ASCI upholds complaints against 200 advertisements in October 2017

In October 2017, ASCI’s Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) upheld complaints against 200 advertisements. A total of 319 cases were brought to ASCI’s notice and suo moto action was taken against 148 advertisements, and the rest being complaints through direct sources. Out of 200 advertisements against which complaints were upheld, 82 belonged to healthcare, 75 to education, 11 to personal care, eight to the food & beverages category and 24 from other categories.

Gross exaggeration of product efficacy was the number one reason for upholding complaints, followed by violation of the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act (DMR Act) and the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules (D&C Rules). The other reasons were failure to provide substantial facts and figures to support claims, and providing misleading and ambiguous information.

Among the various complaints, CCC observed that a prominent FMCG drug company was providing inadequate and misleading information on its products while promoting pimple free skin in their campaign.  Similarly, an MNC had magnified information regarding the services provided to the public and its association with an international sports event. Both the claims were not substantiated with supporting data and were found to be inaccurate. Furthermore, claims by an online car rental service brand providing discounts and offers on its services were found to be misleading by omission of validity of the promotion period.

“Complaints against brands from various sectors have been upheld for not abiding by the codes of self-regulation put forth by ASCI. ASCI ensures protection to consumers against brands providing false and misleading information in their advertisements, and promotes honest messaging to protect the consumers’ interest. ASCI endeavours to provide transparency to both, the brands and consumers alike,” said Abanti Sankaranarayanan, Chairman, ASCI.

Direct complaints

ASCI processed complaints against the following advertisements from the general public, industry as well as from the Department of Consumer Affairs’ Grievances against Misleading Advertisements (GAMA) Portal. Out of 100 advertisements, complaints against 52 advertisements were upheld. Of these 13 advertisements against Healthcare, 10 belonged to the Personal Care category, 7 belonged to the Education category, 3 belonged to Food & Beverage category and 19 belonged to other categories.

Healthcare:-

The CCC found the following claims of 13 advertisements in healthcare products or services to be either misleading or false or not adequately / scientifically substantiated and hence violating ASCI’s Code. Some of the health care products or services advertisements also contravened provisions of the Drugs & Magic Remedies Act (DMR Act), Drugs and Cosmetics Rules (D&C Rules) and Chapter I.1 and III.4 of the ASCI Code. Complaints against the following advertisements were UPHELD.

1. Meck Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. (Glucomeck Ayurvedic): The advertisement’s claims (in Gujarati) as translated into English, “Those having difficulty in walking can also run”, and “Effective in joint pain”, were not substantiated with the details of the product being advertised, clinical evidence of product efficacy and are misleading by exaggeration.

1. Divisa Herbal Care (Dr. Ortho Oil): The advertisement’s claims (in Gujarati) as translated into English, “So effective that now pain will also bend its knees”, “Dr. Ortho Ayurvedic Oil is made of 8 excellent Ayurvedic oils, which enters the joints and helps in getting relief from the pain”, “Due to it being Ayurvedic its effect remains for a long time”, “Unmatched medicine for joint pain”, “It gives relief in cervical pain, knee pain, waist pain and shoulder pain”, and Javed Akhtar - Poet, lyricist, script writer says - “Dr. Ortho Ayurvedic Oil is not a temporary pain killer, it is an Ayurvedic medicine”, were not substantiated with clinical evidence of product efficacy, and are misleading by gross exaggeration. The claim “…is not a temporary pain killer” was considered to be misleading by implication that the product would cure pain. Also the advertiser did not submit any evidence that Javed Akhtar is in agreement with the claims being made in the advertisement in general. His endorsement seen in conjunction with the unsubstantiated claims is likely to mislead consumers regarding the product efficacy.

1. JeewanJyoti Pharmacy Pvt. Ltd. (HealthSun Ayurvedic Capsules): The advertisement’s claims, “Makes health healthy”, “Increases self-confidence”, “Ayurvedic Capsules”, “Increase body weight not fat”, “Increases hunger, increases weight”, and “Health tonic for whole family”, were not substantiated with evidence of product efficacy. The claim, “Since 25 years”, was not substantiated with supporting evidence or with third party validation.  The claims are misleading by exaggeration.

1. Mission Health: The advertisement’s claims, “Now to get slim is no more a dream”, “Yes, it is possible with our 4-D Slimming Clinic”, and “Lose five to seven kilograms, ten to 15 centimetres in just one month”, were not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence, and with treatment efficacy data, and are misleading by exaggeration. The visual in the advertisement implies a significant weight loss which is also grossly misleading.

1. Dr. Avishkar Homeopathy: The advertisement’s claim, “#Stroke is curable with homeopathy” was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

1. Dr. Raghubir Singh: The advertisement’s claim, “100% cure of Asthma” was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the D&C Act.

1. Freshiya Health Centre: The advertisement’s claims (in Gujarati) as translated into English, “Lose weight”, “Ayurvedic method”, and “Lose seven to ten kilograms and five to seven inches from hip and stomach in 28 days”, were not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence and with treatment efficacy data, and are misleading by exaggeration.

1. Zee Laboratories Limited (Zee Gold Capsules): The advertisement’s claim, “India’s most liked”, was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s product and other competitive products in the same category, or through a market survey data, or through third party validation. Further the claims, “ZEE Gold Strong is a comprehensive daily health supplement that has a balanced combination of Ginseng power”, “Remove fatigue and get success”, “Strength and power of life, more stamina, keeps stress free, more energy/vigour”, and “Useful for all ages”, were not substantiated with product efficacy data.  Hence, the claims are misleading by exaggeration. The advertiser did not provide a copy of the particular award/certificate as claimed in the advertisement. Also the claim, “President Award winner”, was not substantiated with details of the award as well as references of the award such as the year, source and category for the award received. The claim is misleading by exaggeration and omission of a disclaimer to qualify this claim.  

