The Personal and Healthcare category topped the list with 28, followed by 25 in the Education category, while the remaining 21 belonged to various other categories
BestMediaInfo Bureau | Mumbai | October 27, 2015
In July 2015, ASCIâs Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) upheld complaints against 74 out of 110 ads. Out of these, 28 belonged to the Personal and Healthcare category, 25 in the Education category and the remaining 21 ads were from other categories.
Health andÂ Personal Care
The CCC found the following claims in health and personal care product or service advertisements of 27 advertisers to be either misleading or false or not adequately / scientifically substantiated and hence violating ASCIâs Code. Some of the health care products or services advertisements also contravened provisions of the Drug & Magic Remedies Act and Chapter 1.1 and III.4 of the ASCI Code. Complaints against the following advertisements were UPHELD.
1.Â BeiersdorfÂ (India)Â (Nivea Deodorizer):Â The advertisement claimsÂ âIndiaâs 1stÂ Body Deodorizerâ,Â regardless of the disclaimer âfrom Niveaâ, is misleading by ambiguity as it is not the firstÂ deodoriserÂ in India nor the firstÂ deodorizerÂ from Nivea in India. Also, the claim, âDay LongÂ OdourÂ ControlÂ fromÂ Just One Useâ, was not substantiated with evidence.
2.Â LâOreal India (Garnier Fructis Oil in Cream): The use of the word "nourishment" in the advertisement ofÂ Ganier Fructis Oil in CreamÂ is likely to convey to the consumer that their product does something more than just making hair more smooth and manageable. In addition, the claim â2X Nourishment of Hair Oilâ was considered misleading by ambiguity and implication.
3.Â Shiseido IndiaÂ (ZaÂ True White Day Cream): The advertisement claims âSPF 20 PA++â, â94% Improvement in Skin Clarity*â, âMore Glowing & Radiant Skin*â,Â â100% Improvement in Skin Tone*â,â Reduction of Spots & Pigmentation*â and âNow see results in just Seven days!*â, were inadequately substantiated.
4.Â KentÂ ROÂ SystemsÂ (Kent Mineral RO Water Purifier): The advertisement claims âsabseÂ surakshitÂ paniâ, â100% protectionâ and â100% Healthâ. These claims have not been substantiated and are considered to be misleading.
5.Â Kent RO SystemÂ (Kent Mineral ROÂ Water Purifier):Â The advertisement claims â100% or total protectionâ which was misleading by exaggeration. Also, the claim, â100% protection/Total Protection from waterborne diseasesâ, is an absolute claim which was not substantiated.
6.Â Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare India (Harpic toilet cleaner):Â The disclaimers in the TVC were not legible, and contravened the ASCI Guidelines on Supers.Â
7.Â Godrej Consumer Products (Cinthol Original Soap):Â The TVC ofÂ Cinthol Original Soap, showing an actor (non-medical person) as a real skin specialist doctor by name âDr Subha Iyerâ endorsing the product is misleading.
8.Â Lotus Herbals Limited (Lotus Herbals Phyto RX):Â The advertisement claims â100% women discovered firmer, younger skin in Four weeksâ, âSee the difference in Four weeks: - Firmer skin. - Reduction in fine lines, wrinkles & dark spotsâ, âSPF 25/ PA+++â and âActive Organic Ingredients - Ginseng, Ginger & Whey Proteinâ. These claims were not adequately substantiated and were found to be misleading.
9.Â Hindustan Unilever LtdÂ (Fair & Lovely Men Charcoal Face Wash): The claim by the brand, âGives fair look for eight hoursâ was not substantiated adequately.
10.Â Emami Limited (Emami7Â Oil in One):Â In the context of statement in the advertisement, âEverydayÂ you lose up to 100 hair strands as regular hair fall but donât lose heartâ, the claim, âWith the Magic of Seven OilsÂ HairfallÂ is reduced from 100 toÂ uptoÂ Fourâ, is misleading by ambiguity as it implies natural hair loss whereas the claim refers to hair fall due to breakage.
11.Â NetralayaÂ SuperÂ Specialty Eye Hospital:Â The claims âFreedom from Glasses and contact lensâ,Â âFirst time in Ahmedabad to get all types of eye treatments under one placeâ,Â âWorld's best and fastest Laserâ,Â âRemoval of One number in 1.4 secondsâ, were not substantiated withÂ supporting technical and factual data.Â
12.Â HB Care 24:Â The claims in the advertisement, âGain - reduce weight - No Exercise - No Medicine - No Dietingâ,Â âReduce 2 inches in just 1 hour sittingâ and âStop hairfall in 5 daysâ, were not substantiated.
