ASCI upholds complaints against 171 misleading ads in January 2018

In January 2018, ASCI’s Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) upheld complaints against 171 advertisements out of the total of 247 advertisements that were evaluated by the CCC.

A total of 148 advertisements were picked up by ASCI’s suo moto surveillance and objections against 130 were upheld. Of the 99 advertisements complained against by the general public or by industry members, complaints against 41 were upheld by the CCC. Out of the total 171 advertisements against which complaints were upheld, 118 belonged to healthcare sector, 16 to education sector, 10 to the food & beverages category, five to personal care and 22 were from the ‘others’ category.

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 delivering advertisements which were misleading by ambiguity and / or by implication.

Among the various complaints, the CCC observed that a prominent FMCG drug company was providing inadequate and misleading information about its products. Similarly, a popular food brand was found to give incomplete and misleading comparison of its milkshake product. Furthermore, an advertiser claimed to cure various diseases like heart block, cholesterol, diabetes, obesity, eye sight, Alzheimer’s, kidney function, thyroid, with their product featuring an FSSAI logo, implying that the claims are approved by FSSAI. These claims, too, were found to be misleading by exaggeration.

Shweta Purandare

“ASCI associates with Government bodies to ensure an effective self-regulation process. We have completed a year of our association with the Ministry of AYUSH. AYUSH is among top three sectors where we find a high incidence of misleading advertisements. The advertisements in the AYUSH sector claiming treatment of certain diseases in violation of the Drugs and Magic Remedies Regulations have been a cause of concern. With support from the Ministry of AYUSH, we hope to change this scenario so that advertising is legal and ethical,” said Shweta Purandare, ASCI Secretary General.

Healthcare: Total of 118 ads complained against

• Direct Complaints (17 ads complained against)
• Suo moto Surveillance by ASCI ( 101 ads complained against)

Personal care: Total of five ads complained against

• Direct Complaints(Three ads complained against)
• Suo moto Surveillance by ASCI (Two ads complained against)

Food and beverages: - Total of 10 ads complained against

• Direct Complaints (Nine ads complained against)
• Suo moto Surveillance by ASCI (one ad complained against)

Education:- Total of 16 ads complained against

• Direct Complaints (One ad complained against)
• Suo moto Surveillance by ASCI (15 ads complained against)

Others:-  Total of 22 ads complained against

• Direct Complaints (11 ads complained against)
• Suo moto Surveillance by ASCI (11 ads complained against)

Direct complaints

Healthcare:

The CCC found claims of 17 advertisements in health care products or services to be either misleading or false or not adequately / scientifically substantiated; hence in violation of ASCI Code. Some of the health care products or clinic 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. Antarrashtriya Deepak K M Hospital: The advertisement’s claim,  (in Hindi) as translated in English, “US FDA machines to Treat Cerebral Palsy”, was not substantiated with supporting evidence of the patients suffering from Cerebral Palsy who were successfully treated with the machines and is misleading by exaggeration. Furthermore, the claim, “Has treated 22730 overseas patients” with a visual of a child, was not substantiated with verifiable supporting data or through a third party validation and is misleading by exaggeration.

2. Nadi Vaidya Tomar Rahul: The advertisement’s claims, “Without medicine”, “Treatment of old pain through massage of veins” and “This therapy helps in removing pain from the root”, were not substantiated with the details of the therapy, supporting clinical evidence and are misleading by gross exaggeration.

3. Jolly Healthcare (Jolly Vaseir Gel and Capsules): The advertisement’s claim, “Har tarah ki Bavaseer ka sabse prabhavshali aur sastha samadhan” was not substantiated with product composition and efficacy data and is misleading by exaggeration.

4. Dr. Dassan’s life Care Ayurvedic Herbal Treatment and Research Centre (Kidney): The advertisement’s claim, “Ek mahiney ke ilaaz se hi Creatinine 10.24 se 1.9 par samanai aah gaya” (Creatinine was reduced from 10.24 to 1.9 by treatment of Dr. Dassan), was not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence and is misleading by exaggeration. The claim, “Kidney rogi transplant se bachh gaya”, was misleading by gross exaggeration and exploits consumers’ lack of knowledge and is likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers.