1. SBS Biotech (Accumass): The advertisement’s claim, “Why only Accumass? – Because it has balanced combination of 18 special Ayurvedic herbs” and “names of 6 types of Ayurvedic herbs indicated with pictures and benefits”, were not substantiated with supporting data showing the presence of these ingredients in the product, and are misleading. Further the claims, “Ayurvedic formulation to help gain weight for all ages”, “100% Ayurvedic”, “Increase body weight not fat”, “*Gain weight according to your body capability to absorb extra calories from Accumass, results may vary”, “Don’t get upset if you are extremely thin, Accumass Ayurvedic granules and capsules are very useful in gaining weight and increasing self-confidence”, “It is a certified Ayurvedic medicine”, and “Increase weight, develop confidence”, were not substantiated with product efficacy data, and are misleading by exaggeration. Also, the claim, “Awarded as World’s Greatest Brand 2015-16 by IUA and Most Trusted Brand of Asia by World Brand Summit”, was not substantiated with a copy of the award/certificate as claimed, the details of the process as to how the selection was done i.e. survey methodology, details of survey data, criteria used for evaluation, questionnaires used, names of similar competitive products that were part of the survey, the outcome of the survey. Moreover, the credibility and authenticity and name of the certifying body was not provided by the advertiser.  The claim is misleading by exaggeration.

1. Lifespan Wellness Pvt. Ltd. (Lifespan Diabetes Clinics): The advertisement’s claim, “From Insulin to No Insulin – the life story of Palas Panja”, was not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence. The claims made are based on the case study of Palas Panja, implying cure for diabetes which are misleading by gross exaggeration and exploits consumers’ lack of experience and knowledge. Also the claim on the advertisement headline, “From Insulin to No Insulin” implies complete cure for Diabetes via treatment with tablets at Lifespan Clinic which is in breach of the law as it violated the DMR Act and the D&C Act.

1. Juvenor Pharmaceuticals (Muslinites Gold Capsules): The advertisement’s claim, “The product is helpful in increasing your power and excitement which will fill your life with happiness,” was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act. Further the visual in the advertisement read in conjunction with the claims objected to imply that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure.

1. Sai Clinic: The advertisement’s claim, “Cures obesity without diet or medicine” was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

1. Soliel International Healthcare Products (BT-36 Body Toner Capsules and Cream): The advertisement’s claims, “It is an Ayurvedic medicine which includes body toner capsule and cream which helps in beautiful thoughts and abundant self-confidence with no side-effect” with recommendation to have three capsules every day and massage twice a day with cream for 60 days, along with a disclaimer stating “Advt. is an information for R.M.P. only result may vary”, and also the product name and visual in the advertisement read in conjunction with the claims in the advertisement imply that the product is meant for breast enhancement, was all considered to be prima facie in violation of the DMR Act.

Personal Care:-

1. Hindustan Unilever Limited (Lever Ayush Soap): The advertisement’s claims, “Based on 5000 year old Ayurved scriptures with 15 Ayurvedic herbs – Ayush Haldi soap, Saffron soap and cow’s ghee soap” (“5000 saal puraane Ayurvedic granthon pea dharit. 15 Ayurvedic jadi butti yukt – Ayush haldi soap, Kesar soap, aur cow’s ghee soap”) were inadequately substantiated and are misleading. Also the claims, “matlab sirf hari patiyan dikhane se koi Ayurvedic nahi ban jaata, sahi Ayurvedhai Lever Ayush”, and “Dikhawe se bacho. Sahi Ayurved chuno”, by implication denigrated the entire class/category of Ayurvedic products. Furthermore, the advertiser did not submit any evidence that the celebrity is in agreement with the claims being made in the advertisement in general. The visual of the celebrity (Akshay Kumar) when seen in conjunction with the claims are likely to mislead consumers regarding the product efficacy and contravened ASCI’s Guidelines for Celebrities in Advertising.

1. Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Veet Wax Strips): The advertisement’s claim, “Removes the shortest hair that salon wax cannot”, and “Disclaimer: *Effective at removing even short (1.5mm) hair, basis clinical study performed under dermatological control. Salon wax means sugar wax”, were inadequately substantiated with objective measurement / study findings on the comparative efficacy of Veetwax strips and sugar wax.  The advertisement is misleading by omission of a disclaimer to qualify that the test is based on opinion survey of salon experts. Furthermore, the advertiser did not submit any evidence that the celebrity is in agreement with the claims being made in the advertisement in general. The visual of the celebrity (Shraddja Kapoor) when seen in conjunction with the claim “removes the shortest of hair that salon wax cannot” is likely to mislead consumers regarding the product efficacy and contravened ASCI’s Guidelines for Celebrities in Advertising.

1. Hamdard Laboratories (India) (Safi): The advertisement’s claims, “For pimple free skin 21 days formula” and “For pimple free skin”, were inadequately substantiated, and are misleading by exaggeration.   

1. Brihans Natural Products Ltd. (Green Leaf pure aloe vera skin gel): The advertisement’s claim, “India’s most trusted brand”, was not substantiated with details of the process as to how the selection was done i.e. survey methodology, details of survey data, criteria used for evaluation, questionnaires used, names of other similar institutes that were part of the survey and the outcome of the survey.  Furthermore, the award for the advertiser was among “Ayurvedic skincare products” in the year 2016, reference to which was missing in the advertisement.  Further the claim, “Unlike any cream and oil based cosmetic products, this Ayurvedic Aloe Gel naturally protects your skin”, was not substantiated with comparative data for product efficacy, of the advertiser’s product and other competitor products in the same category.  Also the claims of effects in “Acne, sunburn, rash, skin eruption and allergies, cuts and wounds” were inadequately substantiated and are misleading.