13.Â JivoÂ WellnessÂ PvtÂ Ltd (JivoÂ CanolaÂ CookingÂ Oil):Â The ad claims âEffective for healthy Heart and in reducing bad Cholesterolâ, âEffective against diabetes, heart diseasesâ,Â âEffective against Cancerâ, were not substantiated with clinical evidence specific to the product. The claims indicating efficacy against diabetes, heart disease and cancer were considered to be misleading by exaggeration as no specific credible clinical research was submitted to prove claims of efficacy against serious diseases.
14.Â VasanÂ Healthcare Private LimitedÂ (Vasan Eye Hospital): The claims in the advertisement âWorld's largest eye care networkâ,Â âGet rid of glasses permanentlyâ,Â âThey give accurate without fail eyesight in just 15Â minsâ,Â âOne can enjoy vacation without glassesâ and âICL can be implanted in dry eyes and thin corneaâ, were not substantiated.
15.Â Cure Sight LaserÂ Centre:Â The claims in the advertisement âIndia's No. 1 LASIKÂ centreâ,Â âComplete removal of (freedom from) Glasses and contact lens without operationâ,Â âThe Most experienced team of doctors for LASIK in Gujarat and whole Indiaâ andÂ âWorldâs best technology and fastest Refractive suit by Alconâ,Â were not substantiated.
16.Â Shathayu Ayurveda:Â The advertisement claims âRedefine your natural curve with detox and fat burning paste massage to enhance metabolism and reduce body fatâ, were not substantiated.
17.Â Mankind Pharma (Heal-O-Kind Nanofine Gel):Â TheÂ advertisement claims âHas strong anti-bacterial actionâ, âReduces swelling, doesnât allow scarring of woundâ, âFirst Aid ka All-Rounderâ, âInjury, burns, bruises, cuts and diabetic foot ulcer (these terms shown in the advertisement with aÂ checkmarkÂ implying Heal-O-Kind gel is useful for these conditions)â and âThe healing power ofÂ NanofineÂ Technologyâ, were not substantiated with product efficacy data.
18.Â Keva Ayurveda:Â The advertisement claims, âIncreases Immunity. Improves memory, concentration & learning abilityâ, âImproves digestion & skin toneâ, âPrevents recurrent infections, asthma & other allergic conditionsâ and âImproves speech, hearing & visual acuityâ, were not substantiated.
19.Â Â Â Torque Pharmaceuticals (No Scars Cream):Â The TVC of the product claims âChanging dark skin and scars and resulting in facial skin glowing in one weekâ were not substantiated. The visuals in the TVC showing the transformation depict the protagonist as unhappy in the pre-use state. This also contravened Clause 2 of the ASCI guidelines for Advertisement of Fairness Improvement Products.
20.Â Clear Vision Eye Hospital:Â The claims in the advertisement of âquality assuranceâ, âc-lasik wavefront and topolink treatment availableâ, were not substantiated with supporting evidence to prove that the hospital possesses equipment for wavefront and topolink treatment. Further the claim of âExtremely safe FDA approvedâ was considered misleading by exaggeration in view of the procedure not being free from risks or complications.
21.Â Rich FeelÂ TrichologyÂ CentreÂ (Hair and Scalp Clinic- Ana-d-tox treatment): The advertisementÂ claims âRich FeelÂ Introduces for the 1st time in India, a post hairÂ colourÂ treatment was found factually incorrect and misleading by ambiguity.
22.Â Stem Cell Society of India: The ad claimsÂ "Prime MinisterÂ NarendraÂ Modi'sÂ vision forÂ StemÂ CellÂ Therapy".Â The Advertiser has used the photograph of the Prime Minister (PM) in the advertisement without his permission, which is misleading and confers an unjustified advantage on the product advertised and tends to bring the PMâs name intoÂ ridicule/disrepute.Â This violates Chapter I.3 of the ASCI code.
