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

Select Month :

 
ASCI Recommendations
 

COMPANY: CL Educate Ltd
PRODUCT: Career Launcher

COMPLAINT:

Complaint 1 - CL claims that their test series is No.1 CAT test series program. It also says Best rated test series by students true percentile predictor enabled test series & Most recommended test series. They have also provided a direct comparison of their products / deliverable with that of T.I.M.E.'s. Their claims of No.1 CAT test series program and Best rates test series by students are based on some online survey of 1800+ students m-audited by third party. As there is no clarity or detailed listing of survey has been provided whether it was done among their own students or general aspirants. The outcome of this survey may be biased as it may have been done only among their own students! They should be asked to substantiate their claims of -No.1 CAT test series program, Best rated test series by students, true percentile predictor enabled test series with necessary support and genuine comparative data of other institutes/competition. There is no evidence these claims and those claims may be misleading. Just stating audited by 3rd party does not justify the same. The response of the above hidden survey is also misleading and has been deliberately done to tamper/damage TIME's brand image among CAT aspirants. There is no mention of the source of the direct comparison of their offerings with that of TIME's.” Complaint 2 - CL claims The No.1 CAT Test Series Program, The best rated Test series program, True percentile predictor and Most recommended test series. They have also done a direct comparison of their product with that of their competition TIME. All these claims and comparison have been done based on some mysterious online survey and for which no data is available publicly. They are just using the phrase audited by third party. These are fake and unsubstantiated claims. CL has been advertising it from past 6,7 months even though they could not substantiate these false claims in past. They are misguiding thousands of CAT/MBA aspirants with these fake claims and also trying to damage the reputation of TIME, a leading CAT training institute and CL competition

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The advertiser representatives were given personal hearing by ASCI on 24th September 2015. The CCC viewed the Website advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response for Review. Advertiser has submitted survey methodology data that has sought feedback about how close the mock test was with the actual CAT exam. However, no data was provided on parameters comparing versus other similar institutes / test series before arriving at the specific claims in the advertisement. The CCC concluded that the claims in the Ad, “CAT Test Series – The No.1 Cat Test Series Program”, “Most recommended test series”, “Rated the best by students”, “True percentile predictor”, were not substantiated adequately. The Website advertisement contravened Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapter I.1 of the ASCI Code. The decision of complaint being Upheld stands on Review.

 

COMPANY: Novartis India Limited
PRODUCT: Otrivin Nasal Spray

COMPLAINT:

Xylometazoline abuse by general public can cause Atrophic Rhinitis. Otrivin shouldn't be advertised. If so with a caution saying not be used for more than 3 days.

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. Otrivin is an OTC product containing Xylometazoline which could cause Atrophic Rhinitis if not used as directed. Aggressive advertising without providing information about the caution to be followed can promote indiscriminate use in general public. The CCC noted that the package insert of the product has necessary caution statements; however, reference to any usage indication is absent in the advertisement. Based on this opinion, the CCC concluded that in the absence of a disclaimer, the TVC shows an unsafe practice without justifiable reason and encourages negligence. The TVC contravened Chapter III.3 of the Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

COMPANY: Apollo Pharmacy (Free home delivery service)
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

Misleading newspaper insertion. They are not providing home delivery of medicine after 8pm and not giving if delivery amount in less than 500

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 Ad – pamphlet, and concluded that the claim, “Free Home delivery service”, is misleading by omission of a disclaimer qualifying the conditions under which the claim is tenable. The Ad – pamphlet contravened Chapter I.4 of the Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Polycab Wires Pvt Ltd
PRODUCT: Polycab Wires and Cables

COMPLAINT:

Complaint no.1 “This refers to advertisement of the above brand in TV, featuring a celebrity (Paresh Rawal). A link to this ad is given below. http://www.exchange4media.com/videos/advertising.aspx?id=261 The advertisement makes a dubious claim of 25 % saving in power. A cable has two principal properties, namely insulation and conduction. Insulation has to withstand temperature and withstand the rated insulation voltage without resulting in breakdown. The conduction property is to permit passage of electric current and is characterized by low electric resistance. The only way it can influence power consumption is by having a high electric resistance. A cable which can reduce power consumption by 25 % will be having an unacceptable voltage drop and will be running hot, possibly causing a fire hazard. Therefore attributing 25% power saving is a misleading claim and it should be withdrawn.” Complaint no.2 “Mr Paresh Rawal emphasizes that people will continue to waste energy. They will not change their habits either. hence he has replaced his house wiring with Polycab wires. The replacement of house wiring with polycab wires ensures 25% saving. It is the equipment , TV, AC or oven - which consumes power - when it's supply is ON. The energy consumption depends on energy efficiency of the equipment, the way it is operated and maintained and not on cables. Cables / wires only carry required energy to the equipment. Hence the claim in the advertisement is completely baseless.” Complaint no.3 Advertisement was about that polycab wires are ensuring 25% electricity saving on their Copper Flexible Wires. “I have seen a polycab ad, in which they are saying that there is saving of 25% electricity, if we use polycab wires. We are in the trade of electrical items and unable to understand how a cable can save electricity. Technically if we use best possible copper (Conductor) then only current carrying capacity can be increased and heat generation can be reduced but there will not be impact of electricity saving 25%. We request you to please inform us "HOW they are claiming electricity saving with some technical support?"” Complaint no.4 “Recently i saw polycab ad on youtube for wires & cable claming 25% energy saving, i m planning to buy for my house but when i ask to dealer shop about 25% saving, he said this is only for advertising, my feeling is that this type of ad is cheating with consumers.” Complaint no.5 Polycab tv commercial Save kari safe raho “Recently i saw polycab ad for wires & cable claming 25% energy saving, i m planning to buy for my house but when i ask to dealer shop about 25% saving, he said this is only for advertising, my feeling is that this ad is cheating common man.” Complaint no.6 polycab"connection bachat ka" tvc on you tube. “Polycab add Mr. Paresh Rawal is acting and claiming that there is 25% electricity saving on polycab wire. As far as my knowledge there no such wire which can help save 25% electricity, since i am dealer of wires in brand like Greatwhite, Kundan Havells etc. this ad seems misleading, it should be studied and before releasing the ad it should be proved whether practically polycab wires save 25% electricity and in which manner, as it not clear. I feel this is wrong information and need to be corrected” Complaint no.7 “Recently i saw polycab ad in social media & we found that for wires & cable claming 25% energy saving, it is not correct might be, pl make sure is this true so that I m planning to buy wire for my house it will help me, kindly look at this” Complaint no.8 “25% Electricity Saving on Usage of Polycab wires Ad seen on: Youtube Complaint: Sir, recently I have seen one ad of a wire co. � Polycab �, the company which we considered a good company but after seeing their ad where they are claiming 25% electricity saving looks like a false statement and misguiding the society. We are not expecting such false commitment from a reputed company like Polycab. We request you to please look into the matter and inform us about the reason of their statement and it should be proved whether polycab wires save 25% electricity and HOW??? Their ad should be stopped immediately till that time. Objections: Please substantiate the claim with necessary support data. Please find the youtube link of the aforesaid ad- https://youtu.be/yPoC207cy6U”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The advertiser representatives were given personal hearing by ASCI on 1st October 2015. The claim support data was reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. The CCC viewed the TVC and considered the Advertiser’s response as well as opinion of the Technical expert presented at the meeting. The claim, “25% power saving” relates to the better quality of copper used in the cables as compared to "ordinary" cables so that the conductance of these cables is better (or alternatively, their resistance is lower). The test report submitted by the advertiser (from ELCA laboratories) shows that the “resistance” of the "ordinary" cable (specimens B to F) is at least 30% or more than that of the Polycab wire (specimen A). Hence the transmission losses are of the same order. The 25% power saving refers to what would be saved in the transmission loss if Polycab wires of lower resistance were to be used instead of "ordinary" wires. However, Polycab wires will not lower the power consumption by appliances depicted in the TVC such as Air Conditioner etc by 25% but will reduce the transmission losses in the wires by 25%. The absolute transmission losses themselves are small compared to what an appliance consumes. The TVC presents various characters keeping electrical appliances switched on and wasting electricity. The protagonist highlights this problem and suggests Polycab wires as a solution claiming savings of 25%. However, by changing the wiring, the advertiser is referring to transmission losses and this cannot be equates to “electricity saving” as a consumer would believe by watching the TVC. The main theme of the TVC is focusing on “electricity saving by switching off running appliances” and does not refer to the “transmission losses”. The CCC concluded that the claim, “25% power saving” ("Pachis percent bijli ki bachat") is misleading by implication (i.e. it implies that your electricity bill will be less). The TVC contravened Chapter I.4 of the Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

2.

COMPANY: Bharti Airtel Ltd
PRODUCT: Airtel 4G

COMPLAINT:

Claims objected to 1st complaint-“The advertisement of Airtel 4G “claims that it is the fastest network ever.” 2nd complaint- “Airtel has released ads on 4G where they challenge that "if your network is faster, we will pay your mobile bills for life" anyone.” 3rd complaint- “The advertisement has a girl carrying a mobile phone with the words '4G' written in it. The headline in bubble above this image reads as below 'THE AIRTEL CHALLENGE' 'THIS IS THE FASTEST NETWORK EVER” 4th complaint- AIRTELCHALLENGE If your network is faster, we will pay your mobile bills for life

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

1st objection- “Absolutely no substantiation ever Movie size is variable and dependent on compression used. Album size is dependent on size of pictures & number of pictures. As of 9:37 AM on 7th April, the website link airtel.in/4g has no T&C of the challenge or no details of the claim”. 2nd objection- “There is no way to opt for this challenge. I want to challenge them as I have their 4 G connection and I more connection. My other connection is much faster than Airtel 4G” 3rd objection- “The claim Airtel is making in these ads is Fastest Network Ever which I find to be not only misleading but also very ambiguous. They have not given any substantial proof to back this claim of theirs: They have not mentioned any speed for their fast network. The claim makes one believe that they are the fastest network ever in the country. The claim makes one believe that they are the fastest network ever in the country, which isn’t the case because Airtel 4G is not present in all telecom circles.” 4th objection- “AIRTEL is selling 2G speed on the name of 4G speed. Attached the screenshot from their JULY'15 bill by speed. Only 4% connectivity was of 3G/4G.If you require can provide AIRTEL bill.”

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The advertiser representatives were given personal hearing by ASCI. The claim support data provided for Review was reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. The CCC viewed the print advertisement, TVC, Hoarding, website advertisement, and considered the Advertiser’s response for Review as well as the opinion of the Technical expert presented at the meeting. Currently Airtel is the only 4G provider in India, and 4G offers better services than old generation cellular systems. In particular, when the 4G signal strength available at a location that can be qualified as a `good LTE connection' (received powers greater than 90dBm), the speeds offered are higher than other networks (3G). For claims, “The Airtel Challenge - This is the fastest network ever”, “Take the 4G challenge. If your network is faster, we will pay your bills for life” it is noticed that similar challenges (i.e. if your network is faster...) can be offered by any service provider where the rest of the providers have feeble signal strengths. It is clear that the claims made in the advertisement are location dependent. Hence disclaimers to elaborate this aspect are necessary to qualify the claim of being `the fastest'. The CCC concluded that, in the absence of appropriate disclaimers, the claims made in the advertisements that “Airtel 4G is the fastest network ever” and “If your network is faster, we will pay your mobile bills for life”, are misleading by omission. The advertisement contravened Chapter 1.4 of the ASCI Code. This decision of the complaint being Upheld stands on Review. The advertisement contains claims like “Download a movie in 3 minutes flat”, “upload a holiday album in just 1 minute”. These have been elaborated upon as per terms and conditions specified in the Website. Reference to this is available in the print communication. This complaint was Not Upheld on Review.