1. The Himalaya Drug Company (Himalaya Purifying Neem Face Wash): The advertisement’s claims, “Enough experiments with soap, creams and homemade pastes. They don’t help with your pimple problems”, “….gives you pimple-free pure skin”, and pack claim, “Prevents pimples”, were inadequately substantiated and are misleading by exaggeration. 

1. RichFeel Health & Beauty Pvt. Ltd.: The advertisement’s claim regarding efficacy being depicted via images of before and after the treatment is a misrepresentation of facts, and is misleading by gross exaggeration.

1. CavinKare Pvt. Ltd. (Egg White Chik Shampoo): The advertisement’s claim, “Eh damaged baloonko nourish karkehairfallkamkare”, was not substantiated and was misleading by exaggeration.   

1. Pfizer Ltd. (Anne French All Natural Hair Removal Cream): The advertisement’s claim, “Anne French All Natural Apnao” is misleading by ambiguity and exaggeration as the product is a chemical depilatory and it’s "all natural" nomenclature / claim in the context of Aloe Vera present is only 1% level in the product. Further for the claim, “2x softer skin” the claim support data was not considered to be acceptable to substantiate a numerical claim regarding softness. The longevity of the effect was not substantiated and the disclaimer in the advertisement was misleading by ambiguity and implication.

1. Dabur India Ltd. (Dabur Laal Tel): The advertisement’s claim “Dugnitezi se sharirik vikas”, was substantiated, however, this claim was valid for babies up to six months of age. There was a discrepancy in the advertisement as it showed the baby getting up and walking towards the mother and thus indicating the age to be more than six months. The additional data presented by the advertiser is about brand performance measurement and what the current users of the product “believe” regarding the product benefit. However, this data was not considered to be acceptable in absence of any scientific support for age group of six months to two years – similar to the clinical study quoted by the advertiser. The visual in the advertisement of an older baby when read in conjunction with the disclaimer claiming clinical research on babies up to six months of age, was misleading by ambiguity and implication. Also, the legibility of the disclaimers in the advertisement were not in compliance with the ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers.

1. Nearbuy India Private Limited(Golden Feather Salon): The advertisement claiming the Hair Wash + Haircut rate as Rs.250, and offering at the discounted rate of Rs.199,  when the actual original rate for the service offered is Rs.200,  is false, distorts facts and is misleading the consumers about the actual discount being offered. 

Education:-

The CCC found following claims in the advertisements by seven different advertisers were not substantiated and, thus, violated ASCI Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions. Hence complaints against these advertisements were Upheld.

1. Liza Handwriting and Calligraphy Course: The advertisement’s claims (in Gujarati) as translated into English, “YunusBalluwala - the only expert in Ahmedabad”, “Only in five days”, and “100% Guarantee”, were not substantiated with supporting data, and are misleading by exaggeration.

1. Manav Rachna Educational Institutions: For the advertisement’s claim, “FMS,MRIU received A+++rating in ‘Best B-school Survey2017’ by Business India”, the data provided by the Advertiser was for the year 2016 and not 2017. Hence this claim was false and misleading.  Further for the claim, “1600+ placements in the last academic year”, the advertiser provided data for total 1366 placements.  No data was given on the number of passing out students placed for jobs, year of passed-out students, and total number of students passed out from the placed class.  Hence this claim was inadequately substantiated and is misleading by omission of the disclaimers as required under the ASCI Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs. For the claim, “17 are countries from which MREI students arrive” the advertiser provided only the name of the country as proof.  No data was given regarding the year, batch size, stream, and related details of the students.  Hence this claim was inadequately substantiated and is misleading. Also, for the claim, “40+ global collaborations” the advertiser did not provide data on (“MoU” with global universities/ institutions) for global tie-ups by the college. No details of students that got placed and passed out every year were given. The claim was inadequately substantiated and is misleading. Furthermore, for the claim, “3300+ research papers in International/ National Journals” the advertiser provided only aggregated figures of 3067 research papers. No ISSN number or publication year is mentioned in the annexure provided by the advertiser.  The claim was inadequately substantiated and is misleading. For the claim, “500+ reputed MNCs & Indian corporates patronizing us”. The advertiser provided only a list of the companies. No supporting data was given to substantiate the given figure.  The claim was inadequately substantiated and is misleading. Also the claim, “25000+ is our Alumni Base”, was not substantiated with supporting data and is misleading. Lastly for the claims, “Knowledge partners - HONDA, Ed Gate, and CMA” the advertiser did not provide MOUs of these Knowledge Partners with date of execution of the MOUs.  The claim was not substantiated and is misleading. 

1. Allen Career Institute: The advertisement’s claim, “After AIPMT, IITJEE, NEET & Now in AIIMS, it is proved that securing AIR -1 is a tradition at Allen”, was not substantiated and is misleading by ambiguity and implication. Also the claim, “This can be achieved only with ALLEN System”, was not substantiated with verifiable comparative data, to prove that only the advertiser’s institute has been able to produce the best results. This claim was misleading by implication and exaggeration. 

1. Adi Shankara Institute of Engineering and Technology: The advertisement’s claim, “Moulding competent & committed professionals for the past 17 years”, was not substantiated with supporting data, and is misleading by exaggeration. Also the claim, “90% placements for the current passing out batch”, was not substantiated with authentic supporting data of the current year (2017) such as detailed list of students who have been placed through their Institute, contact details of students for verification, enrolment forms and appointment letters received by the students, nor any independent audit or verification certificate.  The claim is misleading by exaggeration. Furthermore the claim, “Based on KEAM rank, attractive fee waiver scholarships for meritorious students admitted under both Govt. Allotment & Management Quota”, was not substantiated with supporting evidence of the scholarships availed by any of their students, and was misleading by implication and ambiguity regarding the amount of scholarship and the total number of scholarships being offered. 