5. Chaturbhuj Pharmaceutical Company (B-Gap contraceptive tablet): The advertisement’s claim, “Herbal Garbhnirodhak Tablet”, was not substantiated with supporting data and with any evidence of product details such as approval from regulatory authorities and is misleading.  Claim, “Sirf ek goli six maah ke liye” (one tablet anti pregnancy contraceptive drug effective for six months) was not substantiated with proof of product efficacy and is misleading by gross exaggeration.

6. Wish Clinic (Wish Integrated Cosmetic Clinic): The advertisement’s claim, “World Class Integrated Cosmetic Clinic”, was not substantiated with any verifiable technical data. The claims, “We have a solution - Just Wish Away”, “Treatment for Thyroid/PCOD/ Rheumatoid Arthristis/ Infertility/ Diabetes/ Insta Glow/ Laser Hair Reduction/ Laser Pigmentation”, were misleading by implication that various health problems claimed in the advertisement can be easily / completely treated by the Clinic.  These claims were not substantiated with supporting data and are misleading by exaggeration.

7. Sureksha Pharma (Kanthari Plus Capsules): The advertisement’s claims, “For following ailments – Heart Block, Cholesterol, Diabetes, Obesity, Eye Sight, Alzheimer's, Kidney Function, Thyroid”, were not substantiated with any scientific rationale or clinical evidence of product efficacy and are misleading by exaggeration. Furthermore, it was observed that the advertisement with therapeutic claims had an FSSAI logo implying this product to be safe as food thus encouraging negligence for such serious ailments.

8. ACU- AID: The advertisement’s claims, (in Hindi) as translated in English, “Treatment of slip disc without medicine and operation” and “Treatment for Migraine, Height etc.”, were not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence and are misleading by exaggeration

9. Pratiraj Herbal Pharmacy (Alpic Hair Oil): The advertisement’s claim, (in Hindi) as translated in English, “First research for Alopecia in India” and  “20 years of research result” were not substantiated with supporting evidence and are misleading by exaggeration.

10. Lifespan Clinic India (Lifespan Diabetes Clinic): The advertisement’s claim, “No blood sample required”, was not substantiated with supporting data and is misleading by ambiguity and gross exaggeration.

11. M. H. Javerian & Sons (Javerians Jivan Mixture): The advertisement’s claims, “No Side Effects” and indications “Constipation, Loose Motion”, were not substantiated and are misleading by exaggeration.

12. Om Sai Ayurveda India Limited: The advertisement’s claim, “For Improvement of Height” was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of The Drugs & Cosmetics (D&C) Rules.

13. Brain DNA: The advertisement’s claims, “Map your brain by your finger print analysis”, and “The result will be derived from a scientifically proven technique – Dermatoglyphics”, were not substantiated with scientific data.  The Claim, “Best counselling from a DMIT certified counsellor”, was not substantiated with supporting data.  The claims are misleading by gross exaggeration, and exploit consumers’ lack of knowledge and are likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers.

14. Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt. Ltd (Strepsils): The advertisement’s claim, “Bacteria and Virus ko maare” was inadequately substantiated and is misleading by ambiguity and implication.

The following advertisements were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act and are being referred to the Ministry of Health:

Personal care:-

1. Marico Ltd (Livon Hair Serum):  The advertisement’s claim, “Best Hair Serum”, was not substantiated with verifiable comparative product test data of the advertiser’s product and other competitor products and the claim is misleading by exaggeration and implication. The claim, “Three times smoother, 50% glossier”, was based on test result compared with untreated hair. When viewed together with the claim of “Best Hair Serum”, these numerical claims were considered to be misleading by implication that the claim holds against other competitor products and by omission of mention of the basis of comparison.

2. Hindustan Unilever Limited (Dove Environmental Defence Shampoo): The advertisement’s claim, “New Dove Environmental Defence with Lotus extracts detoxifies hair”, was inadequately substantiated and is misleading by implication and exaggeration.

3. Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt Ltd (Durex Condom): The content of the advertisement was not considered to be educative. Some of the scenes in the advertisement appeared to be indecent/inappropriate for viewing by children and hence not suitable to watch during family viewing time. It was concluded the intimate bedroom scene of the couple is likely to cause grave and widespread offence if aired during non-watershed hours.