COMPANY: Shree Sant Kripa Appliances Pvt. Ltd.
PRODUCT: Syska LED

COMPLAINT:

“Syska LED saves 70% power”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

The advertisement shows actor Irfran Khan and his sister in a room. Sister says - Bhaiya yeh bulb badalna padega. To this Irfan Khan says - I told you to use Syska LED Lamp which saves 70% power and fits in the same socket. There is no proof of 70% power saving. Just because LED lamps saves energy, calling 70% power saving is too much. It must be substantiated or proved. Ordinary wired bulb of 4010 costs Rs.10/- to Rs.12/- and the Syska LED bulb or lamp costs Rs. 150/-. An ordinary consumer would always prefer the cheaper option, the Rs. 10/- bulb. But only because there is Rs.70/- saving in power, he may be tempted to think of Syska LED Lamps, if they can prove cheaper in long run. So any claim has to be either proved or substantiated.

RECOMMENDATION: NOT UPHELD

The advertiser representatives were given personal hearing by ASCI. The claim support data provided for Review 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 the claim in the TVC, “Syska LED saves 70% power”, was substantiated. The decision is Not Upheld on Review.

COMPANY: Vishnu Pouch Packaging Pvt Ltd
PRODUCT: Vimal Pan Masala

COMPLAINT:

The TVC shows famous film actor Mr. Ajay Devgn having Vimal Pan Masala. He then plays Holi with saffron (kesar) and the entire city enjoys; saffron rain. In the end, Devgn says in the voice over Vimal Pan Masala. Daane Daane Mein Kesar ka Dum. The following supers are then displayed; Pan Masala Chabana Swathya ke liye Haanikaarak hai; Not for minors; 0% Tobacco; and no added nicotine It is shocking that a celebrity like Mr. Ajay Devgn is promoting and endorsing pan masala, a product known to be harmful to health. He has an image of an upright, honest and healthy person. The youth and children emulate his actions and follow what he does or says. Claiming that it has the goodness of saffron will make a wrong impression on the minds of gullible viewers and is grossly misleading. a. Mr. Ajay Devgn, a celebrity is endorsing a product which will only lure to the youth of this country to consumer such hazardous product and lead to an unhealthy nation. b. Mr. Ajay Devgn as a celebrity has a moral responsibility not to lead today’s youth to such hazardous habits. c. As a celebrity he must be aware about the rising cases of oral cancer. Does he have a moral responsibility or not? d. Does Mr. Ajay Devgn or his family/friends consume this; Kesar; from Vimal Pan Masala? If yes, how much? 2. Because this is a harmful product, there is a statutory warning which states; Pan Masala chabana Swathya ke liye Haanikaarak hai ;. If the product requires a health warning, why is it promoted by a celebrity like Mr. Ajay Devgn? 3. Daane Daane Mein Kesar ka Dum; implies that the product is full of saffron. What is the proportion of saffron in each pack? Are there independent test reports to substantiate the quality and quantity of saffron in the product? Please comment. 4. What are the other ingredients of Vimal Pan Masala? How are they harmful to health? This is in context of the health warning &;Pan Masala Chabana Swathya ke liye Haanikaarak hai;. 5. This TVC is advertising pan masala highlighting kesar. This is like surrogate advertising and may lead the general public to believe that it is healthy to consume pan masala. 6. 0% Tobacco; no added nicotine; need substantiation from independent studies. Action to be taken: We propose immediate withdrawal of the advertisement.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The CCC viewed the TVC and considered the Advertiser’s response for Review. The advertiser argues that TVC depicts consumers celebrating with saffron as saffron is one of the product content. Saffron flavor is the product USP and saffron when mixed creates a uniform flavor and creativity has been used to make the ad without exceeding limits. However, Advertiser did not submit a sample of the product nor evidence of FSSAI approval indicating that Saffron is one of the ingredient of their product. The quantity of saffron in the product was not disclosed by the advertiser. The self-declaration provided by the advertiser stating that saffron is one of the main ingredients was not considered to be adequate given that its presence in the product has been questioned by the complainant. The advertiser’s declaration also states that the product has added flavours and it was not specified if this flavor is saffron flavor. The CCC concluded that the visual presentation in the TVC showing the celebrity playing Holi with saffron (kesar) and the entire city enjoying the saffron rain, is grossly misleading by exaggeration. These visuals seen in conjunction with the voiceover claim of, “Daane Daane Mein Kesar ka Dum”, implies that the product has significant quantity of saffron as an ingredient, were considered to be misleading by implication. The claim, “Daane Daane Mein Kesar ka Dum”, was not substantiated with lab test reports confirming saffron content. The TVC contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the Code. Part of the supers in the TVC (“Not for minors. 0% Tobacco, No added Nicotine”) were not in the same language as the voice over of the TVC. This contravened the ASCI Guidelines on Supers. This decision of complaint being Upheld stands on Review. The claims, "0% Tobacco, no added nicotine" were not false as the advertiser provided lab testing report as support data. This complaint was Not Upheld on Review.

COMPANY: Sanjay Baljiwan
PRODUCT: Ayurvedic Pharmacy Pvt Ltd - Baljeevan Ghuti +

COMPLAINT:

“Continuous service for the last 102 years”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

As per the Print Advertisement of Baljeevan Ghuthi + which appeared in Amar Ujala (bareli edition), on 23 August,2015 says they are in this business for the last 102 years but when I bought Baljeevan Ghuthi it was mention they have acquired their license in year 2013 then how come they are serving customer for 102 years. It is also mention in their Advertisement please buy original product with old packaging with their trademark sign but when I checked in the market they don’t have any old packaging and the + sign was so small that seems to be duplicate.. With this Print Advertisement they are misleading the customers because this tonic is only meant for new born babies and even the Government is spending huge amount of money in order to control the mortality rate of new born babies. When I spoke to Bareli and shahjahanpur Authorised Sellers even they said this kind of advertisement are misleading and provided me another Ghuthi hence I am writing this letter

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, “Continuous service for the last 102 years”, was not substantiated. The advertisement contravened Chapter I.1 of the Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Elegance Cosmetic and Health Care Centre
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“Get rid of Baldness in just one hour” Visuals are misleading.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

The claim related to baldness (a condition referred in Schedule J of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act) was 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 Code. It’s a misleading advertisement .continuously giving ads for curing baldness in one hour

RECOMMENDATION: NOT UPHELD

The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC concluded that the claim, “Get rid of Baldness in just one hour”, and the before/after visual is not misleading, as the advertiser is not claiming permanent solution for Baldness but is offering hair weaving / hair patch services. The complaint was NOT UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Nirmal One Spirit – Nirmal Builders
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“Will earn 12% ROI per annum”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

The nirmal builder in his project call one sprit is calming a return on investment of 12% per annum which is misleading. Also he is not having any disclaimer or justification to substantiate this claim. Need to stop ASAP as this is misleading. A builder claiming about an ROI of 12% is misleading. This claim is neither back with any past data or calculation.

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The CCC viewed the Ad- Hoarding and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC concluded that the claim, “Will earn 12% ROI per annum”, is misleading by omission of a disclaimer qualifying the conditions under which the claim is tenable, and also that the rate of 12% is for a period of one year on down payment. The claim of “ROI” was considered to be false. The Ad – Hoarding contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Berger Paints India Limited
PRODUCT: Berger Paints

COMPLAINT:

In Berger paint advertisement Indian lady lightning lamps while performing pooja, she pours oil in lamps so oil from lamps overflowed on walls, background wordings says bhartiya sanskar diwaro par....... This TV commercial depict that Indian culture or Bhartiya sanskar is inferior than other parts of world because we worship & lightning lamp & spillage of oil on wall is bhartiya sanskar, means we deliberately spoiling our home & walls that is our culture ,so this derogatory remarks by multinational is not pardonable.

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 derogatory of Indian culture. The wordings, “bhartiya sanskar diwaro par.......” is unlikely to create grave or widespread offence. The complaint was NOT UPHELD.

COMPANY: Dr. Ved Vyas Mishra (Treatment for Various ailments)
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

The Advertisement claims guaranteed cure by a homeopathy doctor for various ailments”. The textbooks and journals of homeopathy based on which practice of homeopathy is run does not assure guaranteed cure, so how a practitioner of such therapy guarantee a cure. It is a misleading advertisement for public. Further the ethical rules of homeopathic council for its registered homeopathic doctors does not allow a doctor to advertise about his practice in such a manner.

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 Ad, “Complete safe treatment through Homeopathy medicine”, “guaranteed treatment through Homeopathic medicines for Piles, Skin, Impotency, Infertility, Kidney stone, Migraine, Blood Pressure, Hair falling, Pimples, Gas acidity, weight loss etc”, were not substantiated. Specific to the claims related to guaranteed treatment for impotency, infertility, kidney stone, blood pressure, the Ad is in Breach of the law as it violated The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act. Also, specific to the claim related to guaranteed treatment 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. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and III.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Bharti Airtel Ltd
PRODUCT: Airtel 4G

COMPLAINT:

Airtel came out with an Advertisement to promote their 4g network. Advertisement goes around in public randomly choosing someone to offer a free lifetime mobile when the chosen public wins the challenge. Challenge is varying to upload some photos, download movies etc. The advertisement ends showing Airtel 4g winning the challenge. In this advertisement, Airtel is comparing other networks with their 4g network. But this comparison in not a like for like comparison (comparing orange to an apple). We know 4g is faster when compared to 2g, 3G networks. But this is not mentioned nowhere in the advert. This misleads the consumers to think Airtel 4g is faster to other 4g networks.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: NOT UPHELD

The CCC viewed the TVC and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC noted that the complainant agrees that 4G is faster than 3G or 2G but has objections to comparison among 4G, 3G and 2G. The CCC concluded that the comparison of Airtel’s 4G LTE network with other network is not false and as this technology is being introduced in India, the comparison is not objectionable. The TVC also directs the viewers’ attention to the detailed terms and conditions on Airtel’s website at Airtel.in/4G. The complaint was NOT UPHELD.

COMPANY: Rao Edusolutions Pvt Ltd
PRODUCT: Rao IIT Academy

COMPLAINT:

1. India's most dominating results in JEE Advanced 2015 2. 8 out every 10 RIITians qualify in MH-CET 3. A graph is mentioned which gives data of no of students selected from Mumbai

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Many claims are being made without any validation which is a clear violation of the standard of codes prescribed by ASCI

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC concluded that the claims in the Ad, “India's most dominating results in JEE Advanced 2015”, “8 out every 10 RIITians qualify in MH-CET”, “Number of students selected from Mumbai” (graph showing year of JEE Advanced), were not substantiated with supporting data. The 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: Lenskart.com
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“Lenskart give you first frame for free”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

The ad said that it gives first frame for free but when we ordered they said it only for home trial, they cheated us by showing wrong information and ask for money to buy the selected frame.