1. Chandigarh University: The advertisement’s claims, “CU sees a surge of 60% in number of companies”, “457 companies visited”, “4964 placement offers”, and “Top MNC’S offering premium packages!”, were not substantiated with verifiable supporting data, and are misleading by exaggeration. Also the claim, “Adjudged as University with best placements”, was not substantiated with verifiable comparative data.  The claim is not qualified to mention the source and date of research and is misleading by omission. The claim, “26.97 highest package offered”, was not substantiated with evidence to prove that students were offered the claimed salary package, and is misleading by exaggeration. Further the claim, “Companies that visit only CU amongst the private institutions of North India”, was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s institute and other similar institutes, or through a market survey data, and is misleading by implication and exaggeration and also the claim, “Scholarships up to 100%”, was not substantiated with supporting evidence of 100% scholarships availed by any of their students, and was misleading by implication and ambiguity regarding the amount of scholarship and the total number of scholarships being offered.

1. Thiagarajar College of Engineering: The advertisement’s claims, “60 years of Academic Excellence”, “Academic Process: Industry co-created curriculum (TVS Motors) for Mechanical and Electrical & Electronics Engineering. Industry supported Labs- Intel, IBM, Motorola, Agilent, NI, TI, Microsoft, Freescale, ARM, BOSCH, Siemens…”, “Three U.S. patent and one India Patent”, “163 of 276 of the faculty possess Ph.D.”, “One/Two credit courses by industries”, “Thiagarajar Telecom Solutions Pvt Ltd” an incubated company in TCE”, and “Innovation and Entrepreneurship Promotion Hub-EDII, Govt. of Tamil Nadu”, were not substantiated with supporting data, and are misleading by exaggeration. Further the claims, “NIRF Ranking Among IIT’s NIT’s, Universities and Engineering Colleges”, “37th Ranking in India”, “NIRF Ranking Among Engineering Colleges- 4th in India, 3rd in Tamil Nadu, 1st in India for Research, 4th in India for Teaching and Learning”, were not substantiated with ranking data as claimed in the advertisement.  The claims are not qualified to mention the source and date of research and are misleading by omission.  

1. Efficient Brainy: The advertisement’s claims, “Whole brain training and super sensory development program”, “Whole brain development program”, “DMRIT Smart Kit”, “DMIT (dermatoglyphics multiple intelligence test)”, “Develop concentration”, “Boost up memory”, “Increase creativity” and “Smart kid kit- Helps your child to be better than the best” were inadequately substantiated and are misleading by exaggeration.  The claims, “Use both sides of your brain (left and right brain) in tandem and become a super genius”, “Affiliation to International brain research organisation and Society for neurosciences”,  and claim (in Kannada) as translated in English, “Puttur's efficient brainy children are we, who can do anything with our eyes blindfolded”, were not substantiated, and are misleading by exaggeration. Also the visuals showing children blindfolded and claiming “I can still read”, “I can still write”,  “I can still play”, “ I can still walk”, are misleading by gross exaggeration, and exploits the consumers’ lack of knowledge and is likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers.

Food and Beverages:-

1. Synthite Industries Ltd. (Kitchen Treasures Brahmin Sambar Powder): The advertisement’s claim, “World's largest chilli company”, was not substantiated with market survey data/sales data, or any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s product and other competitors in the same category, or through a third party validation. Also the claim, “Awarded outstanding exporter of the year for the last 36 years by the Spices Board of India”, was not substantiated with verifiable supporting data and with copies of the award certificates for the claim made.

1. Laxmi Protein Products Pvt. Ltd. (Laxmi Toor Dal): The advertisement’s claim, “Gujarat’s No.1 Desi Toor Dal”, was not substantiated with any market survey data or verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s products and other competitive products, or any third party validation to prove these claims. The claim is misleading by exaggeration.

1. Godfrey Phillips India Ltd. (Pan Vilas Pan Masala): The advertisement’s claims, “India’s No.1 Brand”, “Awarded by World Consulting Research Corporation”, “Chosen as Asia’s most promising brand 2015-16 for Pan Masala”, “India’s most promising Brand 2016 in Pan Masala category - Awarded by World Consulting and Research Corporation.- Awarded by India’s most Trusted Brand Council. – Awarded by International Brand Consulting Corporation” and “Power Brand India Industry Trendsetter Award 2016 in Pan Masala Category.- Awarded by Planman Media”, were not adequately substantiated and are misleading by exaggeration. 

Others:-

1. Hindustan Petroleum Corp (HP Petroleum):The visual of “a rider and pillion rider on a two wheeler without helmet” as depicted in the advertisement shows violation of traffic rules and is an unsafe practice.

1. M/s. Lamode Fashions Pvt Ltd (LaMode): The visual shown in the advertisement of “a rider and a pillion rider on a two wheeler without helmets”, shows violation of traffic rules and is an unsafe practice. Also, the pillion rider showed standing while the vehicle is in motion shows a dangerous practice, manifests a disregard for safety and encourages negligence.

1. Uber India: The advertisement’s claims, “Save Rs 500 on your next 10 Uber rides” and “Ride Uber and the discount will auto apply”, were misleading by omission of validity of the promotion period, and that the offer is subject to terms and conditions.