23.Â Dr Ghanshyam Patelâs AdvancedÂ HomeopatheticÂ Hospital & Clinical ResearchÂ Centre: The claims in the advertisement, âSureshot, fast and effective treatment by advanced invention and innovative medicines for all diseases (incurable as well)â, âPiles - Warts/ Asthma - breathing/ Cancer/ Aids/ Arthritis, Acidity gets cured from its roots. Shortly get relieved from cold and asthma without steroid or inhaler and relief only by medicines, in case of piles â warts without operation and get permanent treatmentâ, were not substantiated. Specific to the claims related to treatment/cure for Piles, the advertisement is in breach of the law as it violated The Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940 and Rules, 1945. Also, specificÂ to the claims related to treatment/cure for Cancer, the advertisement is in breach of the law as it violated The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act.
24.Â Alcos International:Â The advertisementâs claim "PA+++", was not substantiated as the data submitted contained some general information about definitions of SPF and UV radiation, but there is no reference how it relates to the ALCOS/IONA product. Also, the visual shown in the advertisement is misleading as it implies complete protection from sun rays.Â
25.Â DHI Global Medical Group:Â The claim in the advertisement which said âResults you can see within an Hour!â was not substantiated. The visuals of before and after the treatment were misleading. Specific to the claims implying baldness prevention is in breach of the law as it violated The Drugs & Cosmetics Rule 106.
26.Â OPTM Health Care PrivateÂ LimitedÂ (Varco Therapeutic Oil): The advertisementâsÂ claim âVaricose Veins heal with Varcoâ, was not clinically validated. The advertisement further claimsÂ âVarco, the revolutionary organic bio-energeticÂ phytoÂ oil, is an effective solution to varicose veins, without surgeryâ and âVarco Blue veinÂ removerÂ TherapeuticÂ PhytoÂ OilâÂ are not adequately substantiated.Â Â Â Specific to the claims related to treatment of varicose veins is in breach of the law as it violated The Drugs & Cosmetics Rule 106.
27.Â Matsyafed Chitone (Anti Fat Formula):Â The advertisementâs claimÂ âChitosan Is your Safest Bet Against Fat. And It's Provenâ, was not substantiated.
28.Â Shree Renuka Sugars Limited (Madhur Sugar):Â The claims in the advertisement âFree (Sale) SugarÂ v/sÂ Madhur sugarâ, âSulphur-free processâ, âBest uniform quality, natural sweetness andÂ shinningÂ white crystalâ, âFree from hand touchâ, were not substantiated and the claims were misleading by implication and exaggeration.
TheÂ CCC found that claims in the advertisements by 25 advertisersÂ were not substantiated and, thus, violated ASCI Guidelines for Advertising of EducationalÂ Institutions.Â Hence complaints against these advertisements wereÂ UPHELD.
1.Â Southern AcademyÂ Maritime Studies:Â The claim in the TVC, âif anybody who is willing to study in this college, can get a jobÂ as a Captain in a Ship and canÂ earnÂ uptoÂ 60 Lakhs per Annumâ, was not substantiated and is misleading by ambiguity and exaggeration.
2.Â Aakash Educational Services Pvt Ltd (Aakash Institute):Â The advertisement claims that Twins Rahul Bansal and Sahil Bansal (AIIMS-2015 ranks 23 and 40) and Yuvraj, (AIIMS-2015 rank 11) are from their coaching institute. This was false and was not substantiated.
3.Â HansaÂ Medcell:Â The claim in the advertisement, âGain specialist skills without sacrificing daily clinical practiceâ, is misleading since âDistance Educationâ cannot allow oneÂ to gain specialist skills inÂ gastroenterology, cardiology etc., since all theseÂ specialitiesÂ involve very special procedures like OGDÂ ScopyÂ and Colonoscopy (Crastroenthrology) and Angiography, Angioplasty (Cardiology) etc.Â As per clause 7.20 of MCI Act (Amendment 2002) one canât call oneself a specialist unless one has acquired specialist qualifications. The Medical Council does not offer recognition to distance education programmes.Â In addition the claim, âprovide One year distance education of post-graduation programs from prestigious American college ofÂ gastroenterologyÂ John HopkinsÂ University SchoolÂ of medicineâ, was false andÂ misleading by ambiguity.
4.Â Shri Maharana Pratap Private ITI:Â The advertisement claims, âno university or institutions are valid to provide any certifications in fire and safety except ShriÂ Maharana Pratap ITIâ and âonly 4 institutions in India are valid to provide fire and safety coursesâ, were not substantiated and were considered to be misleading by ambiguity.
5.Â BSE Institute Limited:Â The claim in the advertisement, âBecome a Professional Banker in Just Two Monthsâ, is misleading by ambiguity, as it is offering a âProfessional banking programâ conducted internally and the jobs being offered were inclusive of basic functions such as Welcome Desk.