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 TVC. In the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim in the TVC, “Lenskart give you first frame for free”, is false and misleading. The TVC contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

COMPANY: Hamdard Laboratories
PRODUCT: Hamdard Safi

COMPLAINT:

It’s an Advertisement for blood purifier SAFI .It starts with the tagline #Ihateyoumom, and goes on to describe a young girl's resentment of her mother's good looks and popularity. The advertisement has a tag line #Ihateyoumom .It describes a daughter's jealousy towards her mother and how she overcomes feelings of inferiority after using SAFI. There is a teaser TVC with the same line repeated ad nauseum "Ihateyoumom" The print advertisement is sending out a very strong subliminal message to teenaged girls that looks are everything, and that they are right in resenting their mothers' popularity. It is wrong at various levels. It’s psychologically damaging, and seems to suggest that jealousy based on looks is normal among teenaged girls. A complex psychological issue like a mother daughter relationship should not be trivialized in this manner.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: NOT UPHELD

The CCC viewed the teaser TVC and the print advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC concluded that the tagline, “#IHATEUMOM” is a creative expression. The print advertisement and TVC is not likely to cause grave or widespread offence. The complaint was NOT UPHELD.

COMPANY: Bharti Airtel Ltd
PRODUCT: Airtel-4G

COMPLAINT:

“Airtel Challenge, yehi hai sabse tez network”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

The hoarding shows a girl holding a mobile phone. The tag line of the ad says "Airtel Challenge, yehi hai sabse tez network". The ad does not carry any source from which this claim is derived from. It does not even specify whether the services the claim is being made for are 3G or 4G. This ad is a gross violation of the ASCI code as it misrepresents and misleads the customers. No source for substantiation of the claim is given that Airtel is the fastest network. Also, a layman can be misled to believe that the services being advertised are 2G or 3G services. How can Airtel claim that theirs is the fastest network? Have they substantiated their claim by any TRAI report or any survey? This is just a way of fooling the customers who would be led into believing that they should swith to Airtel even for 2G or 3G services.

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The CCC viewed the Ad – Hoarding and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC concluded that the claim, “Airtel Challenge, yehi hai sabse tez network”, is misleading by omission that the service claimed is for Airtel 4G. The Ad – hoarding contravened Chapter I.4 of the Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Glamour World Ayurvedic Co Pvt Ltd
PRODUCT: Rocket Capsules

COMPLAINT:

With the magic of Rocket anyone can stand up today • One would feel the effect in three days. • Men and women can enjoy the benefits of this medicine till seventy years of age. Visual implies that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure.

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, “With the magic of Rocket anyone can stand up today”, “One would feel the effect in three days”, “Men and women can enjoy the benefits of this medicine till seventy years of age”, were not substantiated with product efficacy data or approval from the licensing authority. Also, the Ad claims read in conjunction with the Ad visual implies that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure, which 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: Byju Classes (GRE Coaching)
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

1. Why is success guaranteed in GRE with Mumbai's top GRE coaching classes - BYJU'S classes? 2. 60 sec is what you need to crack any verbal question using our Mathematical Approach. 3. Best Teacher & comprehensive course content 4. 70% of our students cross 320 in GRE with our courses.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

“Claim 1: Why is success guaranteed in GRE with Mumbai's top GRE coaching classes - BYJU'S classes? By way of that question, two things are implied: A. Success is guaranteed B. Mumbai's top GRE coaching class Both are misleading claims. Claim 2: 60 sec is what you need to crack any verbal question using our Mathematical Approach.- It is being claimed that a certain approach will help solve ANY verbal question in GRE in 60 sec. This is a fact based claim. Hence, there must be evidence to back this claim. Claim 3: Best Teacher – Best Teacher as a claim is plainly wrong. There are millions of teachers in this country. How can one claim that they are the best teacher. Claim 4: 70% of our students cross 320 in GRE with our courses. The official website of GRE gives a score to Percentile table http://www.ets.org/s/gre/pdf/gre_guide_table1a.pdf 320 score is around the 85th percentile. Someone scoring above 320 would be the top 15% of all the GRE test takers across the world. So, this claim - 70% of the students have got more than 320 is a tall claim. This needs to be substantiated.”

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/internet advertisement. In the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claims in the Ad, “Why is success guaranteed in GRE with Mumbai's top GRE coaching classes - BYJU'S classes?”, “60 sec is what you need to crack any verbal question using our Mathematical Approach”, “Best Teacher & comprehensive course content”, “70% of our students cross 320 in GRE with our courses”, were not substantiated. The website 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: Byju Classes (CAT Coaching)
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

1. “Bell the CAT with India's No.1 CAT Trainers” 2. “2000 students attend BYJU's Classes together in a single batch in single center – making it India's Biggest Classroom” 3. “Byju Raveendran serial CAT topper & No. 1 trainer for the CAT”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

In the online campaign page of Byju Classes, there are some claims that are made which is misleading. 1. “Bell the CAT with India's No.1 CAT Trainers” What does a No. 1 CAT trainer mean? 2. “2000 students attend BYJU's Classes together in a single batch in single center – making it India's Biggest Classroom”. On what basis does the company claim that no other institutes have trained 2000 students in one classroom. 3. Byju Raveendran makes a claim that he is the no. 1 trainer for the CAT. He also makes a claim in the ad that he is a serial CAT topper. The first one simply cannot be substantiated, the second one is not validated.

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

website/internet advertisement. In the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claims in the Ad, “Bell the CAT with India's No.1 CAT Trainers”, “2000 students attend BYJU's Classes together in a single batch in single center – making it India's Biggest Classroom”, “Byju Raveendran serial CAT topper & No. 1 trainer for the CAT”, were not substantiated. The website 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: Exam Victor- (Online MBA Entrance Coaching)
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

1. India’s Finest Online MBA Entrance Coaching. Period. 2. The Best Faculty-Each lecture, every problem and each video is painstakingly hand-crafted by Vivek, an alumnus of IIT Bombay and IIM Ahmedabad. So you can rest assured that your study material is of the highest quality 3. Individual Attention-Making you an Exam Victor is our only priority. We leverage the best technology and cutting-edge analytics to closely follow your progress and provide you timely feedback 4. How is learning online with ExamVictor better? a. Most classes employ regular graduates of variable quality

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

“There are many claims made on the website http: //examvictor.com/ 1: India’s Finest Online MBA Entrance Coaching. Period. First - a superlative claim is made. Second - then says 'Period.' That would mean no question should be asked on the authenticity of that claim. 2. So you can rest assured that your study material is of the highest quality. Another superlative claim. First - how can quality be measured. Second - how can someone claim that their content has the HIGHEST quality? 3. We leverage the best technology and cutting-edge analytics to closely follow your progress and provide you timely feedback. Another superlative claim. BEST technology. What is the best technology for e-learning. Comparison chart "How is learning online with ExamVictor better?" 4. There is a comparisons chart on the website. How is learning online with ExamVictor better? a. Most classes employ regular graduates of variable quality First - apple has to be compared against apple. The question mentioned is: How is learning online with ExamVictor better? For answer to that question, another online programs should be compared and not physical classroom. Second - comparisons should be fact-based. This is not. 1. Most classes employ regular graduates of variable quality How has this claim arrived at? That most classes' faculty members are 'regular graduate'. Also, it is not necessary that an IIM graduate is a better teacher than a 'regular' graduate. That is condescension. Every other claims are similar. Some random things written without any objectivity.”

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/internet advertisement. In the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claims in the Ad, “India’s Finest Online MBA Entrance Coaching. Period”, “The Best Faculty-Each lecture, every problem and each video is painstakingly hand-crafted by Vivek, an alumnus of IIT Bombay and IIM Ahmedabad. So you can rest assured that your study material is of the highest quality”, “Individual Attention-Making you an Exam Victor is our only priority. We leverage the best technology and cutting-edge analytics to closely follow your progress and provide you timely feedback”, “How is learning online with ExamVictor better?”, “Most classes employ regular graduates of variable quality”, were not substantiated. The website 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: Telecomtalk.info TelecomTalk
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“Telecom Talk is a leading Indian telecom portal one of India & top 10 technology media portals”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

They claiming that they are leading Indian telecom portal without any proof. They claiming that they are one of India & top 10 technology media portals without any proof.

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The CCC viewed the website advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. As claim support data, the Advertiser provided screenshots of some user generated content (twitter page mentions). The CCC concluded that the claim, "TelecomTalk has grown to become one of India’s top 10 technology media portals with a wide range of readership”, was not substantiated. Also, the source and date of research for the claim is not mentioned in the advertisement. The website advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.2 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: MK Agrotech Private Ltd
PRODUCT: Sunpure Refined Sunflower Oil

COMPLAINT:

Poster Claims: Sunflower Oil processed using 1. Organic Medium 2. Natural Vitamins Hoarding claim: “Chemical Free processed Sunflower Oil”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

The advertising on hoardings/ press ads / posters describes how the Sunpure sunflower oil is better than other refined sunflower oils as it is an "organic medium"; "is chemical free" ; contains "natural vitamins" etc. There are various chemicals used in refining – hence even if part of the process is "chemical free" saying oil is "chemical free processed" is untrue. Further (1) inflated claims of being "organic" are misleading (2) Front of packs contains a lot of exaggerations as per FSSAI regulations which should not be allowed like "Fresh"; "Healthy" ; "all natural"; "zero cholesterol" ; contains "natural vitamins" etc.

RECOMMENDATION: 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 print advertisement, Hoarding, and considered the Advertiser’s response as well as the opinion of the Technical expert presented at the meeting. Advertiser argues that Sunpure Sunflower refined oil is degummed using citric acid which is organic and not phosphoric acid (which is a mineral acid). Hence it is chemical free. However, both citric acid and phosphoric acid, are edible and permitted as food additives under FSSAI approved list. Both are washed out during degumming process and is not carried over. Advertiser presents their technology as a superior technology than regular processing. However, no data was presented to prove that the regular processing leaves behind any undesirable ingredient. The claim of “India’s first chemical free processed sunflower oil with no harmful additives / preservatives” was considered to be misleading by implication. The advertisement unfairly denigrates oils undergoing regular processing. Claim, “Rich with Natural vitamins”, was not substantiated. No analytical test reports have been submitted to substantiate the claims of "Fresh"; "Healthy" ; "all natural"; “natural vitamins”. The print advertisement, Hoarding, contravened Chapters I.1, I.4, IV.1(c) (d) and (e) of the Code. This complaint was UPHELD. Claim, “zero cholesterol” is a generic claim for vegetable oils and is not false. This complaint was NOT UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare India Ltd
PRODUCT: Veet Hair Removal Cream

COMPLAINT:

Veet Hair Removal Cream shows ‘A girl feels reluctant to wear a sleeveless backless dress because of hair. Katrina Kaif (actress) suggests her to use Veet Hair Removal cream. The girls asks, “Don’t hair removal creams darken. To this Katrina Kaif replies “Veet only brightens”. Ad describes that Veet contains Micro beads that removes all the hair and dead skin. Further they claim, For salon like smooth and bright skin harbaar every time), Just Veet It.” I have used Veet Hair Removal Cream Brightening twice. It does not brighten the skin tone.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: NOT UPHELD

The advertiser representatives were given personal hearing by ASCI where the concerns of CCC as well as CCC expectations of the claim support data were explained. The advertiser submitted an exhaustive response addressing the key points raised in the earlier CCC decision. The claim support data was reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. The CCC viewed the TVC and considered the Advertiser’s response for Review as well as the opinion of the Technical expert presented at the meeting. The CCC noted that the advertiser has submitted additional data such as published reference to support that mild exfoliation provided by chemical depilatories results in smoothing and brightening of skin. The advertiser submitted test report of product performance (with blinded samples). As per the panel test, 95% of test users provided positive feedback regarding brightening action which was assessed by means of a shade card. While the advertiser did not submit instrumental measurement of brightness such as L*a*b or L*c*h reflection meter scores, in view of the published reference and the consumer perception study, the CCC considered the claim of the product creating a perception of “brightening” of skin acceptable. The complaint is Not Upheld on Review.