1. MRF Ltd. (Wood Coat): The advertisement’s claims (in Gujarati) as appearing in the English version of the advertisement, “Wood Coat, the most trusted premium wood finish for more than twenty years” and “It is a 100% polyurethane wood finish that helps protect wooden furniture for years”, were not substantiated with product composition details confirming that it is 100% PU or other supporting data.  The claims are misleading by exaggeration.

1. Indian Oil Corp Ltd (Servo Oil): The advertisement’s claim, “India’s largest selling trusted lubricants”, was not substantiated with verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s product and other competitive products, or with a market sales data, or through a third party validation.  Also the claim, “Selected super brand India 2014-2015”, was not substantiated with supporting data, and was misleading by ambiguity and exaggeration as the advertiser has used 2014-2015 survey data for an advertisement published in 2017. 

1. Ultra-Card Print World Pvt. Ltd. (Print World): The advertisement’s claim, “For the first time in Gujarat, School-College- I Card made by French technology”, was not substantiated with supporting data and is misleading by implication and exaggeration. 

1. The Coca-Cola India Pvt. Ltd.: The advertisement’s claims, “131 years younger”, “Did you know? Coca-Cola is the 2nd most recognized word across the world the first being OK”, “1.9 billion servings of The Coca-Cola Company products are sold each day. During the first year that Coca- Cola was introduced, back in 1886, sales averaged a modest nine drinks per day”, “Coca-Cola is the longest serving partner of the Olympic Games since 1928”, and “Coca-Cola’s partners have revitalized over 6000 schools across India with better amenities as part of Support My School Campaign”, were not substantiated with supporting data, and are misleading by exaggeration. 

1. Usha International Ltd. (Usha Honeywell Evaporative Air Cooler):  The advertisement’s claim, “Cools up to 80 square metres”, was inadequately substantiated under test conditions and is misleading by exaggeration.

1. Gujarat News Broadcasters Pvt. Ltd. (VTV News): The advertisement’s claim, “Gujarat’s most popular channel”, was not substantiated with viewership data of the advertiser’s channel against all other competitive channels, and is misleading by exaggeration and implication. 

1. Sangeetha Mobiles Pvt Ltd: The advertisement does not call out that the amount stated of Rs 4333 is the EMI amount per month. The FAQ section of the website anticipates such confusion however; this is not addressed upfront in the advertisement. The “*” corresponds to “conditions apply” but does not direct consumer to the website for details. Hence the advertisement’s claim, “Rs.4,333* (*conditions apply)”, was misleading by ambiguity and omission.

1. D'DÉCOR (D clean): The advertisement’s claims, “India’s first spill and stain proof patented technology. An innovation so superior, that it keeps upholstery spotless and perfect for years” were inadequately substantiated. The claims are misleading by exaggeration.  

1. Epson India Pvt. Ltd. (Epson Printers): Though the advertisement’s claims are qualified with disclaimers, the disclaimers in the advertisement were not legible, and the hold duration of the disclaimers was not in compliance with the ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers.  

1. TCL India: The advertisement’s claim, “India’s fastest growing TV brand” was inadequately substantiated and is misleading by exaggeration. 

1. Ibibo Group Pvt. Ltd. (Fab Hotels): The Ibibo website showing images of the hotel having gym bar, snooker pool, dining area restaurant 24x7, dining service and tea coffee maker in room, are false, misleading and are misrepresentation of facts by giving false information about the facilities being provided at the hotel. 

1. Nakshatra World Limited (Nakshatra.world): The advertisement’s claim, “India’s Most Trusted Jewellery Company”, awarded by International Brand Consulting Corporation, USA, was not substantiated with supporting data.  The claim is misleading by exaggeration.

1. Madura Fashion & Lifestyle (Linen Club): The advertisement visual showing Actor Farhan Akhtar pillion riding wearing a helmet without strap, and both rider and pillion rider wearing non-ISI standard helmets, is in violation of Section 129 (a) and (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The visual depiction in the advertisement without justifiable reason, shows a dangerous practice and manifests a disregard for safety. 

1. SBI Funds Management Pvt. Ltd. (SBI Mutual Fund): The advertisement’s claim, (in Gujarati) as translated into English, “SBI Mutual Fund (dual advantage fund closing on 24-7-2017)” and “SBI Mutual Fund (dual advantage fund closing on 25-9-2017)” were misleading by omission of disclaimer to mention the standard warning as per the 6th Schedule of SEBI (MF) (Amendment 2012 w.e.f. 21-2-2012) Regulation, 1996.

1. Heinz India P.Limited: The advertisement makes the claim, "Naye best ever Complan ke ek cup me hain India ke do leading health drinks se bhi zyada growth protein".  The said claim is accompanied by the visual of: Complan = Brand X + Brand Y. The claim “new” was false and misleading as the product being advertised was launched in year 2003-04 and was marketed till year 2012. A different formula lower in protein and fat content was launched and marketed during 2012 till date. Further, while the claim, “Best ever Complan” was not considered to be objectionable, it was considered that the claim, “Best ever formula Complan” to be misleading by implication that it is best as compared to other product formulae in the market (referred as X and Y). Calling protein as “growth protein” while making comparison with product X and Y was considered to be misleading by implication when seen in conjunction with the 2X growth claim. It was noted that the study being quoted by the advertiser is acceptable for the claim of “2X height increase” growth for the population being referred to in the disclaimer “Other kids who consume usual diet alone Vs Complan kids who consume usual diet plus Complan”. However the quoted study becomes irrelevant with respect to comparison with products X and Y and is misleading by ambiguity and implication, particularly so since the claim of 2X growth also appears in pack visuals in TVC. Furthermore, the increase being depicted in the pack visuals is an absolute height of 2X whereas the clinical study is about 2X increase (incremental growth). This is misleading by exaggeration. Also, the depiction of this comparison on back of pack to be misleading by ambiguity and omission of the reference that “Other kids” being referred are kids who consume usual diet alone (and not users of product X and Y). The disclaimer is not on the same panel of the packaging as the claim made. Hence the advertisement contravened the ASCI Code as well as ASCI Guidelines on “New” claim and Guidelines on Disclaimers.