Education:-

The CCC found following claims in the advertisement by one advertiser was not substantiated, and thus, violated ASCI Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions. Hence complaints against these advertisements were UPHELD.

1. Think & Learn Pvt Ltd. (Byju’s – The Learning App): The advertisement’s claims, “One crore (1,00,00,000) students are learning from BYJU’s- The Learning App”, “600 member strong R&D team is involved in creating the best learning program for students”, “93% parents reported an overall increase in their children’s grades after using BYJU’s”, “90% students renew their BYJU’s course year on year” and “51 minutes spent on the app on an average by a student everyday” were not substantiated with supporting data and are misleading by exaggeration.

Food and beverages:-

1. Kamal Kant and Company Llp (Rajshree Pan Masala): The advertisement’s claim, “India ka favourite pan masala” implies that this product is preferred over other Pan Masala products or it is the most preferred brand in the Pan Masala category for which the advertiser gave only assertions and did not provide any valid substantiation. This claim was not substantiated with verifiable comparative data / market survey data of the advertiser’s product and other competitor products among representative country wide population or through a third party validation, and is misleading by exaggeration.

2. Puro Wellness Pvt Ltd (Puro Healthy Salt): The advertisement’s claim, “Yeh safed kapde bleach kiye hue haii ….Aur yeh apka khane ka safed namak yeh bhi bleach kiya hua hai… chemical factory mein.. tabhi toh safed hai” is likely to mislead consumers by causing fear in their minds by showing comparison of chemical bleach used for clothes implying that other salts are unfit for human consumption, are of inferior quality,  and are tampered with, by using chemicals. The reference to “bleach” in the TVC is misleading by ambiguity and implication that refined salt may be harmful due to bleaching it undergoes.

3. Puro Wellness Pvt Ltd (Puro Healthy Salt): The advertisement’s claim, “Yeh paint chemical factory mein banta hai, aur yeh aapka safed namak, yeh bhi chemical factory mein banta hai, bleach kiya jaata hai” is unfairly denigrating other salt brands and is likely to mislead consumers by causing fear in their minds implying that other salts are unfit for human consumption, are of inferior quality, and are tampered with, by using chemicals. The subject matter of comparison confers an artificial advantage upon the advertiser or so as to suggest that better bargain is offered than is truly the case.  The comparison shown in the advertisement is not factual and the consumer is likely to be misled as a result of comparison whether about the product advertised or that with which it is compared.

4. Puro Wellness Pvt Ltd (Puro Healthy Salt): The advertisement’s claim, “Chemical factory mein banta hai, bleach hota hai,” is misleading by ambiguity and implication that the refined salt may be harmful due to processing it undergoes. Also the disclaimers in the advertisement were not legible and not in the same language as the voice over of the TVC (Hindi).

5. Rasna International Pvt Ltd (Rasna Native Haat Honey): The advertisement’s claim, “From the forests of Sunderbans to your Home”, was inadequately substantiated and is misleading by exaggeration.

6. GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Ltd (Horlicks): The advertisement’s claim, “In a study, 9 out of 10 children’s diet was at risk of being deficient in essential nutrients”, was not substantiated and is misleading by implication and exaggeration.

7. GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Ltd (Horlicks Growth Plus): The advertisement’s claim, “Naturally enhances growth,” implies natural growth without any artificial inputs.  The use of the word "naturally" for an artificially composed drink supplemented in overall food intake is likely to mislead the consumers by ambiguity.

8. Cipla Health Ltd (Choco-bite): The advertisement’s claim, “Up to 100% immunity nutrients” is misleading by ambiguity, implication and omission to mention that it could be helpful only as a supplement to normal diet.

9. INVENTZ Lifesciences Pvt Ltd (Headz Up tablets): The advertisement’s claim, “avoid further hair fall and greying,” was not substantiated and was misleading by gross exaggeration.

1. Hindware Home Retail Private Limited (Hindware Atlantic Water Heater): The advertisement’s claim, “Six star performance" is being made because the Ondeo water heater has around 20% less losses than the 5 star products from the competing manufacturers. The Advertiser submitted a test report that tested the performance of the product and comparable data for the competing products, which was found to be acceptable. However, BEE rules have a maximum of five star level rating only.  Any additional reference to “star”, notwithstanding the descriptor “performance”, is likely to mislead consumers, more so when seen in conjunction with the visual of `BEE Star label’ which is an industry standard for product performance.