COMPANY: Career Institute of Commerce & Accounting
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

CICA publish false advertise since four year. Institute of chartered accountants of India declare only first 10 rank but CICA advertise and claim after 10 rank which are false and only for inducing student to attract and give money for admission in their institute.

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 ad claiming rank after 10, was not substantiated. The 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: Patanjali Ayurved Ltd
PRODUCT: Patanjali Kesh Kanti

COMPLAINT:

1. Advertisement of Patanjali claims to be World’s No.1 Ayurvedic Brand. Who has certified Patanjali as No. 1 Ayurvedic Brand? Or is it their own decision? The company must provide the source of this certificate otherwise stop using the words Worlds No 1 in their Ads. 2. In the Ad the company gives the benefits of the ingredients as they are available in published sources. The company does not show any tests carried out on their products and prove the benefits listed, this is objectionable because the benefits of single ingredients may either diminish or worsen the condition when mixed with other products. The company must show that their products have been tested and the listed benefits have been found. 3. The company proclaims 100% charity from Profits. This is only eye wash because the manufacturing company may not show any profits and profits will be shown in the marketing company. This is a way to bifurcate profits. It is company strategy and only eyewash. The last sentence says only a true Yogi Sanyasi can do this kind of non-profit work (nishkamseva) this is the proof that in this company there is no profit motive. I would wish you look into the above objections and decide what action should be taken, the photos of the Baba Ramdev and his disciple should not misguide your decision.”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The advertiser representatives were given personal hearing by ASCI. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. The advertisement did not have any specific ingredient related claims. The CCC concluded that the claims, “World’s No.1 Ayurvedic Brand”, “100% charity from Profits” were not substantiated. The advertisement contravened Chapter I.1 of the Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Patanjali Ayurved Ltd
PRODUCT: Patanjali Dant Kanti

COMPLAINT:

1. Advertisement of Patanjali claims to be World’s No.1 Ayurvedic Brand. Who has certified Patanjali as No. 1 Ayurvedic Brand? Or is it their own decision? The company must provide the source of this certificate otherwise stop using the words Worlds No 1 in their Ads. 2. In the Ad the company gives the benefits of the ingredients as they are available in published sources. The company does not show any tests carried out on their products and prove the benefits listed, this is objectionable because the benefits of single ingredients may either diminish or worsen the condition when mixed with other products. The company must show that their products have been tested and the listed benefits have been found. 3. The company proclaims 100% charity from Profits. This is only eye wash because the manufacturing company may not show any profits and profits will be shown in the marketing company. This is a way to bifurcate profits. It is company strategy and only eyewash. The last sentence says only a true Yogi Sanyasi can do this kind of non-profit work (nishkamseva) this is the proof that in this company there is no profit motive. I would wish you look into the above objections and decide what action should be taken, the photos of the Baba Ramdev and his disciple should not misguide your decision.”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

rtisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC concluded that the claims, “World’s No.1 Ayurvedic Brand”, claimed benefits of the ingredients (such as Akarakara, Tumburu, Babool, Vajradanti, Majuphal, Margosa/Neem, Vidang, Turmeric, Clove, Mint, Pippali, Bakul, and Peeloo,) and “100% charity from Profits”, were not substantiated and were misleading. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Jaypee Infratech Limited
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

Jaypee front page toi ad saying "wishes do come true". Puts a tick mark against those projects that are far from delivery. Misleading front page ad in TOI suggesting completion of flats that are not complete to date and running late by 3-4 years. My klassic flat for example, due in March 2012 is not yet ready and no work is happening there.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The claim support data was reviewed by the legal expert of ASCI. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response as well as the opinion of the legal expert presented at the meeting. The CCC noted that the Building regulations make it mandatory to obtain a Completion Certificate as well as Occupancy certificate, without which possession cannot be given. The advertiser has advertised showing various properties, including the project “Klassic” mentioned by the complainant, as having been completed and ready for occupation which has been disputed by the complainant. The Advertiser argues that some towers and some amenities mentioned in the advertisement are ready and 4000 apartments are ready for handover in some towers of Pavilion Court, Klassic, Kosmos and Kalypso Court. The Advertiser has applied for the completion certificate of 5303 apartments. The Advertiser further gives reasons for its inability to hand over possession due to the legal hurdles faced by it as it falls within a 10 km radius of Okhla Bird Sanctuary, requiring environmental clearance. The CCC noted that the validity of the project presently remains under a cloud of uncertainty. If environmental clearance is not received, the flat purchasers will lose their money and so also the dream of getting a roof over their head. The CCC concluded that the claim in the advertisement “Wishes do come true” appearing with a checked mark against various projects implying that that the projects are completed, was not substantiated and was misleading. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Byju Classes
PRODUCT: GMAT Coaching Classes

COMPLAINT:

1. 70% of our students have a score of 700+ in GMAT. 2. 60 sec is what you need to crack any GMAT verbal question using our Patented Mathematical Approach. 3. 760 is the minimum GMAT score of our trainers. 4. We are exclusive education partner with: Samsung, The Times of India, The Hindu

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

“Claim 1: 70% of our students have a score of 700+ in GMAT. That is a very tall claim. A 700 score in GMAT! 700 score in GMAT = 89th percentile. That would mean that anyone scoring above 700 is the top 11% of all the GMAT test takers. The Byju Classes' claim that 70% of their students are among the top 11% of all the GMAT takers in the World that is a significant achievement. However, Chances are that it is either completely false or absolutely misleading. That they have 5 students and 3 got more than 700! In any case, what is highly likely that this a false claim. Claim 2: 60 sec is what you need to crack any GMAT verbal question using our Patented Mathematical Approach. Patented Mathematical Approach!! I have been trying hard in google as to when Byju classes got a patent on Mathematical approach. I couldn't find any. Though I found this site http://www.invntree.com/blogs/patentingmathematical-methods It says: Why are mathematical methods not patentable? The Manual of Patent Office Practice and Procedure provides reason as to why mathematical or business methods are not considered patentable. With reference to section 3 (k), the manual says, and I quote: “Mathematical methods are considered to be acts of mental skill. A method of calculation, formulation of equations, finding square roots, cube roots and all other methods directly involving mathematical methods are therefore not patentable. With the development in computer technology, mathematical methods are used for writing algorithms and computer programs for different applications and the claimed invention is sometimes camouflaged as one relating to the technological development rather than the mathematical method itself. These methods, claimed in any form, are considered to be not patentable. So, clearly this is simply deceiving the consumer.” Claim 3: 760 is the minimum GMAT score of our trainers. Given that Claim 1 & Claim 2 are false, this claim is unlikely to be true. There are 2 faculty that are mentioned in the advt. 1. Santosh PN, who is based out of Bangalore 2. Amit Ravindra https://in.linkedin.com/in/amithravindra who is also based out of Bangalore. This is advt for a coaching in Mumbai. May be these faculty come down to Mumbai to teach. But are these the only faculty. Claim 4: We are exclusive education partner with: Samsung, The Times of India, The Hindu A. Samsung seems to be doing a lot of things in education http://www.samsung.com/us/business/education/samsung-schoolchrome-devices-for-the-classroom/ I do not know how Byju Classes can claim that they are 'exclusive education partner" of a multi-national organization B. Times of India &The Hindu are newspapers. How can Byju classes be "exclusive"? Every single claims in that advt is likely to be white lie or simple good old fashioned lies.

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The CCC viewed the Website/Internet advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC concluded that the claims in the advertisement, “70% of our students have a score of 700+ in GMAT”, “60 sec is what you need to crack any GMAT verbal question using our Patented Mathematical Approach”, “760 is the minimum GMAT score of our trainers”, “We are exclusive education partner with Samsung, The Times of India, The Hindu”, were not substantiated with authentic evidence. 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: IMS Learning Resources Pvt. Ltd.
PRODUCT: MBA CET

COMPLAINT:

1. Trusted by 15000+ students for MBA CET since 2009 2. Trusted for Success

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Trust is a firm belief in the reliability, truth, or ability of someone or something. On what basis is the claim made that 15,000+ students have 'trusted' IMS for MBA CET. A. if at all 15,000 students have joined IMS for a CET training program how would that translate to they 'trusting' IMS. The claim 'Trusted for Success' - need some answers. Who are the people who have trusted them? What does trusted for success mean? This is a misleading & vague statement - Trusted for Success

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The CCC viewed the Website/Internet advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. The Advertiser argues that the term “Trusted for Success” is their logo and 15000+ students enrolling with their institute signifies their trust in the institute. The CCC did not consider enrollment of students to be necessarily an indicator of their trust in the institute. The CCC concluded that the claim in the complaint, “Trusted by 15000+ students for MBA CET since 2009”, when read in conjunction with the term “Trusted for Success” is misleading by ambiguity. The website advertisement contravened Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapter I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: CATKing (CAT Toppers)
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

CAT King No.1 CAT Classes in Borivali, Andheri & Powai Best you can get Prof Rahul Singh further went to Harvard Business School for his masters in management.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

1. Google Adword claims: CAT King No.1 CAT Classes in Borivali, Andheri & Powai (attached). This is not substantiated 1. 'Best you can get'. 'Best' needs to be substantiated - which is not done 2. There are names and photograph of students without any validation 3. Claims are made in the website regarding one of the faculty Rahul SIngh (Sumit Gandhi) that he went to Harvard for Masters in Management. http://catking.in/faculty/. However, the Linkedin profile https://in.linkedin.com/in/sumitgandhi mentions: Education Harvard Business School Strategic Perspectives on Management, Business Administration and Management, General 2013 2013. That is a 1 week program: http://www.exed.hbs.edu/programs/spnm/Pages/default.aspx. This is clearly misleading the customer since Masters in Management is a full-time 1-2 year program. There are other claims by the same person. I am not sure how many of them are true.