1. Friend’s Electronics: The advertisement’s claim, "There is no service support on Online Shopping" is misrepresentation of facts, and was misleading by exaggeration, and by implication unfairly denigrated other online e-retailers in the same category.  

Suo Moto action

The advertisements given below were picked up through ASCI’s Suo Moto surveillance of print and TV media via the National Advertisement Monitoring Services (NAMS) project. Out of 219 advertisements, total of 148 advertisements were considered to be misleading. Of these 69 advertisements were concerned Healthcare, 68 belonged to the Education category, five belonged to the Food & Beverages category, one belonged to Personal Care category and five belonged to ‘others’.

Healthcare:-

The CCC found the following claims of 69 advertisements in health care products or services to be either misleading or false or not adequately / scientifically substantiated and hence violating ASCI’s Code. Some of the health care products or services advertisements also contravened provisions of the Drugs & Magic Remedies Act (DMR Act), Drugs and Cosmetics Rules (D&C Rules) and Chapter I.1 and III.4 of the ASCI Code. Complaints against the following advertisements were Upheld.

1. Perfect Point: The advertisement’s claim, “Lose up to seven centimetres in one session”, was not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence, and with treatment efficacy data, and is misleading by exaggeration. Also, the visual in the advertisement implies that a significant weight loss around tummy would be feasible, which is also grossly misleading.

1. Evaa Fertility and Gynaecology Centre: The advertisement’s claim, “High Success Rate”, was not substantiated with supporting verifiable data, and is misleading by ambiguity. 

1. Bajoria Appliances Pvt. Ltd. (Kutchina Water Purifier): The advertisement’s claims, “Boosts immunity”, “Advanced AO Anti-Oxidant technology that ensures anti-oxidant rich water”, and “Kutchina purifiers guarantee 100% healthy water”, were not substantiated with supporting clinical / technical tests/trial reports, and are misleading by exaggeration.

1. Smart Gym: The advertisement’s claim, “Get flat belly in six weeks”, was not substantiated with supporting data. Also the claim, “The best weight loss course in India”, was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s institute and other similar institutes in the same category, or with any market survey data to prove this claim. The claims are misleading by exaggeration.

1. Oma Health and Beauty Clinic: The advertisement’s claims, “Reduce 40-60 centimetres in just five days”, and “Guaranteed weight loss up to five kilograms”, were not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence, and with treatment efficacy data, and are misleading by exaggeration.  Also, efficacy being depicted via images of before and after the treatment are misleading.

1. A. M. Reddy Homeopathy: The advertisement’s claim, “Migraine, one side pain, severe pain, vomits, these can be cured 100 per cent”, was not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence, and is misleading by gross exaggeration.

1. Positive Homeopathy: The advertisement’s claim, “Migraine, headache, rigorous pain, vomiting everything will be cured 100 per cent”, was not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence, and is misleading by gross exaggeration. 

1. Elements Health Care Solutions (Migrocure Ayurvedic Oil): The advertisement’s claim, “No matter how old is the migraine, it will cure it”, was inadequately substantiated and the claim as well as the product name `Migrocure’ is misleading by exaggeration. 

1. Sun India Pharmacy Pvt. Ltd. (Swasthya Vardhak Capsules): The advertisement’s claim, “India’s No.1”, was not substantiated with any market survey data or with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s product and other similar products in the same category or through a third party validation.  The claim was misleading by exaggeration.

1. Naturoveda Health World: The advertisement’s claims, “Honoured as the safest healthcare destination for treating lakhs of patients successfully”, and “India's most trusted and reliable healthcare destination in the field of natural medical sciences", were inadequately substantiated with supporting data.  The claims are misleading by exaggeration. Also the claim, “Awarded as "Maharshicharak, hakim Jalinos and Maharshi patanjali samman for combining natural medical system in the most scientific manner", was not considered to be objectionable. However, the advertiser did not mention the source of this data / awarding organization.

1. Jolly Health Care (Jolly Tulsi 51 Drops): The advertisement’s claim, “Just five drops in a day, keep diseases and doctors away”, “Jolly Tulsi - 51 Drops enhances your immune system”,  and “Save entire family from every weather, every disease”, were not substantiated with evidence of product efficacy, and are misleading by exaggeration.

1. Caram Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd. (Diamedica): The advertisement’s claim, “Nation's Most Secured, Most Effective & Most Economical Tablets”, was not substantiated with any supporting comparative or market survey data. Also the claims, “Shows full results in 90 days”, “Prevent the side effects of diabetes naturally”, “Sensation of increasing insulin”, “Protection for liver and pancreas”, “Protection for kidney problems”,  “Protection for eye problems”, “Heart rejuvenation” and “Resistance from insulin”, were not substantiated with clinical evidence of product efficacy.  The claims are misleading by exaggeration.

1. Ayurdham Kerala Ayurvedic Panchkarma: The advertisement’s claims, “Get Cured by Ayurdham Kerala Ayurvedic Panchkarma”, and “Special treatments - Paralysis, Migraine, and Psoriasis”, were not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence. The claims are misleading by exaggeration and implication that the advertised conditions would get cured by the treatment.

1. Olivet Pharma Pvt. Ltd. (Ayusya Super speciality Treatment Centre): The advertisement’s claim, “To lead a healthy, ailment-free life”, was not substantiated with supporting evidence and is misleading by exaggeration.