2. Dalmia Bharat Group : The advertisement’s claim,  “Delta 25 Power”, “What makes Dalmia DSP the best choice for Dhalai?”, “low heat of hydration”, were not substantiated with technical data / test reports and are misleading by exaggeration.

3. Indian Oil Corp Ltd (Servo Oil): The advertisement’s claim, “India’s largest selling trusted lubricants” were considered to be misleading by ambiguity and implication since two different data sources were being used for the claim support without reference to each of the data sources.  Furthermore, the claim “Selected super brand India 2014-2015”, was inadequately substantiated and is misleading by ambiguity and exaggeration as the advertiser has used 2014-2015 survey data for an advertisement published in 2017.

4. Hindustan Unilever Ltd (Surf Excel Matic Liquid): The advertisement’s claim, “Get two times more power with Surf Excel Matic Liquid”, was substantiated against advertiser’s own products. It does not specify in the advertisement what the product is being compared to and was misleading by omission of disclaimer to mention the basis of comparison

5. Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt. Ltd (Harpic): The advertisement’s claim, “Just one round of harpic10X gives you better cleaning than 10 applications of detergent”, was inadequately substantiated and is misleading by ambiguity and implication and by omission of disclaimer to mention the basis of comparison.

6. Hindustan Unilever Ltd (Vim Bar): In the advertisement’s claim, “The New Best Ever Vim bar”, the claim ‘New’ is misleading by ambiguity.

7. Samsonite South Asia Pvt Ltd. (Samsonite Bags): The advertisement’s visual shown of “a tractor moving over a trolley bag without the bag getting damaged”, is misleading by gross exaggeration.

8. Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd (Voot app): ASCI Code's definition of Advertising states that "Any communication which in the normal course would be recognised as an advertisement by the general public would be included in this definition even if it is carried free-of-charge for any reason”. Therefore, promotion and content vide web-site, email, TV promo, paid or unpaid, has to be considered as Advertising.  It was concluded that while the overall promo TVC was not objectionable, the two specific scenes viz a minor walking nearby a swimming pool and a young boy walking on the pavement, both shown watching video on Voot app while wearing earphones, shows unsafe/dangerous practices without justifiable reason, manifests a disregard for safety and encourages negligence. The actions shown are likely to encourage minors to emulate such acts in a manner which could cause harm or injury.

9. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd (Zee Business): The advertisement’s claim, “Taal Thok Ke” being the No.1 Debate show (“Taal Thok Ke – Bahas Ka No.1 Show”) was not substantiated and it was in violation of BARC Guidelines: BARC specifies that for making a leadership claim, the channel must present comparative data for ‘4 consecutive clock hours and 4 consecutive weeks’.  The claim was also misleading as it did not cite BARC as the source. The TV – promos are framed so as to exploit consumer’s lack of experience or knowledge.

10. Writemen Media Private Limited (Public TV): The TV - promo claiming “No. 1 Channel” was misleading. The disclaimer put by the advertiser for the claim was based on one day data (week 31 December 18) and not four consecutive weeks of data as per BARC Guidelines. The subject matter of the comparison is chosen in such a way so as to confer an artificial advantage on the advertiser so as to suggest that a better bargain is offered than is truly the case.

11. Divya Shakti Group (Divya Shree Shakti): The advertisement’s claims, “Just two kilometres from Miyapur Metro Station”, “a fully loaded club house”, “Multiplex”, “Clinics”, ‘324 happy families already living here”, “300 happy families living”, “Malls and multiplex within the premises”,  “Mall & Multiplex + Commercial office spaces in 18 acres of space”,  and “You have to just walk down to the place of worship, shopping mall, hospital and clubhouse” were false and were not substantiated with supporting evidence. The claims are misrepresentation of facts by giving false information about the facilities being provided by the advertiser.  In absence of any qualifiers to indicate that the amenities are proposed in the project plan , objected claims regarding the amenities  mentioned in the advertisements, hoardings, brochures, website are misleading by ambiguity and omission to qualify that they are under construction.

Suo moto Surveillance by ASCI

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 148 advertisements, total of 130 advertisements were considered to be misleading. Of the total 130 advertisements, 101 advertisements belonged to Healthcare, 15 belonged to the Education category, one belonged to Food & Beverage category, two belonged to Personal Care category and 11 belonged to the “others” category.