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant. While the advertiser responded to another complaint, no response was received from the advertiser to address the specific complaint under consideration. The CCC viewed the website advertisement. In the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claims in the advertisement, “CAT King No.1 CAT Classes in Borivali, Andheri & Powai”, “Best you can get”, “Prof Rahul Singh further went to Harvard Business School for his masters in management”, were 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: IMS Learning Resources Pvt. Ltd.
PRODUCT: CAT Training

COMPLAINT:

Closest to CAT Designed by 5-time 100 percentiler

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

That claim is not substantiated. What is given is that - "Designed by 5-time 100 percentiler." 1. That claim is misleading. A. Has the program completely changed because of the said person. B. What does 'design' mean? 2. Even if IMS can somehow justify the above, how does that translate to "Closest to CAT

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The CCC viewed the Website/Internet advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC concluded that the claims in the advertisement accompanied by a visual and cited in the complaint “Closest to CAT” was not adequately substantiated by comparative data versus other similar institutes. The CCC did not consider the claim support data for “Designed by 5-time 100 percentiler” acceptable and authentic. 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: CETKing Education
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

1. The front page banner has photographs of 3 students who have been toppers in entrance test. 2. The page - http://www.cetking.com/online-course/ have the same photographs of students and also this claim “Results: 700+ IIM Calls, 200+ JBIMS Calls, 358 IIM Converts, 236 SYMBIOSIS, 63 NMIMS,18 TISS, 19 MICA .. many More” Any claim made on success needs to be validated. A. There are 'toppers' photograph on the banner on the first page. It is misleading for a few reasons. 1. CAT or XAT does not give our ranks. 2. The same student - Neha Manglik is claimed by almost everyone as 'their student'. So, it is imperative that a stricter guideline be given for coaching class while they claim that 'their student is a topper.' There are multiple training programs - Classroom, Workshops, Tests, Interview Training, YouTube videos, etc. To make a 'causation' - that the reason for success is because of a particular training is misleading. She has given credit where it should be given: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/education/news/Delhi-student-tops-CATfirst-girl-since-2009-to-score-100-percentile/articleshow/45663136.cms "I had been doing mathematics and logical puzzle thanks to my father since my school days and so my basic preparation has been done there. For the final test I have been preparing for a year." "My schooling have been very good. Most important thing they taught me is the along with academics even my co-curricular activities are equally important and that has really helped me develop my personality. Similarly for BITS, they have zero attendance policy and encourage us to do well in other fields which helped me." Request CET King to validate that these are their bonafide students: one that should be the norm for the industry. B. The claim 700+ IIM Calls, 200+ JBIMS Calls, 358 IIM Converts, 236 SYMBIOSIS, 63 NMIMS,18 TISS, 19 MICA .. many more http://www.cetking.com/online-course/ These have to be validated. C. The banner on the front page claims "Home of the toppers". That is misleading. Any claim has to be close to the evidence. The evidence, if at all substantiated, is 3 students who have 'topped' in the test. That does not translate to 'Home of Toppers'.”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The CCC viewed the Website/Internet advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC concluded that the claims in the advertisement, “Home of Toppers” with photographs of 3 students who have been toppers in entrance test, “Results:700+ IIM Calls, 200+ JBIMS Calls, 358 IIM Converts, 236 SYMBIOSIS, 63 NMIMS,18 TISS, 19 MICA .. many More”, were not substantiated with evidence. 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: CETKing Education- (CAT 2015)
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

1. CET King No.1 in Dadar (Tagline of Google Adword) 2. CET King Dadar Best Coaching available. 3. Increase your mark by 40 marks 4. Guaranteed Admissions in top B-Schools

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

t of schools in the country which is struggling to get students. One can easily make a claim that such schools are 'top schools' and guarantee admissions. Do note that there are B-Schools which are willing to pay money to coaching classes or anyone. This can potentially destroy the career of students. The promise of guarantee is this - 'free coaching for the next year'. That is very convenient. Obviously, CET King is betting on 2 things: A - Very few would want to repeat B - If at all they do, there would be no additional cost of accommodating a few more students in the classroom. This is absolutely wrong. Educational institutes should not be in the business of making 'guarantees' – they are not selling refrigerators. This is a student's career that we are talking about

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The CCC viewed the Website/Internet advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC concluded that the claims in the advertisement, “CET King No.1 in Dadar” “CET King Dadar Best Coaching available” “Increase your mark by 40 marks” “Guaranteed Admissions in top B-Schools”, were not substantiated with evidence. 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: Faasos Food Services Pvt. Ltd
PRODUCT: Faasos

COMPLAINT:

The Youtube ad of Faasos claims that consumers can order food through their app from anywhere and solve their meal related issues. But when I downloaded the app to place an order, I was not shown my area. I stay in one of the most populous areas of South Delhi. When I called up their call center, the guy says that they only deliver within 2-3 kms of their shops only and since they don’t have a shop close by, they can’t deliver my order. The ad never mentions that point.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: NOT 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 YouTube Ad and found that it did not communicate that food orders would be delivered anywhere regardless of the location. The CCC concluded that the YouTube Ad was not in contravention of the ASCI Code. The complaint was NOT UPHELD.

COMPANY: Aircel Business Solutions (free discount Coupons)
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

The SMS forwarded by Aircel claimed free coupons/discounts and had an associated USSD number along with it to dial-in. No information about a subscription charge was mentioned. When you dial the USSD number you are automatically subscribed to the service without confirmation. The customer has no way of knowing if there is a subscription charge and if there is no way of knowing how much it is.I need my Rs. 30 back.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The ASCI approached Aircel Business Solutions for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant. However, no response was received prior to the due date. The CCC viewed the Promotional SMS and concluded that it did not have any disclaimer of applicable “Terms and Conditions” and was therefore misleading by omission of reference to any other applicable charges. The Promotional SMS communication contravened Chapter I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Procter & Gamble Home Products Ltd
PRODUCT: Pantene Shampoo

COMPLAINT:

1. “New Pantene” is the best ever 2. Unlike what she has used before, the Product goes inside the hair 3. Pantene gets “fully absorbed into the hair”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

The Advertiser claims that this “New Pantene” is the best ever: This claim is not restricted within the purview of Pantene Products, but is with respect to all shampoos in the market. Clearly, the claim is not with respect to “Pantene’s Best Ever” or “Our Best Ever” but “the best ever”, which would imply that it is the best ever among all shampoos. To sustain the claim, the Advertiser would have to prove that Pantene Shampoo is better in performance that all other shampoos in the market, in comparison to which, Pantene Shampoo is claimed to be best. The protagonist claims that “unlike what she has used before, the Product goes inside the hair”, which needs to be substantiated: The allegation with respect to the above claim is two folds: a) The Protagonist claims that this Product is unlike what she has used before. It needs to be therefore demonstrated which product she is referring to as having used,”but which does not go inside the hair”. considering the fact that she would have had used a marketed product, which, according to her, would only work at the surface. It needs to be considered here that it is unclear as to how the protagonist, who is a model, knows what would have gone inside her hair, and what would remain on the surface? Having said the above, it would have to be demonstrated by the Advertiser as to what products work on the surface and do not penetrate the hair. It is also important to adequately qualify the same in the Advertisement. Without the proper qualifier, the impression being made to consumers is that all products work on the surface and do not penetrate the hair fiber. b) The claim that Pantene gets “fully absorbed into the hair” also needs to be substantiated. It is known and understood that shampoos are made of conditioning ingredients and silicones, which cannot penetrate the hair fiber, but only work on the outside. Moreover, Shampoos are wash off products, the manner of use of shampoos is such that the product gets washed off and, thereby cleans the hair. It is, however, the claim of the Advertiser, through the protagonist, that the Product gets FULLY ABSORBED into the hair fiber. It would have to be therefore demonstrated by the Advertiser as to how ALL the ingredients of the Product get absorbed into the hair, instead of being washed off. The claim of “New” is not qualified as per the ASCI Guidelines: It is a well-known fact that Pantene products have been sold in India for several years now, and hence the brand is not new in India. Therefore, the basis of claiming “New” with respect to Pantene needs to clarified by the Advertiser in the Advertisement. In the absence of the clarification, the claim of “New” is unsubstantiated.

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The claim support data was reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. The CCC viewed the You Tube 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 test results submitted by the advertiser, shows improved penetration of ingredient into the hair. The advertiser has demonstrated that the product with improved penetration and copper ion chelating by new ingredient is better than their existing formulation. The claim of “best ever” in the context of the Pantene shampoo is substantiated. The claim that the protagonist can feel the product internalization as a result of product usage was not considered to be objectionable. These complaints were NOT UPHELD. However, the claim of “New” is not qualified as per the ASCI Guidelines to elaborate that this refers to product upgrade. The CCC concluded that the You Tube advertisement is misleading by omission of this disclaimer. The YouTube advertisement contravened Chapter I.4 of the ASCI Code. This complaint was UPHELD.

COMPANY: CATKing
PRODUCT: CLAP Digital Marketing Course

COMPLAINT:

On their Web-site, in the perks and benefits, the following are mentioned – Certification from a Harvard Business School Alumni. The Harvard Business School Alumni would mostly refer to Mr Sumit Gandhi a.k.a. Mr Rahul Singh, the founder of CAT King 1. He is a CAT 99.99% in Verbal Ability 2. He scored 780/800 in GMAT 3. He scored 340/340 in GRE and became the World’s Rank 1 GRE Topper 4. He ranks 14th in the world for teaching English 5. He pursued his MBA from SP Jain Institute of Management & Research, Mumbai 6. He further went to Harvard Business School for his masters in management 7. He also achieved a degree in Master of Information Technology from Virginia Tech

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

I would like to make a very serious complaint against CAT King as I believe that it is a huge deviation from the standards prescribed by ASCI. In this specific case, it is not about an exaggerated claim, but it is highly likely to be a fraudulent claim. Mr Rahul Singh claims that he is a “Harvard Scholar”. To the best of my knowledge, Harvard School does not offer Masters in Management. The real story is very disturbing. The LinkedIn profile of Sumit Gandhi says he went to Harvard Business School to do an Executive Education. That Program “Strategic Perspective in Non Profit Management” is a 6-day program! CATKing claims needs to be validated. For instance, ranked 14th in the world for teaching English is an absurd claim. There would be millions of teachers across India and around the World who would have dedicated their life to teaching English. Also to claim that someone is ranked 14th in unbelievable.

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The CCC viewed the Website/Internet advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC concluded that the claims in the advertisement, “Certification from a Harvard Business School Alumni”, and claims with reference to Mr Rahul Singh - “He is a CAT 99.99% in Verbal Ability” “He scored 780/800 in GMAT”, “He scored 340/340 in GRE and became the World’s Rank 1 GRE Topper”, “He ranks 14th in the world for teaching English” “He pursued his MBA from SP Jain Institute of Management & Research, Mumbai”, “He also achieved a degree in Master of Information Technology from Virginia Tech”, were false and grossly misleading and were not substantiated with authentic evidence. The website Ad 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: Byju Classes
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

Claims objected to: 1. BEST CAT COACHING INSTITUTE IN INDIA 2. GMAT TOPPER 3. UNIQUE CAT PATTERN WORKSHOP 4. CAN’T COMPARE WITH BYJU & SANTOSH 5. STUDY MATERIAL OF MOST OF THE INSTITUTES HAVE NO VALUE DIFFERENTIATION. 6. 80% OF THE STUDENTS HAVE CROSSED 90 PERCENTILE OVER THE LAST 5 YEARS 7. UNIQUE APPROACH TO RC 8. 80% OF THE STUDENTS HAVE CROSSED THE 700+ SCORE OVER THE LAST 5 YEARS 9. UNIQUE APPROACH TO RC 10. BEST TEAM OF IAS TRAINERS 11. INDIA’S NO. 1 APTITUDE TRAINER 12. INDIA’S #1 IAS FACULTY 13. 20,000 TEST-TAKERS ACROSS THE COUNTRY 14. NO NATIONAL LEVEL TESTS 15. BEST TEACHERS

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Claim 1- A superlative claim cannot be substantiated unless there is credible third-party evidence. Claim2- ‘GMAT Topper’. The GMAT does not give out a ‘topper’ list. The layman understanding of a topper is someone who is ranked 1 in a test. The claim that Santosh is a GMAT topper cannot be substantiated. Claim 3-A.”Unique” means being the only one of its kind; unlike anything else. It is superlative claim. B.’help predict question type’. That needs to be backed by evidence. CAT is an aptitude test created by IIM. So, to claim that the workshop will help ‘predict’ the question type is very misleading. Claim 4-“Can’t compare with Byju& Santosh” is implying they are the best. Claim 5- What is the evidence that backs this claim? “No value differentiation” is a superlative claim. That cannot be substantiated. Claim 6- “80% of the students crossed 90 percentile over last 4 years”. That’s a very tall claim one that is highly likely to be false. If so, then this is a statement concocted with the clear intention of deceiving the student community. Claim 7-“Unique” approach is a superlative claim. Claim 8- This same exact statement as in the GRE claim with the only difference that ‘90th percentile’ is replaced with ‘700+ score’. Claim 9-“Unique” approach is a superlative claim Claim 10-“Best Team” is a superlative claim Claim 11-“India’s No. 1 Aptitude Trainer” is a superlative claim. Claim 12-These are superlative claims. Claim 13-20,000 test taker needs to be substantiated. Claim 14-A.The comparison chart claims that there is no other national level test available- which is wrong. B.All India Test Series of Byju Classes is the biggest in India is a superlative claim Claim 15-Claims are made such as: “Best Teachers” l “GMAT Topper” l “NLP Expert” l “Logical Reasoning Expert” – these need to be substantiated.