1. Arogyam Ayurvedic Hospital: The advertisement’s claims, “Avoid knee replacement, treatment is possible through Ayurveda”, and “Lakhs of people have got riddance from diseases”, were not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence and are misleading by exaggeration.

1. Nurture Health Care (Bgainer Capsule): The advertisement’s claims, “Increase weight up to 12 kilograms in just three months”, and “Best Ayurvedic formula without any side effects”, were not substantiated with clinical evidence of product efficacy, and are misleading by exaggeration.

1. Blizz Biosculpting: The advertisement’s claim, “Lose up to seven kilograms” was not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence, and with treatment efficacy data, and is misleading by exaggeration.

1. SKS Ayurveda Impex Pvt. Ltd. (SKS Height Plus): The advertisement’s claim, “Increase Height with Ayurveda,” was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

1. Shree Ujjawal Ayurveda (Shree Ujjawal Ayurveda Products): The advertisement’s claims, “Increase Sex Time Up to 25-30 Minutes without Interruption,” and “Increase Length and Thickness of Organ, Sperm Related Problems, Premature Ejaculation, Nightfall, Organ Laxity, Childhood Mistakes”, and the visual in the advertisement read in conjunction with the claims objected to implies that the products are meant for the enhancement of sexual pleasure, were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

1. Rogmukti Ayurvedic Clinic: The advertisement’s claim, “100% Guaranteed Ayurvedic Treatment for sex weakness, quick discharge, night fall, infections, less sperm counting, and short bend loose penis”, and  was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

1. Ratan Ayurvedic Sansthan Pvt. Ltd. (Su dol Body Toner Capsules): The advertisement’s claims, “I have found so much happiness that I am unable to keep it in my body”, “If you are broad minded Sudol will help increase your self-confidence”, “Enhances the beauty of women” and the visual in the advertisement read in conjunction with the claims objected to implies that the products are meant for the enhancement of sexual pleasure, were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

1. Positive Homeopathy (Positive Slimming): The advertisement’s claim, “Celebrate the freedom from obesity through positive slimming,” was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

1. Nisargalaya Drugs Pvt. Ltd. (Phyto X-Tra Power): The advertisement’s claims “Increase the quantity and quality of the semen”, “Increases vitality”, “Cures nerves weakness and the sex organs”, “Effective on premature ejaculation and on nocturnal emission” and “Rejuvenated female organs and helps in maintaining a perfect hormone balance,” along with and the visual in the advertisement read in conjunction with the claims objected to imply that the products are meant for the enhancement of sexual pleasure, were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

1. Nirog Ayurvedic Center: The advertisement’s claim, “Get rid of wart haemorrhoids, fistula within 15 days with AFRT medicine made from new Ayurvedic rare herbs,” was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the D&C Rules.

1. Manishree Homeopathic Clinic: The advertisement’s claims, “Magic action within 15 Days” and “High blood pressure quick and permanent cure within short period,” were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

1. Hamdard Laboratories India (Hamdard Wellness): The advertisement’s claim, “For natural cure visit Hamdard Center for the following and various problems - Diabetes and Heart Diseases” was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

1. Dr. Dassan’s Life Care Ayurvedic Herbal Treatment and Research Centre: The advertisement’s claims, “Paralysis patients get saved from getting handicap” and “After a seizure his legs, forearm, hands and tongue were not working but through Dr. Dassans treatment for 15 days, he is completely cured” were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

1. B C German Homeo Clinic: The advertisement’s claim, “Successfully treated diseases like epilepsy, leukoderma (White Spot), arthritis, etc. incurable diseases,” was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

1. Dr. H.L. Parmar Ayurved & Panchkarm Hospital: The advertisement’s claim, “Provides successful treatment through Panchakarma and Ayurveda method to diseases like stone diseases, and diabetes” was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

1. Prince Pharma (2 Much Gold Capsules): The advertisement’s claims, “My husband’s love has never faded, you know why? Because he has 2 Much Gold Capsules that keep the feeling of love intact and does not allow it to reduce”, “Problems like weakness due to increasing age” and “For stamina” were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

1. SDI Herbo Chem Pvt. Ltd. - Zosh Ayurvedic Oil and Capsules: The advertisement’s claims, “Ayurvedic oil and capsule for men” and “Power and stamina for men”, along with the visual in the advertisement read in conjunction with the claims objected to imply that the products are meant for the enhancement of sexual pleasure, were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

1. Dindayal Aushadhi Pvt. Ltd. (303 Gold Power Oil): The advertisement’s claim, “For men only” and the visual in the advertisement read in conjunction with the claims objected to imply that the products are meant for the enhancement of sexual pleasure, were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

1. Sun Laboratories (P) Ltd. (Titanic-K2 Plus Capsule): The advertisement’s claims, “Now twice the strength”, “Power capsule for men” and “The first choice of men which gives the pleasure of masculinity for longer duration without any side effects” along with the visual in the advertisement read in conjunction with the claims objected to imply that the products are meant for the enhancement of sexual pleasure, were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

1. Gaharwar Pharma Products Pvt. Ltd. (P.V Tone Oil and Capsule): The advertisement’s claims, “Wonderful formula to increase excitement and strength”, “And helps to promote desire” and the advertisement shows visuals of lovebirds implying product meant to enhance sexual pleasure were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

1. Men’s Health Clinic: The advertisement’s claims, “A trusted place for solution of sexual problems of men - Premature Ejaculation & Impotency” and “Discharge of sperm, semen thinness, weakness due to diabetes, low libido” along with the visual in the advertisement read in conjunction with the claims objected to imply that the products are meant for the enhancement of sexual pleasure, were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