6. National Board of Computer Education:Â The claims in the advertisement, âAffiliation from International Accreditation Organization (IAO), Houston, U.S.A.â, and âAffiliation from Copy Right Division under Ministry of Human Resource Development, Govt. of Indiaâ, were not substantiated with supporting proof.
7.Â AAFT School of Fashion & Design:Â Â The claim in the advertisement, âThe only Fashion School associated with Film Industryâ, was not substantiated.
8. Padmashri K.Â K.Â Shastri Educational Campus:Â Â The use of Padmashree prefix before a name as used in the advertisement confers an unjustified advantage on the advertised product (Educational Campus) as such reference.Â Â This violates Chapter I.3 of the ASCI code.
9.Â CL Educate Ltd:Â Â The claim in the advertisement, â61/100 toppers in CLAT '15 are LSTiansâ, was not substantiated.
10.Â Global Inc TrainingÂ Centre:Â TheÂ claims in the advertisement, âAssured C.T.C. Rs.14K to Rs.22K per Monthâ and â100% Guaranteed Placement under Money Bank (OR MONEY BACK) Schemeâ, were not substantiated adequately with supporting data.
11.Â Rabiya Industrial Training Institute:Â TheÂ claims in the advertisement, â100% Jobâ and âThe One and Only One Accredited Learning Center in State of Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal & Jharkhandâ, were not substantiated.
12.Â The English Square:Â The claim in the advertisement, âLearn to speak fluent English in just 100 hours with 100% Guaranteeâ, was not substantiated.
Complaints against advertisements of all educational institutes listed below mostly are UPHELD because of unsubstantiated claims that they âprovide 100% placement/AND/OR they claim to be the No.1 in their respective fieldsâ:
Endeavor, Indus Early LearningÂ Centre, Thangavelu College Engineering, Indian Institute of Medical Representative Private Limited, GCS Institute of Computer Technology, Rama NaiduÂ Film School, Patel Computers,Â Red & Multimedia Education White, ShreeÂ VenkateshwaraÂ Hi-Tech Engineering College, Shri Guru RamÂ RaiÂ Institute of Technology & Science, Career Master, Capital Infosys Institute of Hotel Management & Tourism and Brilliant Tutorial.
1. BMW:Â TheÂ mention of âpriceâ in the advertisement in place of âdown paymentâ was found to be misleading.
2.Â HDFC Bank Ltd: The advertisement claim âAvail of your preapproved paperless Personal loan of up to Rs 7.50 lac in just 12 hoursâ was not substantiated and is misleading by ambiguity.
3.Â MaxÂ BupaÂ Health Insurance Company (MaxÂ BupaÂ HealthÂ Insurance):Â The claim in the advertisement, âCashless approval in 30 minutesâ, was not substantiated.
4.Â Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Healthcare (Boost):Â TheÂ TVCÂ is misleading by showing adult players demonstrating an increase in stamina.Â The visual depicted in the TVC read in conjunction with the disclaimer, is misleading, as the disclaimer in the TVC is about the scientific study published in a peer reviewed scientific journal and are proven for the age group of 7-11 years.
5.Â Britannia Industries (Nutrichoice Heavens Cookies):Â The claim in the advertisement which statedââŠ.yet healthyâ, was not substantiated, and the claim, âloaded with ripe Bananas and crackling almondsâ, is misleading by exaggeration.
6.Â LG ElectronicsÂ India (LG Inverter V Air Conditioners):Â The advertisementâs claim âIndia's only* AC that keeps mosquitoes awayâ was not adequately substantiated. Also the claim, âMosquito protectionâ was not substantiated with evidence.
7.Â Bloomberg TV India: The advertisement claims âThe market opens with Bloomberg TV India. The No.1 market opening show 9 a.m. â Street Smart Dealing Room. Factual. First. Fastest. Final. Futureâ, âWhen it comes to business and markets programming, Bloomberg TV India is the channel of choiceâ and âThe most preferred destination for business and markets content. No. 1. Bloomberg TV India leads with 43% market share in the English Business News genreâ.Â All the three advertisements violate the BARC Principles which state inter alia that "The period of comparison must cover at least four consecutive weeks of data". The audience definition chosen by the advertiser violates the principle that subject matter of comparison is not chosen in such a way as to confer an artificial advantage upon the advertiser or so as to suggest that a better bargain is offered than is truly the case. The baseline claim in the Ad, âFirst. Fastestâ, was also found misleading as the Advertiser has not provided any evidence to substantiate this claim.