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/Internet advertisement. In the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claims in the advertisement, “Best CAT Coaching Institute in India”, “GMAT Topper”, “Unique CAT Pattern Workshop”, “Can’t Compare with Byju & Santosh”, “Study Material of Most of the Institutes have no value differentiation”, “80% of the students have crossed 90 percentile over the last 5 years”, “Unique Approach to RC”, “Best Team of IAS Trainers”, “India’s No. Aptitude Trainer”, “India’s #1 IAS faculty”, “20,000 test-takers across the country”, “No National Level Tests”, “Best Teachers”, 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: Godrej Consumer Products Ltd
PRODUCT: Good Knight XPRESS

COMPLAINT:

Tagline - "xpress on without installments mosquitoes gone" Good Knight XPRESS, a brand of Liquid Vaporizer from Godrej Consumer Products Limited is projecting the communication in the end of the TVC as "XPRESS ON WITHOUT INSTALLMENTS MOSQUITOES GONE" which is deceptively similar to our Brand tagline "MAXO ON. MOSQUITEOS GONE." This is devious attempt to emulate and imitate the brand communication of MAXO. This method is deployed with malicious intent to replicate our brand MAXO's tagline "MAXO ON. MOSQUITEOS GONE" and the one Good Knight XPRESS is airing says "XPRESS ON WITHOUT INSTALLMENTS MOSQUITOES GONE". Both the communications are closely similar to each other. Only the words "Without instalments" are incorporated in their TVC. This is sheer infringement on our communication. To make the fact strongly evident on our part, we are hereby attaching our MAXO TVC that was telecast in the year 2015 and Storyboard of the same is annexed and marked as Annexure C and Annexure D respectively. We hereby highlight to you that our brand Maxo tagline has been projected as "MAXO ON. MOSQUITOES GONE." which is being used by us since the year 2012. As a matter of fact we would also like to inform you that we are using the same tagline "MAXO ON. MOSQUITOES GONE" in different products under the Maxo brand like Maxo Coil Communication. To make the fact more evident to you, we are attaching herewith the TVC of Maxo Coil which was telecast in the year 2012 as Annexure E. We would like to bring to your notice that brand Maxo with the tagline "MAXO ON. MOSQUITOES GONE" forms an integral part of the brand communication and brand identity since we are incessantly using the same for a period of more than last 3 years. This tagline "MAXO ON, MOSQUITOES GONE" has been used unchanged in every single piece of communication ever since 2012 as earlier mentioned to you. Even if the storyline of the TVC changes, the tagline for Maxo i.e. “lMAXO ON. MOSQUITOES GONE.” has remained the same for the period of more than last 3 years which is clearly made available to you in the form of annexures C and E.”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: NOT UPHELD

The CCC viewed the TVCs of the complainant as well as that of the advertiser (Hindi and English version). The CCC noted that the Advertiser’s original TVC, first aired in Hindi language, uses the words “XPRESS LAGAO, BINA INSTALLMENTS MACHAR BHAGAO”. The English version of the TVC using a literal translation of this line was not considered to be objectionable, more so as the wording was not exactly as per the complainant’s tag line. The CCC concluded the advertisement does not contravene the ASCI Code. The complaint was NOT UPHELD.

1. 2.

COMPANY: Reliance Communication Ltd
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

Jadoo Recharge! Get upto 1 GB extra FREE on every 3G Data Recharge of Rs 197 along with normal 1 GB 3G data + UnltdWhatsapp; Facebook & Twitter for 28 days

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

I received this marketing cum promotional sms from rcom on my rcom gsm prepaid no. on 27th Aug 2015. Tempted by the offer, I recharged for 197. However, I only got 1 GB and not 1+1 GB as mentioned. I wrote to customer service and I recd a call from an exec who claimed that this was a random offer and was not applicable to all. However, this being a random offer is NOT mentioned in the sms. I wrote to customer service once again and received a call from another exec who claimed that the offer was applicable only on the dau the sms was sent. (I had recharged on 29th Aug. However, this offer being valid only on the same day was NOT mentioned in the sms. My complaint is that this was a misleading marketing cum promotional sms which caused me to unnecessarily spend Rs 197. The company should cease such inappropriate marketing advertising sms campaign, should refund me the Rs 197 and should pay a penalty of at least Rs 10000 /- to ASCI.

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The CCC viewed the promotional SMS and considered the Advertiser’s response. The advertiser argues that their claim is qualified by stating “Upto” in the statement “Upto 1 GB extra” and that the offer of extra 1 GB was not applicable for the customer under other conditions. The Advertiser was requested to send evidence to support the claim for any other customer to prove that the offer holds as claimed. The Advertiser did not provide any additional supporting data. The CCC concluded that the claim, “Get Upto 1 GB extra FREE on every 3G Data Recharge of Rs 197…” in the promotional SMS was not substantiated and was misleading. The promotional SMS contravened Chapters 1.1 and I.4 of the Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Times Global Broadcasting Co. Ltd
PRODUCT: Times Now

COMPLAINT:

‘No.1 English News Channel’

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

The Advertisement depicts a graph showing 4 News Channels i.e. TIMES NOW, CNN IBN, INDIA TODAY & NDTV 24*7 and in the graph table it’s displayed that Times Now is leading the market by holding 51 % of market share, followed by CNN IBN channel with 14 % of market share, INDIA TODAY with 11 % of market share, NDTV 24*7 with 13 % of market share. We submit that the Advertisement is nothing but a negative portrayal of image of other channels as this advertisement in question does not even include the name of our channel i.e. ‘NewsX’ and also the total market share shown is 89% rather than 100%. We would like to bring to your notice that ‘NewsX’ is holding the share of almost 12% and the advertisement depicts another channel to be at 4th position whereas as per actual rating ‘NewsX’ holds 4th position for respective week and Times Now telecast the advertisement/promo just to mislead the audiences by not showing the total market share of 100%. As per the standard practices followed by all channels while calculating the market share, each and every channel of the same genre becomes the part of data analysis along with the percentage of market share hold by that respective channel. It is pertinent to note that no channel follow such practices as the same followed by Times Now in this respective advertisement. By disclosing the wrong information for the purpose of substantiating the Claim made by Times Now, the Advertisement/Promo is completely false, misleading, factually incorrect, and even disparaging to the other news channels, including Times Now competitor channel NewsX. Times Now in its advertisement/promo circulated on internet platform on 19/09/2015 i.e. Facebook has not disclosed any source i.e., the TAM/or any other data rating relied upon by it to arrive at their Claim to be ‘No.1 English News Channel’. As per the standard practices followed by all channels, every promo in connection with the target rating points, typically clearly discloses the: (i) the source of information; (ii) the period of analysis; (iii) the markets for the said analysis; (iv) the day-parts; and (iv) the target group.

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The claim support data was reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. The CCC viewed the Facebook, Ad promo and considered the Advertiser’s response as well of the Technical Expert’s opinion presented at the meeting. The CCC agrees that the Advertiser, is free to choose whom it wishes to compare itself against in a comparative advertisement. The exclusion of a particular player does not constitute disparagement by implication. Also, the complainant has not challenged the Data veracity and the advertiser has provided evidence for the numbers cited in the promo. This complaint was NOT UPHELD. The CCC noted that while the claim “No.1 English News Channel” is substantiated for week 38, the data period being referred is only of one week and not minimum of four consecutive weeks as required by the BARC Rules of Fair Usage guidelines. The claim did not have any mention of the source of the data as well. The advertisement contravened Chapter 1.3 of the Code. This complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Reliance Communication Ltd.
PRODUCT: Reliance Pro 3

COMPLAINT:

Reliance pro 3 claims, they have made available high speed internet service at Pune region as follows: Download speed upto 14.7 Mbps. Upload speed upto 5.7Mbps.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

I'm using a reliance recommended Postpaid plan (Rs. 999 + service tax ) with the reliance Pro 3 data card , But i actually got max 2 Mbps (download speed)/1 .5 Mbps Upload speed. So I want to lodge a complaint against the fraud advertisement to cheat customers. I expect a clean judgment for this case.

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The CCC viewed the Website advertisement and Packaging and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC concluded that the Website claims as well as the claims on the packaging of, "upto 14.7 Mbps and upto 5.7 Mbps", were not substantiated and in the absence of any disclaimer qualifying the conditions under which the claims were tenable, were misleading by exaggeration. The website advertisement and the packaging communication contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Vibes Healthcare Limited
PRODUCT: Vibes Weight Loss Assurance

COMPLAINT:

Vibes weight loss assurance. The before and after picture is very much misleading.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

or 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, “Vibes weight loss assurance” was not substantiated. Also, the before and after pictures were misleading. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: IMG RELIANCE
PRODUCT: Indian Super League

COMPLAINT:

Indian Super League shows boys playing football on the road in the midst of traffic. This shows an Unsafe Practise.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The CCC viewed the TVC and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC concluded that the TVC, in particular the visuals showing the ball being thrown from an overbridge, a guy running on a parapet, children playing football amongst motorcycles and cars, children playing football on the pavement in the vicinity of people seated on chairs, encourages people to indulge in dangerous practices without justifiable reason. Regardless of the disclaimer, the TVC sends out a wrong message. The advertisement contravened Chapter III.3 of the Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

COMPANY: Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare India Ltd
PRODUCT: ItchGuard

COMPLAINT:

“Provides relief from itching and removes it completely”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

I used itch guard for more than 3 months but whenever I use it my itching is in control but as soon as I stop using itch guard it again develops in the skin.

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 opinion of the Technical expert presented at the meeting. The CCC noted that the pack label mentions caution, “In case the problem persists for more than 7 days consult a doctor and read usage carefully before use”. The Complainant as per his own submission has used the product for more than 3 months and has not followed the instructions given by the Advertiser on the label. The complaint was NOT UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Rao Edusolutions Pvt Ltd
PRODUCT: Rao IIT Academy

COMPLAINT:

“Every 9 out of 10 Rao IIT students qualified for JEE Mains”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Some of the claims made are almost impossible to achieve like the last claim mentioned above. Each of those claims are unsubstantiated. Clearly, there is gross violation of the ASCI code of conduct. These communications are misleading, inaccurate, concocted. Seems to be, anything goes in the IIT coaching sector.

