), this would raise another concern on the safety of the product as a product providing strong anti-bacterial action (as the one alleged and claimed), must contain strong chemicals and long wear of such a product would have an adverse impact on skin/ health of women and hence, advertiser must be called upon to prove safety of the product and that long wear of the impugned product does not cause skin irritation and negatively impact good flora (bacteria) i.e body’s self-defense. Advertiser to substantiate its claims through scientific data proving that: (1) Escherichia coli, Stophylococcus aureus and Candida albicans are the only significant bacteria to cause health/ hygiene related issues. (2) Comparative analysis of Impugned Product versus regular sanitary napkin(s) with regard to impact of bacteria- Escherichia coli, Stophylococcus aureus and Candida albicans during the actual consumer usage. (3) Use of the Impugned Product kills all significant bacteria and prevents them for coming back, during the entire duration of product usage i.e product provides antibacterial benefit upon immediate use and continued benefit during multiple gushes until 12 hours. (4) The absolute claim of 99.9% protection is true under all conditions; (5) Strong chemicals intended to provide anti bacteria benefit do not harm/ cause rashes amongst women throughout the continued usage of said product for 5-6 days of a period. (6) Product does not negatively impact good bacteria/ flora living in the human body for skin/ health protection.”

RECOMMENDATION: NOT UPHELD

The advertiser representatives were given personal hearing by ASCI. The claim support data was reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. The CCC viewed the TVC, packaging, and POSM and considered the Advertiser’s response as well as the opinion of the Technical expert presented at the meeting. The CCC concluded that the claims, “99.9% antibacterial protection* , *napkin has green antibacterial sheet which gives 99.9% protection from E.coli, S. Aureus, C. albicans”, “all day hygiene”, were substantiated with technical data. The complaint was NOT UPHELD.

COMPANY: Clear Vision Eye Hospital Private Limited
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

1) For removal of numbers by laser 2) Quality as proved surface ablation procedure 4) c-lasik wavefrosurance offer for same 3) Extremely safe FDA approved and topo link treatment available

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

They falsely claim that 1) They can remove the Numbers with laser, they give quality Assurance offer for same 2) They offer extremely safe fda approved Surface ablation procedure 3) c-lasik wavefront and topolink treatment Available Complete removal of number is not possible With laser and what the method of quality Assurance they are giving and as per general Knowledge surface ablation procedure is Extremely painful and not free from Complications so one can’t say it is absolutely Safe procedure and they dont have any Wavefront machine to do c lasik wavefront and topolink treament.

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

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 concluded that the claims of “quality assurance”, “c-lasik wavefront and topolink treatment available”, were not substantiated with supporting evidence to prove that the hospital possesses equipment for wavefront and topolink treatment. The claim of “Extremely safe FDA approved” was considered misleading by exaggeration in view of the procedure not being free from risks or complications. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the Code. This complaint was UPHELD. The claims “For removal of numbers by laser”, was not false. This complaint was NOT UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: National Board of Computer Education
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“A computer centre of our Locality named DEBAGRAM NATIONAL BOARD OF COMPUTER EDUCATION perhaps misleading people. Their head office at Ranaghat, Nadia, WB. Name of the centre & master Franchisee is doubt full & they have published leaflets as affiliated by HRD Dept, govt of India, New Delhi. Also claim as authenticated by organization Of Housten, USA. Please take necessary action as early as possible for Student's future of locality.”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The CCC viewed the Ad – Leaflet and considered the Advertiser’s response. The credibility and authenticity of the certifying body was not provided by the advertiser. The CCC concluded that the claims, “Affiliation from International Accreditation Organization (IAO), Houston, U.S.A.”, and “Affiliation from Copy Right Division under Ministry of Human Resource Development, Govt. of India”, were not substantiated with supporting proof. The Ad-leaflet contravened Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapter I.1 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Hindustan Unilever Limited
PRODUCT: New Clinic Plus Shampoo

COMPLAINT:

The character played by actress Sakshi Tanwar watches her daughter talking to little girls. The daughter is also shown wandering around the area and clicking pictures. Mother wonders what career she would choose - modelling or photography. She wants to give her a strong foundation so that she can become whatever she wants. She thinks of making her hair strong. She gives New Clinic Plus shampoo to her daughter. Voiceover about New Clinic Plus shampoo says milk protein formula makes your hair 35 x strong. It is also written on the screen 35x tak jyada majboot baal (hair up to 35 times stronger). At the end of the TVC, a line flashes on the screen: Mazboot Baal Mazboot Rishte.’ The claim New Clinic Plus shampoo has milk protein formula needs to be substantiated with independent studies. 2. The TVC claims New Clinic Plus shampoo makes hair up to 35 times stronger. Stronger than what? This needs to be clarified. Also, the claim should be substantiated with independent studies. 3. What is the connection between Mazboot Baal and Mazboot Rishte? Linking the two does not make much sense.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: NOT UPHELD

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 concluded that – Claim, “New Clinic Plus shampoo has milk protein formula”, is not false as the product contains hydrolyzed milk powder. Claim, “This makes your hair stronger up to 35X” *disclaimer- based on lab test on Clinic Plus system versus non- conditioning shampoo” was substantiated. Claim, “Mazboot Baal. Mazboot Rishte” is a creative expression and was not considered to be objectionable. The complaint was NOT UPHELD.