1. Homeocare International Pvt. Ltd.: The advertisement’s claim, “By genetic constitutional method rectifying the defects caused by infertility which is raised in men and women. Not only giving permanent solution but also laying the path for having second or third child,” was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

1. Dr. Atul Mishra German Homoeopathic Agency & Clinic: The advertisement’s claim, “Helps to cure diseases such as venereal diseases, premature ejaculation and spermatorrhea from the roots, etc.” was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.
2. Diacure Herbal Powder: The advertisement’s claim, “Kidney stone syrup will remove the stone in kidney, 100% cure in 12 hours,” was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.
3. Soliel International Healthcare Products (BT-36 Body toner capsule and cream): The advertisement’s claim, “For good results, for 60 days daily take 3 capsules and massage with cream twice a day” and the visual in the advertisement read in conjunction with the claims objected to imply that the products are meant for breast enhancement, were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.
4. Gaharwar Pharma Products Pvt. Ltd. (Gaharwar OTC Products): The advertisement’s claims, “Gain power”, “Improve your libido by using it” and the visual in the advertisement read in conjunction with the claims objected to imply that the products is meant for sexual enhancement, were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.
5. Rajnish Hot Deals Pvt. Ltd. (PlayWin Plus Capsule): The advertisement’s claims, “Increase vigour, strength, energy and pep”, “Helpful in preventing premature ejaculation” and “For powerful stamina” along with the visual in the advertisement read in conjunction with the claims objected to imply that the product is meant for sexual enhancement, were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.
6. Rajnish Hot Deals Pvt. Ltd. (PlayWin Plus Capsule): The advertisement’s claims, “Increase vigour, strength, energy and pep”, “Helpful in preventing premature ejaculation” and “For powerful stamina”, along with the visual in the advertisement read in conjunction with the claims objected to imply that the product is meant for sexual enhancement, were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.
7. Rajnish Hot Deals Pvt. Ltd. (PlayWin Plus Capsule): The advertisement’s claims, “Increase vigour, strength, energy and pep” and “For powerful stamina” along with the visual in the advertisement read in conjunction with the claims objected to imply that the product is meant for sexual enhancement, were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.
8. Shree Maruti Herbal (Stay-On Power Capsule): The advertisement’s claims, “Helps keep the power and pep in body intact and makes body strong”, “For excitement, vigour and strength” and the visual in the advertisement read in conjunction with the claims objected to imply that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure. Also the advertisement provides link to website which refers to StayOn Capsules are a miracle of Ayurveda, and while these are very effective for ensuring sexual wellbeing and letting you get over sexual dysfunctions. These were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

1. Shree Maruti Herbal (Stay-On Power Capsule): The advertisement’s claims, “The magic of intimacy remains constant”, “You will get a feeling of youthfulness, immunity power, pep, excitement, strength and vigour physically and mentally” and the visual in the advertisement and product packaging read in conjunction with the claims objected to imply that the product is meant for the enhancement of sexual pleasure. Also the advertisement provides link to website which refers to Stay-On Capsules are a miracle of Ayurveda, and while these are very effective for ensuring sexual wellbeing and letting you get over sexual dysfunctions. These were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

1. Shree Maruti Herbal (Stay-On Power Capsule): The advertisement’s claim, “Use of Stay-On will give you a feeling of youthfulness, immunity, power, pep, excitement, strength and vigour both physically and mentally” and the tagline translated as, “My Heart goes crazy for you” along with the visual in the advertisement and product packaging read in conjunction with the claims objected to imply that the product is meant for the enhancement of sexual pleasure. The advertisement provides a link to the website which refers to Stay-On Capsules as a miracle of Ayurveda, and while these are very effective for ensuring sexual wellbeing and letting you get over sexual dysfunctions. This was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

1. Shree Maruti Herbal (Stay-On Power Capsule): The advertisement’s claims, “Your partner’s love will get stronger” and “Use of Stay-On will give you a feeling of youthfulness, immunity, power, pep, excitement, strength and vigour physically and mentally” along with the visual in the advertisement and product packaging read in conjunction with the claims objected to imply that the product is meant for the enhancement of sexual pleasure. The advertisement provides a link to the website which refers to Stay-On Capsules are a miracle of Ayurveda, and while these are very effective for ensuring sexual wellbeing and letting you get over sexual dysfunctions. This was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

1. Rajnish Hot Deals Pvt. Ltd. - Kasaav Powder: The advertisement’s claims, “Provides youthfulness to women at every moment of life”, “Remove problems in women like white discharge, itching, odour and infection” and “Generates awareness of new enthusiasm and confidence and youthfulness in just 15 days” were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

1. Gaudium IVF and Gynae Solutions: The advertisement’s claim, “The wait for your own child is now over…Come to Gaudium IVF – Transforming hopes into realities,” was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

1. Stammering Relief Centre: The advertisement’s claim, “Cure stammering and stuttering in just two weeks - 100% guarantee” was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the D&C Rules.

1. Holistic Treatment Centre: The advertisement’s claim, “Get freedom from stammering and speak fluently like others” was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the D&C Rules.

1. V-Care Skin Clinic & Piles Centre: The advertisement’s claim, “Get full freedom from piles, fissures and fistula diseases” was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the D&C Rules.

1. Sarvoday Skin and Hair Clinic: The advertisement’s claim, “Successful treatment of diseases like white spots” was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the D&C Rules and the DMR Act.

1. OPTM HealthCare Private Limited: The advertisement’s claims, “Regain your cartilage health and skeleton muscles strength along with flexion without any pain killers, injection and surgical procedures. OPTM scientifically diagnoses the root cause of the problem and treats the cause at cellular and molecular levels”, “Get back healthy knees without operation, knee caps and pain killers”, and “Hi stronger knees and say bye surgery”, were not substantiated with sci