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The CCC viewed the Website advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC concluded that the claim in the Ad, “Every 9 out of 10 Rao IIT students qualified for JEE Mains”, was not substantiated with evidence/ supporting data. 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: Dr. Gupta’s Clinic
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“Dr guptas Clinic is the countrys no.1 sexual disease treatment center”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

“It is a color half page advertisement of the brand Dr.gupta's Clinic, in which some questionaire about sexual problems, few descriptions of different sexual diseases, and contact details and address of Dr.gupta's Clinic has been given. At the top the headline goes as "Dr Gupta's Clinic is the ountry's number one sexual disease treatment center" (in Bengali). The said advertisement is of Dr.guptas CLINIC, and the head line goes as Dr guptas Clinic is the countrys no.1 sexual disease treatment center. But further no clarification has been given about the source and basis of this information. If an organization declares itself number one publicly then further informations about the statistics, data, and fields in which the claim has been made must be published. Just printing a baseless claim doesnt make any statement a truth. Proper census and evaluation among all such sexual treatment centers has to be carried out throughout the country by a 3rd party unbiased body then only one treatment center can be declared the best and number one. I demand as a common man representing the public that every such details of the census in which Dr.Guptas clinic was proved be no.1 be published at the earliest. And if the organization in question cant do so then strict actions must be taken against it and further advertisements should be prevented from being published in the sake of public interest. Also I want to know the details of the organization or the body which awarded Dr.Govind K Gupta with Chikitsa Ratna (as has been published), and when was this award given”.

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, “Dr Guptas Clinic is the country’s No.1 sexual disease treatment center”, was not substantiated. The advertisement contravened Chapter I.1 of the Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Raghav Lifestyle Products
PRODUCT: Ajay Toothpaste

COMPLAINT:

1. 5 x clove power vs. non clove toothpaste 2. Superior cavity protection 3. Advanced formulation 4. Complete natural protection

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

5 x clove power vs. non clove toothpaste The claim of 5 X clove power is an ingredient based claim and not an oral care benefit. It is likely to mislead the consumers that the product provides oral care benefit 5 X more than other available toothpastes in the market. The comparison of 5 X against a non-clove toothpaste is therefore an unfair & inappropriate comparison for making a claim. Superior cavity protection It is not clear as to what is basis of this claim. It is also not clear in what respect this toothpaste provides superior cavity protection. In the light of lack of clarity of this claim, the claim is denigrating other toothpastes available in the market providing cavity protection benefits as this claim portrays that Ajay toothpaste provides better cavity protection benefit than other toothpastes available in the market. Raghav Lifestyle be directed to produce a study substantiating superiority of its toothpaste in cavity protection against other cavity protection toothpastes available in the market. Advanced Formulation It is not clear in what respect the formulation is advanced in nature. The Ajay toothpaste, as per the listing on the pack, contains Triclosan , fluoride and clove oil. There are many types of toothpastes available in the market with these commonly used ingredients. Hence the claim of advanced formulation is not only false but also misleading. Raghav Lifestyle be directed to produce substantiation showing how and in what respect the technology of Ajay toothpaste is advanced against other existing technologies available in the market. Complete Natural Protection As can be seen clearly seen from the ingredients list of Ajay toothpaste except for clove oil which is a natural ingredient, most of the ingredients in the product are not natural, hence the claim ‘Complete Natural Protection’ is misleading in nature. Misbranded Cosmetic Owing to the false and misleading nature of the claims ‘5 x clove power vs. non clove toothpaste’ and ‘Complete Natural Protection’ , Ajay toothpaste shall be construed to be a misbranded cosmetic under Section 17- C. (c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The manufacturer, Raghav Lifestyle has therefore contravened Section 18 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 read with Rule 148-B of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 which prohibit making false or misleading claims as well as the manufacture & sale of misbranded cosmetics.

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The claim support data submitted by the advertiser was reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. The CCC viewed the product packaging and considered the Advertiser’s response as well as opinion of the Technical expert presented at the meeting. Claim – “5x clove power vs. non clove toothpaste” Advertiser admits that this is a claim of 5 times as much content of clove and not a 5 times claim of performance. The CCC noted that the comparative basis of the quantitative claim is the clove content of non-clove toothpaste versus that in the advertised product. This comparison was not considered acceptable. The use of the word "power" when it is admittedly meant concentration is misleading. The claim, “5x clove power vs. non clove toothpaste”, was not substantiated. Claim – “Superior cavity protection” The scientific papers in the published literature were provided in which cloves and its products/extracts were tested and found effective to varying extents for various biological activities in-vitro and in animals including for certain dental conditions, but no data directly correlating the content of clove in the product or the product efficacy in human trials for caries (cavity) protection was provided. Hence the claim of “superior cavity protection” was not substantiated. Claim, “Advanced formulation” Advertiser submits the advanced formulation relates to the presence of 5x clove alone and claims that no other product apparently has to that extent. The other ingredients in the product are common to many toothpaste formulations. The CCC did not consider the data to be adequate to substantiate the claim of “Advanced formulation”. Claim, “Complete natural protection” Advertiser admits the "natural" protection relates to the presence of clove alone, a natural product, the other ingredients being common to many toothpaste formulations and acting as excepients to his formulation. No other product specific data was presented to support the claim. In the ingredients list of the toothpaste, except for clove oil,, most of the ingredients in the product are not natural, hence the claim ‘Complete Natural Protection’ is misleading in nature. Based on the above, the CCC concluded that the promotion claims on the pack viz. “5x clove power vs. non clove toothpaste”, “Superior cavity protection”, “Advanced formulation”, “Complete natural protection”, contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Cheil India P. Ltd
PRODUCT: Samsung Smart Learning

COMPLAINT:

1. Best test preparation institutes onboard 2. Best in class content partners 3. Aakash is the premier institute for preparation of medical, engineering & foundation level entrance exams in India 4. Byju has revolutionized Indian education

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

BEST TEST PREPARATION Samsung claims that they have the BEST TEST PREPARATION institutes on board. How did Samsung arrive at this conclusion? What evidence do they have to support this claim? BEST IN CLASS Samsung claims that that their partners are BEST IN CLASS. What evidence does Samsung have to arrive at this conclusion? AAKASH IS THE PREMIER INSTITUTE FOR PREPARATION OF MEDICAL, ENGINEERING & FOUNDATION LEVEL ENTRANCE EXAMS IN INDIA Samsung gives certain details of one of their partners, Aakash. In that it is claimed that Aakash is the premier institute for preparation of Medical, Engineering & Foundation level entrance exams in India. Premier means first in importance, order, or position; leading. On what evidence did Samsung arrive at this claim? BYJU HAS REVOLUTIONIZED INDIAN EDUCATION Samsung gives certain details of one of their partners, Byju’s Classes. In that it is claimed that Byju has revolutionized Indian education. Revolutionizing Indian education is a huge claim. Revolutionize means change (something) radically or fundamentally. Byju is neither the first nor the only one to introduce interactive lessons. To claim that Byju has revolutionized Indian Education is absolutely misleading. Samsung’s expertise in creating electronics goods and not in education. What they give is just the platform. The content is provided by third-party. The learning for the students is more correlated to the content provided. To make unsubstantiated claims on behalf of a third-party is dangerous. Given that Samsung is a well-known brand, it may lead some consumers believe in the claims made by them.”

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The advertiser representatives were given personal hearing by ASCI. The CCC viewed the Website advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. As claims support data, the Advertiser has relied on and has provided the data available on the internet which comes up post google search. The CCC concluded that the claims, “Best test preparation institutes onboard ”, “Best in class content partners”, “Aakash is the premier institute for preparation of medical, engineering & foundation level entrance exams in India”, “Byju has revolutionized Indian education”, were not substantiated with authentic supporting data to prove the credentials of their partners. 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: Flipkart Internet Private Limited (Abhi Nahi Campaign)
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

The new Abhi Nahin campaign. Horrible to show a teacher REFUSING to let a little child go to the loo. It is terrible when such cruel behaviour is portrayed as not just accepted but encouraged.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: NOT UPHELD

The CCC viewed the TVC and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC concluded that in the context of the advertisement which gives a message not to procrastinate, the visual showing “a teacher refusing to let a little child go to the loo”, was not likely to promote unsafe practices. The complaint was NOT UPHELD.

COMPANY: Colgate-Palmolive (India) Ltd
PRODUCT: Colgate Sensitive Pro-Relief Enamel Repair

COMPLAINT:

There is an advertisement shown on TV about Colgate Sensitive Toothpaste. In the advertisement, it is claimed that this toothpaste repairs tooth enamel. This I think is incorrect as it is well known that tooth enamel can never be repaired. Wrong Claims in the Advertisement by Colgate.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: 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 and considered the Advertiser’s response as well as opinion of the Technical expert presented at the meeting. The CCC noted that in case of the said product, the 8% Arginine is responsible to block the dentinal tubules with calcium carbonate and build a reparative layer that acts like a seal. So the product gives relief to those with damaged enamel. However, the CCC concluded that the claim in the voice over of “enamel repair” as well as the visual representation indicates that the tooth enamel to restored back to its original condition or re-building the enamel back which is not substantiated. The visual showing rebuilding the enamel is misleading by implication. The TVC contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

COMPANY: The Bodycare
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“Get Services worth Rs.5000 for Rs.49 only”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

“pay Rs. 49 only and get services worth Rs.5000. And all services were written which totaled up to 5000. But after purchasing the deal(voucher) I visited them, they said u hv to pay 800 as service tax and then u can avail this service..but it was not mentioned there...they refused to entertain....further they said u cannot avail all after paying 800.... Only one out of listed service which accounts to around 2500 according to them.”

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, “Get Services worth Rs.5000 for Rs.49 only”, is false and misleading by omission of a disclaimer qualifying the conditions under which this claim is tenable. The Website advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: CL Educate Ltd (CL LST)
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“8 consecutive CLAT toppers till date”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The CCC viewed the print advertisement. The CCC noted that the advertiser did not respond prior to the due date to address the grievance of the complainant. In the absence of support data from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim in the Ad, “8 consecutive CLAT toppers till date”, 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: Ayurwin Pharma Pvt. Ltd
PRODUCT: Nutrislim

COMPLAINT:

1st complaint- A man refusing to take his wife to official party because she is fat. Later takes her when she loses weight. This ad is derogatory towards a lot of women who have gained some weight after marriage. 2nd complaint- In the ad, the husband character keeps criticising the body of his wife as 'fat' and 'boring' and thinks she is not ready to come for the party. After she gets advise from her friend, she uses nutrislim, and becomes slim, which the ad describes as 'beautiful'. The husband then pleads the wife to come for the party as she became 'slim and beautiful'. The mention of the word 'beautiful' in NUTRISLIM AD makes people to think that fat people are not 'beautiful'. And the husband pleading the wife after she uses the product is misleading while children or other people watch it. Fat people are not boring. This thing is so misleading. 3rd complaint- The advertisement depicts a woman who complains that her husband is not interested in going to a party with her because she is fat and overweight and makes an excuse that parties are boring that is why he doesn't want to go. However when the lady loses weight, all of a sudden her husband becomes interested in parties as well as in her. According to me this advertisement is quite misleading. It tends to convey this message that women are supposed to be of perfect shape and size then only their husbands will be interested in them and would want to go out with them, otherwise they will simply make excuses to avoid going out with their wives. This ad objectifies women and depicts men to be sexist. Moreover, I think this product lacks its core essence. It claims to be safe, natural and herbal weight loss product but there is no study, research and science supporting a one or two beneficial ingredients doesn't make it worth a try especially when there are no testimonials or clinically proven results. I think this product is quite expensive and could be total waste of somebody's hard earned money.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

s of the complainants. However, no response was received from the advertiser. The CCC viewed the TVC. In the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that “a man refusing to take his wife to official party because she is fat, and implication that only slim women are considered to be beautiful as shown in the TVC, derides women and is derogatory especially for women who are overweight. The TVC contravened Chapter III.1 (b) of the Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