COMPANY: Rich Feel Trichology Centre
PRODUCT: Hair and Scalp Clinic-Ana-d-tox treatment

COMPLAINT:

Rich feel Trichology Centre’ both the advertisements (print as well as radio) whose focus is to completely disparage the entire category of hair colors which make the following statements boldly: 1. “Guilty of hair Colour damage.” – is an exaggerated statement that puts hair colours in a very bad light & disparages the entire category. 2. “Rich Feel Introduces for the 1st time in India, a post hair colour treatment.” – as you would very well know, there are many other post hair treatments available in the market, hence this statement is incorrect. 3. “It has power THP from USA to detox, revive, repair and protect the damage done to hair and scalp by colouring the hair” – there is neither any scientific data nor consumer research substantiation for this claim. None of the above statements are substantiated by any sort of empirical data or research. Moreover, the press ad shows images of a hair shaft, supposed to show the difference between virgin hair, coloured hair & hair post using the said product. These images are deceiving and exaggerated, as getting such an image of a circular hair shaft is not feasible at all. This figurative exaggeration seems to be a ploy to put fear in the minds of the consumers for hair colours, again denigrating the hair colours category and anyone being made to believe that they will get such damaged hair ‘before use of Rich Feel Ana-d-tox but after hair colour’ tantamount to complete disparagement of the entire hair colour range of products as never such an occurrence over the hair (after use of any hair colour) is possible at all and such an image being portrayed by the said manufacturer and advertiser of Rich Feel Ana-d-tox cannot be also regarded as ‘puffery’ by any stretch of imagination as the normal gullible consumer is likely to believe that hair colours as a product are not good for health of hair, which is not true in any sense, more so, when such hair colour products are quality tested and approved as per regulations applicable and legally marketable. The impugned advertisements of Rich Feel Ana-d-tox talk about the damages of hair colour which could be “dry & rough hair”, “split ends”, “dry & itchy scalp”, “hair damage” and “loss of texture”, without sustaining these claims by any sort of test results or disclaimers on how they have arrived on this conclusion. The company seems to be unaware that the above mentioned hair damages may be possible due to a multitude of factors such as stress, poor hygiene, hormonal changes, pollution, hereditary, etc. The communication is conveniently hinting towards the fact that all these hair damages take place only due to hair colours, which is misleading. The advertisements are spreading incorrect propositioning statements about colouring hair, thereby spreading fearful and wrong message to the general consumers without any scientific basis or proof such as a- “We know there is a flip side to make monthly appointment at the hair salon for colouring the hair as we know that we are damaging hair every time we colour”; b- “ We endure the pangs of guilt and live with irrevocably damaged hair”; c- “repeated exposure to dye and chemicals, starts thinning and falling”; d- “chemical damage leads to dryness loss of luster and even a change of texture in your hair’; e- Ammonia free colour is a myth. In colour where ammonia is not used, MEA/EA ( monoethanolamine/Ethanolamine) is used which has similar harmful effects like ammonia hence ammonia free colour vis a vis hair colour is a myth; f- Richfeels ana –d – tox hair colour is a treatment; g- Richfeel ana-d- tox treatment clears away all signs of damage and brings backs to natural health with its natural Shine and lustre; All the statements made above are clearly criticizing and disparaging the entire hair colour category of products

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The claim support data was reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. The CCC reviewed the print advertisement, radio advertisement, the hoarding, and considered the Advertiser’s response as well as the opinion of the Technical expert presented at the meeting. The CCC concluded that - Claim, “Guilty of hair Colour damage”, is not objectionable as there is no comparison made with other hair colourants and does not disparage the entire category. This complaint was NOT UPHELD. Claim, “Rich Feel Introduces for the 1st time in India, a post hair colour treatment”, applies to the formulation containing THP (triple hydrolysed protein therapy) for the first time. There are many hair colour companies who do have post hair colour treatment products, although the advertiser may well be the first to use THP. Hence this claim is factually incorrect and misleading by ambiguity as it does not qualify the THP part. The advertisement contravened Chapter I.4 of the Code. This complaint was UPHELD. Claim, "Ammonia free colour is a myth" means that ammonia-free colours may cause as much damage as ammonia based ones. The advertiser provided data that claims MEA does indeed cause side effects, its main advantage is less smell. This complaint was NOT UPHELD. Claim, "THP power to detox revive, repair and protect damage done to hair by colouring" is a broad claim. Several third party and in-house test reports and report summaries of the major ingredients of THP (but not the formulation used) done by the US supplier of the ingredients have been presented by the advertiser. The claim of "total repair" was not demonstrated. Importantly, no test report of the formulation as used by Richfeel was presented, not of the transdermal machine claimed to be used by Richfeel as part of the treatment. The tests done by the THP supplier makes no mention of the use of a transdermal machine. Hence the substantiation (to the extent demonstrated) is with respect to the ingredients used and not the final product or treatment. This claim was inadequately substantiated. The advertisement contravened Chapter I.1 of the Code. This complaint was UPHELD

 

COMPANY: Amazon.Inc
PRODUCT: Amazon Kindle

COMPLAINT:

The book writer Amish tripati explains about the advantage and uses of kindle. The writer describes the features of kindle paperwhite, which is 11000, but at the end of ad the price is quoted as 5999 which is the price of lower version which doesn't have the said features. Thus the ad misguiding the people