8.Â EbayÂ Inc (Ebay):Â Â The advertisement claims, âEBayÂ Guarantee - Donât Worry, Buy Happyâ, "EBayÂ guarantee" and "100% Satisfaction or refund/replacement", were false, not substantiated and were misleading.
9.Â Imperial Vehicles (Ashok Leyland âDOSTâ):Â The claim offer in the advertisement of âcash discount + free android phone + exchange facilityâ is false and is misleading.Â Also, it is a lapse in the fulfilment of an advertised claim offer.
10.Â Amazon Inc (Amazon Kindle):Â TheÂ TVCÂ of Amazon Kindle is misleading by omission of a disclaimer qualifying the price of the actual product being promoted.
11.Â Gujarat Tea Processors & Packers (Wagh Bakri Good Morning Premium Tea):Â The claim in the advertisement, âThe Best Blend of Tea in the worldâ, was not substantiated.
12.Â Epson India (Epson):Â TheÂ advertisementâs claims âMaximiseÂ your savings with Epson 143 ink cartridges that yield up to 945 black and 755Â colourÂ A4 pages. With a very low cost per page of US$0.016# for black and US$0.048# forÂ colour, running costs are reduced by up to 50% compared to laser printers. The WF-7511Â utilisesÂ only 20W in printing or standalone copying mode, helping to cut energy consumption by up to 70% versus laser printersâ, were not substantiated with detailed supporting data. Also, the claimÂ was misleadingÂ by omission of applicable specific conditions.
13.Â CP Plus India Private LimitedÂ (CP Plus):Â The brandâs claimÂ âIndiaâs no.1 CCTV BrandâÂ was not supported with the source and date of research and criteria for assessment for the claim made in the advertisement.
14.Â Asianet Communications Ltd (Sell me the answer):Â Â The scene in the advertisement showing âthe school teacher hitting the student on his palm with aÂ stickâ, of Corporal Punishment in Schools and Institutions was considered likely to result in the physical, mental or moral harmÂ to children.
15.Â Spencerâs Retail: The offer in the advertisement of âZyada ka Faydaâ claiming additional Rs.100 cash back is misleading by omission of a disclaimer qualifying that the offer is only for credit card holders.
16.Â Radico Khaitan Limited (Magic Moment):Â Â TheÂ advertisement was a surrogate advertisement for a promotion of a liquor product â Magic Moment Vodka which contravenes the ASCI Code and the Guidelines for Brand Extensions.
17.Â Odisha Television Limited: The TAM data for weeks 11 to 14 shows that OTV stands at #4 by average reach across weeks and at #5 by TVTs. Sarthak, Star Plus and Tarang have been consistently ahead of OTV.Â The claim, âOTV repeat history again. Ahead of not only News but also entertainment channelâ, was thus found false.Â The advertisement runs against Rule 5 of TAM guidelines regarding use of averages as only one weekâs dataÂ has beenÂ shown. Any estimate of channel ranking whether based on reach orÂ TVÂ ratings must be based on at least 4-8 weeks to be conclusive. Rule 7 also not observed as the estimate is in fine print at the bottom of the ad and not clearly stated. This confers an artificial advantage upon the advertiser so as to suggest that a better bargain is offered than is truly the case.
18.Â Jewelsouk Marketplace Limited (Jewelsouk.com):Â TheÂ claim, âTheÂ WorldâsÂ largestÂ JewelleryÂ Marketplaceâ, was not substantiated.
19.Â Michael & Michael Pipes Pvt. Ltd. (Michael & Michael):Â The advertisement misrepresents and attempts to deceive the viewers with reference to IS standards, without BIS certification.Â Thus the claim of IS 458/1988 was not substantiated and is misleading by ambiguity.
20.Â Iota International:Â The packaging claims, âIota Power Saver Intelligent Electricity Saver Certified ISO 9001:2000 Company JAS-ANZââ and âTested & approved by Electronic Regional Test Laboratory (Govt. of India)â, were false, misleading and were not substantiated.
21.Â Panki Detergent Private Limited (Panki Detergent Powder):Â The claim in the TVC, âNo. 1 qualityâ- Quality kiÂ kausatiÂ par aaj bhiÂ bhiÂ No. 1â, was not substantiated.