COMPANY: Amazon.com, Inc
PRODUCT: Redragon M613 2.4GHz Wireless Mouse

COMPLAINT:

On Amazon's website the price of mouse is given as Rs 1400 whereas on the box that I received the MRP was Rs 1100 Redragon M613 2.4GHz Wireless Mouse. Bought it for Rs. 899. Wrongly advertising the price of a product and inflating it which makes it look that customer is getting a huge discount of 36% where as it is actually 18%.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The CCC viewed the Website advertisement and considered the Amazon’s response. The CCC noted that the consumer has seen the product on the Amazon website and the transaction has been between the consumer and Amazon. The CCC concluded that the website communication claiming the MRP of the product as Rs.1400, when actually printed MRP on product pack is Rs.1100, as being offered as the discounted price of Rs.899, distorts facts and is therefore misleading the consumers as to actual discount being offered. The Website communication contravened Chapter I.4 of the Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd
PRODUCT: HDFC Life Cancer Care Policy

COMPLAINT:

Cancer Policy Advertisement coming regularly in the electronic media and print media. The said advertisement showcase a renowned actor and model, who herself was a cancer victim, which attract the general public. It claims that the cancer policy for 20 lacs is available at a premium of Rs. 4/5 a day without disclosing the age factor dependant rate of premium. It of course contains a note "conditions apply" which one is hardly able to read at least in electronic media. Therefore the said advertisement is clearly misleading. Being lured by the said advertisement I had been to the website of the brand and calculated the premium payable which turned out to be varing between Rs. 30,000 to Rs 57000.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: NOT UPHELD

The CCC viewed the TVC and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC noted that the claim in the TVC, “Get Rs 20 lakhs cover at less than Rs 5/day”, has been qualified by a disclaimer ‘Premium Amount for Male, aged 35 years, 10 year term, Silver Option, Including Tax’. The CCC concluded that the TVC is not misleading. The complaint was NOT UPHELD.

COMPANY: Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd
PRODUCT: Mahindra TUV-300

COMPLAINT:

This ad features south super star Prabhas of Bahubali fame. A school boy is being kidnapped. Suddenly a Mahindra TUV-300 appears breaking the fort gate. Prabhas rescues the child from kidnappers and takes him along with him driving TUV-300. Kidnappers follow him and he tactfully dodges them. The ad has been filmed as a 'Film Shot'. In the end of the ad the Director behind camera appreciate Prabhas's work. This ad is completely in defiance of Road Traffic Laws. It depicts over speeding and Dangerous Driving. Despite of these acs being punishable offences in Traffic Laws, this ad promotes unsafe driving practices which may have negative impacts on driver's psychology. Hence this ad should be stopped from being broadcasted with immediate effect.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: NOT UPHELD

The CCC viewed the TVC and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC concluded that the TVC showed a “shooting situation”, and the stunts/actions depicted were not shown in normal traffic conditions. The complaint was NOT UPHELD.

COMPANY: Dabur India Limited
PRODUCT: Dabur Odomos Mosquito Repellant

COMPLAINT:

“Odomos gives 12 hours protection against mosquito”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Misrepresentation/confusing. On their mobile website odomos protect. Com the front page talked about dengue mosquito and at the bottom dabur says odomos give 12 hours protection against mosquito. Consumer might think that odomos gives 12 hours production against dengue mosquito too. I found out that odomos is only effective for 6 hours if applied 12mg/cm square on body. For other mosquito it is good for 12 hours. They must mention that it is only effective for 6 hours in case of dengue mosquito. If they mention that odomos works for 6 hours only and consumer needs to apply the cream again for protection then it will create awareness and people can actually keep their loved once and little once protected dully against dengue mosquito.

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 opinion of the Technical expert presented at the meeting. The CCC noted that the IJMR paper submitted by the advertiser shows data for satisfactory protection against Aedes Aegypti mosquitoes for > 4hrs. The HITRT report indicating product efficacy of “upto 12 hours” is based on comparison of only one pig. This number was considered insufficient and statistically not acceptable as a sample size. Based on this assessment, the CCC concluded that the claim in the Ad, “It is clinically proven that Odomos offers the most effective outdoor defence against mosquitoes for as long as 12 hours”, that is presented in the context of protection of Dengue mosquitoes was not substantiated adequately. The Website advertisement contravened Chapter I.1 of the Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Nikon India Private Limited
PRODUCT: Nikon Camera

COMPLAINT:

Nikon is advertising its camera in various news papers with certain features which are misleading; the cameras actually don’t have the cited features. I too have fallen victim of such advertisement by Nikon Camera. I have also raised the complaint with NIKON India but the company calls itself right despite the technical and apparent evidence available with me and Nikon. The advertisement says that the camera is 16.1 megapixels but its quality is much inferior to its own camera model L-28 of only 8 megapixels. I, therefore, appeal you to order all legal actions including penalty and ban on cameras against Nikon India to prevent thousands of potential customers against fraud of Nikon in upcoming festivals. I attach the picture taken by model L-31 16.1 megapixels and 8 megapixels camera for instant inspection.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: NOT UPHELD

The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC noted that the picture quality output is dependent on settings to be used in the camera as explained by the advertiser. The CCC concluded that the claim in the Ad that Nikon Coolpix L 31 has a feature of 16.1 megapixels, is not false. The complaint was NOT UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Jubiliant Foodworks limited
PRODUCT: Domino’s Pizza

COMPLAINT:

Domino’s Pizza ads write '30 minutes or free' in Big font, while under T&C it is written Liability limited to Rs. 300/-Ordered 2 medium pizzas on 08Oct'15. which was home delivered in about 40 minutes. Dominoes agreed for reduction of Rs 300/- only. This is a clear case of fraudulent Advertisement by Dominoes.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The CCC viewed the promotional material and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC noted that the minimum order to be placed for home delivery is for Rs. 350/- . The CCC concluded that the claim of “30 minutes or Free”, regardless of the disclaimer, is misleading by omission as the terms and conditions say that liability limited to Rs. 300/-, and what the advertiser provides is Rs 300/- price off but not a free product. The promotional material contravened Chapter I.4 of the Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd.
PRODUCT: Times of India

COMPLAINT:

The advertise published in today's TOI 10/10/2015 related to TOI's role in passing ammendment in JJ Act 2000. Which showed a Juvenile below 18 with a kine in one pic and behind bars in second. As well as a text message was printed below. The Juvenile Justice Act is yet to get Presidents assent. So till today a child below 18 yrs could not be called aaa criminal but we shall still call him Juvenile Conflict with law. The JJ Act and UN Child Rights Convention prohibits any person as well as state to abuse any child as a criminal. It says that child is a sumedh to be innocent and if require proper care and treatment shall be given for his deviance. I feel the ad published by TOI is offensive and abusive to childrens below 18 who apprehended prior as wellwho's cases are still pending before JJ Board. This ad would directly and indirectly criminalised all children's who were apprehended by Police in past and present. As well as refrence to any past incidents just like Delhi gang rape would also directly or indirectly impact on emotions of a child and this may lead to deviance in his behaviour.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: NOT UPHELD

The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC concluded that the before/after picture of a Juvenile below 18 with a knife in one picture and behind bars in the second picture as shown in the Ad, is not offensive/abusive to children, nor it is likely to cause grave or widespread offence. The complaint was NOT UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Compare Munafa
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

Bribe is good'.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

The advertisement was found on hoardings on street lights at Netaji Subhas Place, New Delhi. It contains, in big bold letters, the phrase 'Bribe is good'. The message 'Bribe Is Good' on an advertisement in a place visited frequently by young children and teenagers leaves a wrong impression and is improper from the perspective of public morality. It should be immediately brought down.

RECOMMENDATION: NOT UPHELD

The CCC viewed the Ad – Hoarding and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC considered the Ad – headline “Bribe is Good”, to be a puffery and an obvious exaggeration intended to catch the eye of the consumer. The complaint was NOT UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Clat Possible
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

CLAT POSSIBLE, a coaching institute for Law entrance exam preparation, on their website, under the heading "About us " ( Under section OUR TEAM), has provided that Surabhi Modi Sahai has won Fulbright Scholarship. This advertisement which describe Surabhi Modi Sahai as a Fulbright Scholarship winner, is a false information, because she has never won this and thus is a misleading the students. This type of advertisement can create confusion in the mind of students and can also mislead the.”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The CCC viewed the Website advertisement of CLAT Possible, a coaching Institute for Law Entrance exam preparation and considered the Advertiser’s response. Advertiser has provided a document which shows Surabhi Modi Sahai to be a Hindi teaching assistant under Fulbright Foreign Language Teaching Assistant program. The CCC concluded that in the context of the coaching for Law Entrance exam being offered in the Institute, the claim in the Website, “Surabhi Modi Sahai has won Fulbright Scholarship”, is misleading by ambiguity. The Website advertisement contravened Chapter I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Triumphant Institute of Management Education P. Ltd
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

Complaint no.1 The advertisement claims that its student has secured 3rd Rank in CSAT exam conducted by Union Public Service Commission(UPSC) The advertisment falsely claims that its student has secured All India 3rd Rank in CSAT exam conducted by UPSC. While no such ranking is given by UPSC the institute has deliberatly claimed 3 rd rank with false information to mislead students and get admissions Complaint no.2 This is a misleading advertisement since ranks are not declared in CSAT.

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, “Karnak Verma makes history by ranking All India 3rd in IAS CSAT exam”, is false and misleading as no such rankings are given by Union Public Service Commission who conduct the CSAT exam. 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: Kellogg India P. Ltd
PRODUCT: Kellogg’s Special K

COMPLAINT:

Kellogg’s Special K advertisement for 2 weeks challenge state that it specifies full diet plan and important facts and it 2 weeks we can lose our weight. Kellogg’s Special K advertisement for two week challenge does not state the specifics of the diet plan and thus has omitted important facts. Also the disclaimers did not follow the rules of being shown on the screen for the necessary 12 seconds.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: NOT UPHELD

The CCC viewed the TVC provided by the Advertiser and considered the Advertiser’s response. On reviewing the complaint, the CCC noted that the TVC complained against does not make a claim of “2 weeks challenge”. The complaint regarding omission of diet plan in the TVC was not considered relevant. The hold duration for disclaimers in the TVC were for more than 4 seconds. The complaint was NOT UPHELD.

COMPANY: Pisces eServices Pvt Ltd-
PRODUCT: Food Panda

COMPLAINT:

“50 percent discount on purchase of food article using the app”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

The ad claims 50 percent discount on purchase of food article using the app but once after downloading the maximum allotted discount is only 30 percent. This is causing costume to download the app and then after obtaining my info the company sends me various notification against my will.

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, “Upto 50% off”, is false and was not substantiated with evidence of customers who have availed this offer. The website advertisement contravened Chapter I.1 of the Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 
 

 

Complaint to
WhatsApp
DID YOU KNOW?

Developed by Wishtree Technologies LLP