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The CCC viewed the TVC and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC concluded that the TVC is misleading by omission of a disclaimer qualifying the price of the actual product being promoted. The TVC contravened Chapter I.4 of the Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

COMPANY: Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd
PRODUCT: Mahindra two wheeler

COMPLAINT:

1st complainant- The advertisement shows a person owning a car opening his key and another person with the Mahindra two wheeler having the same type of key and riding a bike, the second scene shows another person riding a scooter between the cars in a traffic signal. The third scene shows a biker riding on the right lane of a 4 lane road and the advertisement ends saying we are less than no body. 2nd complainant- It is shown that a bike rider drives it side by side to cars in the same lane and overtakes them. 1. In the second scene the scooter rider is riding between cars on the lane not following lane discipline or traffic rules which is misleading the public and encouraging them to break traffic rules. 2. The bike rider is riding on the right most lane of a 4 lane highway, the right most lane is reserved for overtaking and not for slow moving vehicles, and this is also against the traffic rules. Driving side by side of another vehicle of the same lane is unlawful and dangerous. The ad should be banned/modified.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: NOT UPHELD

The CCC viewed the TVC and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC concluded that the TVC is not objectionable as it does not portray unsafe driving, nor does it encourage/refer to dangerous practices. The complaint was NOT UPHELD.

COMPANY: Godrej Consumer Products Ltd
PRODUCT: Cinthol Original Soap

COMPLAINT:

The model in the ad is shown to be a skin specialist Shubha Iyer. She is recommending the Cinthol soap to her daughter in law who is supposed to be a journalist. The lady shown as a skin specialist, is actually a popular cinema and theatre artist in Karnataka. Her name is Sudha Belwadi. It’s inaccurate and false to show models and artists as doctors /specialists recommending products.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The CCC viewed the TVC and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC concluded that the TVC showing an actor (non-medical person) as a real skin specialist doctor by name “Dr Subha Iyer” endorsing the product is misleading. The TVC contravened Chapter I.4 of the Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

COMPANY: Stem Cell Society of India
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

This has reference to the display of photographs of the Honle prime Minister on the Website (http://stemcellsocietyofindia.com/index.html) of the Stem Cell Society of India with the content "Prime Minister Narendra Modi's vision for Stem Cell Therapy" during his visit to the institute for Stem Cell Science and regenerative Medicine and National Centre for Biological Science, Banglore. Stem cell society of India (SCS) is a society with a national Association of Stem Cell Therapists having its registration no Guj/2176/gandhinagar. Since, the photographs of Honble Prime Minister cannot be displayed on the websites without permission, it is requested to kindly look into the matter for necessary action in this regard.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The CCC viewed the Website advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC concluded that the Advertiser has used the photograph of the Prime Minister (PM) in the Ad without his permission, which is misleading and confers an unjustified advantage on the product advertised and tends to bring the PM’s name into ridicule/disrepute. The website advertisement contravened Chapters I.3 and I.4 of the Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Dr Ghanshyam Patel’s Advanced Homeopathetic Hospital & Clinical Research Centre
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

1. Sureshot, fast and effective treatment by advanced invention and innovative medicines for all diseases (incurable as well). 2. Piles - Warts/ Asthma - breathing/ Cancer/ Aids/ Arthritis, Acidity gets cured from its roots. Shortly get relieved from cold and asthma without steroid or inhaler and relief only by medicines in case of piles – warts without operation and get permanent treatment.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

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 case reports provided by the advertiser are only for single patient each. This does not prove that every case of similar ailment can be cured. The CCC concluded that the claims in the Ad, “Sureshot, fast and effective treatment by advanced invention and innovative medicines for all diseases (incurable as well)”, “Piles - Warts/ Asthma - breathing/ Cancer/ Aids/ Arthritis, Acidity gets cured from its roots. Shortly get relieved from cold and asthma without steroid or inhaler and relief only by medicines in case of piles – warts without operation and get permanent treatment”, were not substantiated. Specific to the claims related to treatment/cure for Piles, the Ad is in Breach of the law as it violated Schedule J of The Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940 and Rules, 1945. Also, specific to the claims related to treatment/cure for Cancer, the Ad is in Breach of the law as it violated The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and III.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: LG Electronics India Ltd
PRODUCT: LG Inverter V Air Conditioners

COMPLAINT:

1. India's only* AC that keeps mosquitoes away. 2. Mosquito protection

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

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 concluded that - Claim, “India's only* AC that keeps mosquitoes away”, is based on a survey of competitor's technical/commercial brochures wherein no one has made any mention of mosquito control. Hence their mention of the claim of "only AC". Advertiser refers to a disclaimer in the advertisement which indicates how they arrived at this conclusion. However, the claim of mosquito control itself is not substantiated. Claim, “Mosquito protection” has been qualified by a disclaimer which says that – "Mosquito Protection" has been tested under lab conditions, results may vary under actual use or may not apply to your mosquito”. However, the advertiser has not provided any details of the lab test or any test data such as - How was the test conducted, what kind of data was collected under what conditions and using what type of mosquito. This claim was not substantiated with evidence. The advertisement contravened Chapter I.1 of the Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Alcos International
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

1. IONA - Protective cover for harmful UVA/UVB sun rays 2. SPF 30 PA+++ 3. Visual is misleading

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

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 concluded that - Claim, “IONA - Protective cover for harmful UVA/UVB sun rays”, is not false, as the product is a sun protection cream. Sun protection creams indeed protect from UVA and UVB radiation. This complaint was NOT UPHELD. The test data for ALCON samples across 3 experiments showed an average Sun Protection Factor (SPF) above 30. The claim, "SPF30" was substantiated. This complaint was NOT UPHELD. The data submitted for the “PA+++” claim contains some general information about definitions of SPF and UV radiation, but there is no reference how it relates to the ALCOS/IONA product. The data on excerpts from "the chemistry of manufacture of cosmetics, volume II" has no experimental or test data that relates to ALCOS/IONA. The claim, "PA+++", was not substantiated and contravened Chapter I.1 of the Code. This complaint was UPHELD. Visual shown in the Ad is misleading as it implies complete protection from sun rays. The advertisement contravened Chapter I.4 of the Code. This complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Indus Early Learning Centre
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“Ranked No. 1 International School in India”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC concluded that the source for the claim, “Ranked No.1 International School in India”, was not indicated in the advertisement. Also, the manner of presentation of the claim in the advertisement is misleading. The Ad contravened Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapters I.2 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Hindustan Unilever Ltd
PRODUCT: Fair & Lovely Men Charcoal Face Wash

COMPLAINT:

“Gives fair look for 8 hours”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

The “fair look for 8 hours” is an overstated and misleading benefit for a face wash category product which is rinsed off quickly and has a very short contact time with skin. In addition, the TVC shows a harsh sunny and dusty environment. Under such conditions, if a face wash can give a fair look which remains for 8 hours, it is absolutely shocking. Also, there is a deliberate attempt to mislead the gullible consumers by showing the change in the skin tone which indicates that the skin gets progressively fairer by using this product. The TVC clearly intends to create a false impression that it leads to fair look under such harsh environments, which further reinforces that the product imparts fairness that lasts for 8 hours, which normally no cosmetic rinse off product can be capable of providing. To make a claim on “Fair look for 8 hours under such harsh environmental conditions” the advertiser must produce independent third party clinical data which is clearly representative of the conditions depicted in the TVC under which the product is used – exposure to sun, dust and pollution for 8 hours post a single usage of the face wash.

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

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 exfoliation test data were not taken on board earlier because these were for a different product (Ponds face wash). The advertiser has now submitted a certificate (internal) which states that this Ponds formulation and the oil control face wash have the same/similar active ingredient concentrations so the Ponds test are valid here as well. This study was conducted on 40 Caucasian females. There being no direct evidence to show that the Fair & Lovely Men Charcoal Face Wash provides effective removal of dead skin layers and gives fair look for eight hours in Indian men, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Gives fair look for eight hours” was not substantiated adequately. The TVC contravened Chapter I.1 of the ASCI Code. The decision of complaint being Upheld stands on Review.

 

COMPANY: Maruti Suzuki Ltd
PRODUCT: "1 in every 3 sedan cars sold in India is a ciaz"

COMPLAINT:

“Description of Advertising says "1 in every 3 sedan cars sold in India is a ciaz" in the ciaz car advertising. I seriously doubt the claim. The source or sales figure was not given.”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: NOT UPHELD

The advertiser representatives were given personal hearing by ASCI. The claim support data for Review was reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response for Review as well as the opinion of the Technical expert presented at the meeting. The CCC concluded that the claim, “1 in every 3 sedan cars sold in India is a ciaz", was substantiated with SIAM sales data. The CCC noted the Advertiser’s response that the said claim is being qualified to mention the source and date of research and criteria for assessment for this claim. The complaint is Not Upheld on Review.

 

COMPANY: Iforex
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“Within 3 days I made 990 $ by trading currencies”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

This is a tempting advertisement shown on portfolio page of www.moneycontrol.com. I apprehend that it may cause harm to many innocent persons

RECOMMENDATION: NOT UPHELD

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 concluded – The headline in the Ad, “Join our traders who profit from the market”, read in conjunction with the disclaimer in form of a risk warning qualifying the risks associated with trading the Company s products, is not considered objectionable. The CCC also noted that the advertisement is for registration to get free training package and is not objectionable. The complaint was NOT UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: DHI Global Medical Group
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

The advertisement is about the concerning brand for hair loss treatment. The complaint boasts that hair can be grown within one hour, with a caption saying, results you can see within an hour, along with two pictures one showing a complete bald head, and the other head having small and little hair. The complaint was about a hair treatment advertisement of DHI Global Medical Group, which says that a person can grow back his/her hair within one hour. It also showed two comparative pictures- one was a bald head and the latter one was a head with little hair. The picture showed that after one hour a person can grow back hair, which is not possible in reality.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant. However, no response was received from the advertiser. The CCC viewed the print advertisement. In the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim in the Ad, “Results you can see within an Hour!”, was not substantiated. The visuals of before and after the treatment were misleading. Specific to the claims implying baldness prevention (a condition referred in Schedule J of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act) is in Breach of the law as it violated The Drugs & Cosmetics Rule 106. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1, I.4 and III.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Jewelsouk Marketplace Limited
PRODUCT: Jewelsouk.com

COMPLAINT:

“The Worlds largest Jewellery Marketplace”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

It seems from their own reckoning that they are India’s largest online jewellery marketplace. But the Advertising Agency in their effort to impress the readers- consumers, pronounced them The Worlds largest Jewellery Marketplace In projecting the company as The World largest some supporting proof has to be provided, as an award or a certificate received from any world-wide organisation who is capable of evaluating such companies and ranking them best, better, good, etc. or there has to be any study done by any market research group where they have ranked this company as Worlds largest. Without any such supporting proof, it should be assumed that the company is trying to take the readers-consumers for a ride.

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant. However, no response was received from the advertiser. The CCC viewed the print advertisement. In the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “The Worlds largest Jewellery Marketplace”, was not substantiated. The advertisement contravened Chapter I.1 of the Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Michael & Michael Pipes Pvt. Ltd.
PRODUCT: Michael & Michael

COMPLAINT:

The above company in their web site displayed as the attached image Without an ISI mark they displayed IS 458 1988 This may mislead the public that this is an ISI approved company If displaying like that without ISI is an offence take action against them

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The CCC viewed the website advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. Advertiser did not provide evidence of the advertised product meeting the requirements of IS 458/1988 by the Bureau of Indian Standards. The advertisement misrepresents and attempts to deceive the viewers with reference to the IS standards, without BIS certification. The CCC concluded that the claim of IS 458/1988 was not substantiated and is misleading by ambiguity. The website advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Imperial Vehicles Pvt. Ltd.
PRODUCT: Ashok Leyland ‘DOST’

COMPLAINT:

We wish to inform you that based on the advertisement attached which offers free android phone, we happened to buy the Ashok Leyand 'DOST' from the dealer but even after buying the product, the dealer did not give us the said Android phone advertised in the paper. We understand that, such practices are just to attract and misguide the customers to sell the product. Sir, kindly go through the advertisement and help us get the promised phone at the earliest. Along with this, we were also provided with the additional assured gift voucher, in case if we buy a product or we refer to someone. But even buying the product we were not provided with the gift item.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant. However, no response was received from the advertiser. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and concluded that the claim offer in the advertisement of “cash discount + free android phone + exchange facility” is false and is misleading. Also, it is a lapse in the fulfilment of an advertised claim offer. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1, I.4 and I.7 of the Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: AAFT School of Fashion & Design
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“The only Fashion School associated with Film Industry”.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

The advertisement of AAFT School of Fashion & Design carries photos of people associated with Films and Television in India and claims to be “The only Fashion School associated with Film Industry”. The advertisement of AAFT School of Fashion & Design claims in the ad to be “The only Fashion School associated with Film Industry” when we have many prestigious institutes like NIFT and NID which are very much associated with industry and films.

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant. However, no response was received from the advertiser. The CCC viewed the print advertisement. In the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim in the Ad, “The only Fashion School associated with Film Industry”, was not substantiated. The Ad contravened Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapter I.1 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Iota International
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“iota Power Saver Intelligent Electricity Saver Certified ISO 9001:2000 Company JAS-ANZ’’, “Tested & approved by Electronic Regional Test Laboratory (Govt. of India)”,

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Seeing the ISO 9001:2000 certification by JAS-ANZ &Tested and approved by ERTL and the salesman (at Kolkata Industrial Trade Fair in Dec/2014) assured to help over Mobile Nos both his personal & local Sales Office M/s. Unimax Home Appliances, Hind Motar, Hooghly. But both the Nos. are switched off, no reply against E-mail from iota international against my repeated complain has yet been received. More over on reply through E-mail JAS-ANZ has informed that they have not certified this company. It means iota international is selling power Saver giving false advertisement about ISO certification over the packing box and also in the Trade fair stall

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The CCC viewed the contents of the packaging and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC concluded that the packaging claims, “iota Power Saver Intelligent Electricity Saver Certified ISO 9001:2000 Company JAS-ANZ’’, “Tested & approved by Electronic Regional Test Laboratory (Govt. of India)”, were false, misleading and were not substantiated. The packaging claims contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare India Ltd
PRODUCT: Harpic toilet cleaner

COMPLAINT:

A bare perusal of the advertisement would clearly show that the same is designed and oriented to denigrate and disparage our product namely "Sanifresh" which is also a toilet cleaner and offers close competition to "Harpic". In the advertisement, the reference is made to an ordinary toilet cleaner by referring to the same as "Saste toilet cleaner" and then the Model in the advertisement advises people not to buy toilet cleaner which offer one for one scheme as the same are thinner and drain out faster. The Model again suggests that Harpic is equivalent to two toilet cleaners and thus, it is prudent to purchase Harpic instead of going for a cheap toilet cleaner which offers one for one scheme. The clever device in the advertisement is that while depicting the cheap toilet cleaner which is shown in poor light, the bottle depicted is that of "Sanifresh" with only a change of colour of the cap. The reference to "Sanifresh" is further evident from the fact that "Sanifresh" is presently being sold in twin packs at a discount and the commercial takes a direct dig at twin packs by referring to them as cheap and ineffective. There is no manner of doubt that Harpic commercial being aired on various channels is designed to disparage and denigrate our product namely "Sanifresh". Any consumer watching the said commercial can easily recognize the bottle being referred to as "Sanifresh" toilet cleaner because of its distinctive shape and size and can identify the same with the bottle of "Sanifresh". Further the reference in the commercial to twin packs is also a cleverly disguised reference to “Saniifresh" which is presently being sold in twin packs. Our product Sanifresh is in no way technically inferior to Harpic and its variants. The thickness of our product is at par / better than Harpic as per laboratory test data. Secondly with regard to performance in cleaning is concerned, our product has got 40 more active ingredient then Harpic, hence will have better cleaning ability. Further, our product is not thin therefore the statement that one Harpic is equal to two products shown in the TVC is also incorrect. In fact the above statement would lead the consumers to think that our product is 50 less effective than Harpic. Moreover the disclaimers in the TV commercial are not readable, hence unfair on part of manufacturer to mislead the consumer.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

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. There are several similar competitive products in the same product category with similar design, shape and colour of the bottle and there was no evidence to support that the product characteristics depicted in the advertisement are unique to Sanifresh. The CCC concluded that the complaint regarding disparagement and denigration of the Complainant’s product is not tenable. This complaint was NOT UPHELD. The disclaimers in the TVC were not legible, and contravened the ASCI Guidelines on Supers. This complaint was UPHELD

COMPANY: Endeavor
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“No-1 in CMAT Training”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

ENDEAVOR at RAJKOT is claiming itself to be No-1 in CMAT Training I want ENDEAVOR to stop mentioning themselves as No.1 in CMAT Training.

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC concluded that the claim in the Ad, “No-1 in CMAT Training”, was not substantiated. The Ad contravened Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapter I.1 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Panki Detergent Private Limited
PRODUCT: Panki Detergent Powder

COMPLAINT:

“No. 1 quality”- Quality ki kausati par aaj bhi bhi No. 1.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

The advertiser has claimed that its product is the No.1 i.e. best product in terms of quality available in the market. The Advertiser has further substantiated by stating that the product has retained the No.1 spot on assessment of quality criteria. The consumers are led to believe that the Advertiser’s products are superior to the rest of competition products in in terms of quality. Laundry products cater to an extensive rural and bottom of the pyramid consumer base who are vulnerable to being easily misled with statements of superiority as being made by the Advertiser for their products. Such superiority claims should not be permitted to be made by the Advertiser without necessary substantiation”. Panki Detergent Powder claims are unsubstantiated as well as highly misleading.

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The CCC viewed the TVC and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC concluded that the claim in the TVC, “No. 1 quality”- Quality ki kausati par aaj bhi bhi No. 1”, was not substantiated. The TVC contravened Chapter I.1 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

COMPANY: CL Educate Ltd.
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“61/100 toppers in CLAT '15 are LSTians”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

This is unverified/audited by any third party hence cannot be published. It is fake and shame like all their previous claims.

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant. However, no response was received from the advertiser. The CCC viewed the Website advertisement. In the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim in the Ad, “61/100 toppers in CLAT '15 are LSTians”, was not substantiated. The Website advertisement contravened Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapter I.1 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Gujarat Tea Processors & Packers Ltd
PRODUCT: Wagh Bakri Good Morning Premium Tea

COMPLAINT:

“The Best Blend of Tea in the world”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

This is a misleading an over emphasing statement. Why does the company want to be world’s best, why can’t it be India’s best? And who has given them the world’s best certificate? Any such claim must be substantiated by an asterisk giving details of the company or organization or study, group which has judged their tea as world’s best. Otherwise all such claims should be considered false claims, misleading the consumer to believe in what they say. It is a misleading ad.

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant. However, no response was received from the advertiser. The CCC viewed the print advertisement. In the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim in the Ad, “The Best Blend of Tea in the world”, was not substantiated. The advertisement contravened Chapter I.1 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Hershey India Private Limited
PRODUCT: Sofit Soy Milk

COMPLAINT:

Actor John Abraham has an intense workout. He then coaches young boys in football and later does dangerous stunts himself. He keeps drinking Sofit Soy Milk and asks: Does anyone have energy after all this hard work to sign 300 autographs for his fans? Yes, he does he answers himself. He goes on to say: with vitamins, soy proteins, Omega 3 and healthy energy packed in delicious Sofit Soy Milk. Screen displays the words - vitamins, Soy Proteins, Omega 3, Energy. The actor says the following words (they are also written on the screen): Energy to do more implying that Sofit Soy Milk is the reason for the energy. The claim Energy to do more needs substantiation from independent research studies. Which ingredients of Sofit specifically provide energy as claimed in the TVC? Are there independent studies to prove that Sofit contains vitamins, soy proteins and energy? Are these not available by having a balanced diet? Is the energy due to having Sofit Soy Milk (as the TVC claims) or could it be due to combination of factors like personal health, diet, exercise and healthy lifestyle? The product is being promoted by a celebrity which may further influence the viewer to make product choice based on misleading information.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: NOT UPHELD

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. Advertiser has provided analysis report of all variants of Sofit by NABL. This report gives the energy derived from 100 g Sofit. The claim “energy to do more” is only aimed at additional energy one gets by consuming Sofit to perform more activities. Energy content of a product is arrived at by calculation after knowing the composition of the product for protein, fat and carbohydrates. This complaint was NOT UPHELD. NABL analysis reports on Sofit variants confirms and certifies presence of vitamins, omega 3 and 6 fats and Proteins. Ingredient list on Sofit packs gives in descending order their composition. This complaint was NOT UPHELD. Sofit claims it contains Soy Proteins , vitamins and Omega fatty acids and leaves it to consumers to decide to make a choice and does not claim to be a replacement of balanced diet. This complaint was NOT UPHELD. Depiction of a celebrity in the TVC was not in contravention of the ASCI code. This complaint was NOT UPHELD.

COMPANY: Shree Renuka Sugars Limited
PRODUCT: Madhur Sugar

COMPLAINT:

Ad declares in bold letters- & bitter truth of free (Sale) sugar &, a and four subtitles gives information & 1) Free (Sale) Sugar v/s Madhur sugar, 2) Sulphur-free process, 3) Best uniform quality, natural sweetness and shinning white crystal, 4) Free from hand touch.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Under 1) it is mentioned that free (sale) sugar is mostly processed and purified using sulphur while Madhur Sugar is purified using sulphur-free process and made pure and safe for use. This is a misleading statement because the final product is totally free from any sulphur by both processes, even if it is present, it is in the range of 0.01%. (This information was provided by a sugar Technologist friend) Under 2) disadvantages of sulphur process are given and number of complications that can arise because of sulphur to the human body are described, but when the final product contains no Sulphur & the effects mentioned have no relevance. Under 3) AD clarifies that because Madhur Sugar is manufactured from best quality sugarcane and with best process, the final product is pure, shinning, white, free from moisture and easily soluble. The same holds good for free (sale) sugar available in the market. Under 4) AD says the product is untouched by hand, because it is manufactured by automatic process, including packaging, storage and transportation and uses international standards, hence product is untouched by hand. Most of the free (sale) sugar is manufactured by modern automatic process and Madhur Sugar cannot seek any advantage or exception as & untouched by hand. & 2) AD shows below a pack of Madhur Sugar in bold letters-Pure, healthy, sulphur-free process sugar. For consumers, it makes little difference which process is used in manufacture, so long as the final product available in the market for his consumption is free of sulphur and fit for human consumption, showing superiority because of process is only fooling the consumers because final product is free from sulphur. 3) When company Shree Renuka Sugars gave its Ad in Media, I had written a letter to them, seeking clarifications on their claims. The letter is still unanswered.Advertiser seek undue advantage of such false and misleading claims, fooling the consumers to show superiority of their product, when in fact, there is no such superiority at all. Both the products have the same purity when analyzed in any testing laboratory.

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. Advertiser has not provided data to show that loose sugar has sulphur. The CCC concluded that the claims in the Ad, “Free (Sale) Sugar v/s Madhur sugar”, “Sulphur-free process”, “Best uniform quality, natural sweetness and shinning white crystal”, “Free from hand touch”, were not substantiated with supporting comparative data versus sugar sold loose, and the claims were misleading by implication and exaggeration. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Ltd
PRODUCT: Boost

COMPLAINT:

In a television commercial - A Cycling race. A man struggles with respiratory system.... Advt says Boost helps improving the respiratory system... A Foot Note Says "proven in children aged 7 - 11"..... But Adult Actors shown How Boost helps improving respiratory system? Why Adults Are Acting if it is meant for 7-11 years age? Should Not the adult actors be penalized for this? Is not there a screening mechanism for these television commercials and any type of Advertisement?

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

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 disclaimer in the TVC is about the scientific study published in a peer reviewed scientific journal and are proven for the age group of 7-11 years. This evidence is acceptable on scientific basis. However, the TVC is misleading by showing adult players demonstrating the increase in stamina. The CCC concluded that the visual depicted in the TVC read in conjunction with the disclaimer, is misleading and contravened Chapter I.4 of the Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

COMPANY: Rabiya Industrial Training Institute
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“100% Job”, “The One and Only One Accredited Learning Center in State of Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal & Jharkhand”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC concluded that the claims in the Ad, “100% Job”, “The One and Only One Accredited Learning Center in State of Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal & Jharkhand”, were not substantiated. The Ad contravened Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapter I.1 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Global Inc Training Centre
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

1. Assured C.T.C. Rs.14K to Rs.22K per Month 2. 100% Guaranteed Placement under Money Bank Scheme

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC concluded that the claims in the Ad, “Assured C.T.C. Rs.14K to Rs.22K per Month”, “100% Guaranteed Placement under Money Bank Scheme”, were not substantiated adequately with supporting data. The Ad contravened Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapter I.1 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Thangavelu Engineering College
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“Assured 100% Placement”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC concluded that the claim in the Ad, “Assured 100% Placement”, was not substantiated. The Ad contravened Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapter I.1 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Matsyafed Chitone
PRODUCT: Anti Fat Formula

COMPLAINT:

1. Chitone - Anti - Fat Formula - Chitosan Is your Safest Bet Against Fat. And It's Proven 2. Presenting Chitone- A natural chitosan product proven to reduce fat, by absorbing the fat content in your diet.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

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 concluded that – Claims, “Chitone - Anti - Fat Formula”, “Presenting Chitone- A natural chitosan product proven to reduce fat, by absorbing the fat content in your diet”, were substantiated with technical data. This complaint was NOT UPHELD. Claim, “Chitosan Is your Safest Bet Against Fat. And It's Proven”, was not substantiated and contravened Chapter I.1 of the Code. This complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: HB Care 24
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

Gain - reduce weight - No Exercise - No Medicine - No Dieting Reduce 2 inches in just 1 hour sitting Stop hairfall in 5 days

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC concluded that the claims in the Ad, “Gain - reduce weight - No Exercise - No Medicine - No Dieting”, “Reduce 2 inches in just 1 hour sitting”, “Stop hairfall in 5 days”, were not substantiated. The advertisement contravened Chapter I.1 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Indian Institute of Medical Representative Private Limited
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“100% Job Guarantee 30-90 Days”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC concluded that the claim in the Ad, “100% Job Guarantee 30-90 Days”, was not substantiated. The Ad contravened Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapter I.1 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: GCS Institute of Computer Technology
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“100% Placement”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC concluded that the claim in the Ad, “100% Placement”, was not substantiated. The Ad contravened Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapter I.1 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Rama Naidu Film School
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“100% Placement Record”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC concluded that the claim in the Ad, “100% Placement Record”, was not substantiated adequately. The Ad contravened Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapter I.1 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Patel Computers
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“Get 100% employment”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC concluded that the claim in the Ad, “Get 100% employment”, was not substantiated. The Ad contravened Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapter I.1 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Red & White Multimedia Education
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“100% Job Placement”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC concluded that the claim in the Ad, “100% Job Placement”, was not substantiated. The Ad contravened Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapter I.1 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: The English Square
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“Learn to speak fluent English in just 100 hours with 100% Guarantee.”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC concluded that the claim in the Ad, “Learn to speak fluent English in just 100 hours with 100% Guarantee”, was not substantiated. The Ad contravened Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapter I.1 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Brilliant Tutorials
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“India's No. 1 IIT-JEE (Engineering) & Medical Entrance Coaching Centre.”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC concluded that the claim in the Ad, “India's No. 1 IIT-JEE (Engineering) & Medical Entrance Coaching Centre”, was not substantiated. The Ad contravened Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapter I.1 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Emami Limited
PRODUCT: Emami 7 Oil in One

COMPLAINT:

“With the Magic of 7 Oils Hairfall is reduced from 100 to upto 4.”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

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. Advertiser has provided a third party (TRI Princeton USA) test report where, using an instrumental technique, use of the oil on damaged hair has shown statistically significant reduction of hair fall from about 52 to 2 (approximately 100 to 4 ratio), and for non-damaged hair from 9 to 2. The CCC concluded that in the context of statement in the advertisement “Everyday you lose up to 100 hair strands as regular hair fall But don’t lose heart”, the claim, “With the Magic of 7 Oils Hairfall is reduced from 100 to upto 4”, is misleading by ambiguity. Also the reduction from 100 to 4 applies only hair fall due to breakage and that, too, applicable to damaged hair, and not hair that is cared for. The advertisement contravened Chapter I.4 of the Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Shree Venkateshwara Hi-Tech Engineering College
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“100% Placement.”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC concluded that the claim in the Ad, “100% Placement”, was not substantiated. The Ad contravened Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapter I.1 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Shri Guru Ram Rai Institute of Technology & Science
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“100% Placements.”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC concluded that the claim in the Ad, “100% Placements”, was not substantiated. The Ad contravened Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapter I.1 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Career Master
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“No.1 CA Academy.”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC concluded that the claim in the Ad, “No.1 CA Academy”, was not substantiated. The Ad contravened Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapter I.1 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: OPTM Health Care Private Limited
PRODUCT: Varco Therapeutic Oil

COMPLAINT:

1. Varicose veins heal with Varco. 2. Varco, the revolutionary organic bio-energetic phyto oil from the house of OPTM, is an effective solution to varicose veins, without surgery. 3. Varco Blue Vein Remover, Therapeutic Phyto Oil

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

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 concluded that – Claim, “Varicose Veins heal with Varco”, is not clinically validated. Claim, “Varco, the revolutionary organic bio-energetic phyto oil, is an effective solution to varicose veins, without surgery”, is not substantiated. Claim, “Varco Blue vein remover Therapeutic Phyto Oil” is not adequately substantiated. Specific to the claims related to treatment of varicose veins (a condition referred in Schedule J of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act) is in Breach of the law as it violated The Drugs & Cosmetics Rule 106. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and III.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Shiseido India
PRODUCT: Za True White Day Cream

COMPLAINT:

1. SPF 20 PA++ 2. 94% Improvement in Skin Clarity*, More Glowing & Radiant Skin* 3. 100% Improvement in Skin Tone*, Reduction of Spots & Pigmentation* 4. Now see results in just 7 days!*

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC concluded that the claim in the Ad, “SPF 20 PA++” was not substantiated. The claims “94% Improvement in Skin Clarity*, More Glowing & Radiant Skin*”, “100% Improvement in Skin Tone*, Reduction of Spots & Pigmentation*”, “Now see results in just 7 days!*”, were based on perception study among a small sample size of 35 based on their self assessment. There was no objective parameters to measure the claimed improvement. The claims were inadequately substantiated. The advertisement contravened Chapter I.1 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: BSE Institute Limited
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“Become A Professional Banker In Just 2 Months.”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

the print advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC concluded that the Ad headline, “Become A Professional Banker In Just 2 Months”, is misleading by ambiguity, as it is offering a “Professional banking program” conducted internally and the jobs being offered were inclusive of basic functions such as Welcome Desk. The Ad contravened Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapter I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Capital Infosys Institute of Hotel Management & Tourism
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“100% Job Placement Guaranteed with Minimum 10,000+ Salary.”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC concluded that the claim in the Ad, “100% Job Placement Guaranteed with Minimum 10,000+ Salary”, was not substantiated. The Ad contravened Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapter I.1 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 
 

Complaint to
WhatsApp
DID YOU KNOW?

Developed by Wishtree Technologies LLP