Healthcare:

1. Lotus Herbals Limited (Lotus Herbals Youth RX): The advertisement’s claims, “Reverse ageing”, “10 times more geneplex youth compound”, and “Stop aging”, were not substantiated with evidence of product efficacy and are misleading by gross exaggeration. Additionally, the TVC shows endorsement of the claims by a celebrity (Shilpa Shetty) which, when seen in conjunction with the unsubstantiated claims, is likely to mislead consumers regarding the product efficacy.

2. New Leaf: The advertisement’s claim, “Lose four inches in just seven days”, was not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence and with treatment efficacy data and is misleading by exaggeration.

3. Masters Homeopathy: The advertisement’s claims, “Freedom from Hepatitis and Herpes”, “Cure psoriasis permanently” and “Get rid of piles and fistula”, were not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence and are misleading by gross exaggeration.

4. Arogyam Ayurvedic Hospital: The advertisement’s claim, “Treat allergy from the roots” was not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence.  Claim, “Lakhs of patients have got permanent freedom from allergy”, was not substantiated with supporting evidence and with any independent audit or verification certificate.  The claims are also misleading by gross exaggeration.

5. NB Healthcare Pvt Ltd (Slim Now): The advertisement’s claim, “AIIMS doctor discovers shockingly simple way to lose 1 kg per day without diet or exercise”, was not substantiated with clinical evidence of product efficacy and is misleading by gross exaggeration.  Also, weight loss efficacy being depicted via images of before and after the treatment is misleading. There is also a concern regarding genuineness of this product.

6. Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Limited: The advertisement’s claim, “Achieve freedom from your weight issues”, implies cure for the diseases claimed in the advertisement viz. diabetes, infertility, heart diseases, cancer etc. which was not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence and is misleading by implication and gross exaggeration.

7. Asian Bariatrics: The advertisement’s claim, “Asia's Largest Hospital for Weight Loss Surgery by Experienced Bariatric Surgeons” was not substantiated with supporting verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s hospital and other similar hospitals or through a third party validation, and is misleading by exaggeration. The claim, “Best Hospital 2015” is misleading by implication and omission of the details regarding the award. Also the claim, “Winner of Limca Book of Records” was misleading by implication and omission of the basis for the award received.

8. Care Institute of Medical Science: The advertisement’s claims, “100% Success” and “Three rapid successful heart transplantations” were not substantiated with appropriate supporting evidence. The claims were misleading by ambiguity and exaggeration.

9. MYO Fitness: The advertisement’s claim, “permanent fat loss”, was not substantiated and is misleading by exaggeration.

10. Girme’s Wheat Grass: The advertisement’s claim, “Helps in Anaemia, Thalassemia, Piles, Diabetes, Cancer, Sexual health etc.”, was inadequately substantiated with no conclusive scientific evidence for product efficacy through peer reviewed standard scientific journals, and is misleading by gross exaggeration.

11. Back & Neck Care: The advertisement’s claims, “Gives operation less solution for pain problems”, “Provides relief within three days from problems like back pain, pain in legs, slip disc, reduction of gap between disk and other problems” and “Can cure 80-90% waist pain through exercise and dieting”, were not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence and with treatment efficacy data, and are misleading by gross exaggeration.

12. Eye-Q Vision Pvt Ltd (Eye Q Eye Hospital): The advertisement’s claim, “Treats every disease of eyes” was considered to be an absolute claim and misleading by ambiguity and implication. The claim, “Experience of more than 2,00,000 surgeries” was considered to be misleading by ambiguity and omission of the mention that this is the collective experience of their doctors in their individual capacity.

13. Hair Fair Skin Clinic: The advertisement’s claim, “Glutathione, an anti-oxidant mixes with toxicants in body and throws them out with bile and urine”, was not substantiated with clinical data or scientific rationale for the claim.  The claim, “Skin gets a resurrection and eventually gets softness and glow”, was not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence or with treatment efficacy data.  The claims are misleading by exaggeration.

14. Hi-Tech Sweet Water Technologies Pvt Ltd/ Hi-Tech New Life AA Plus: The advertisement’s claims, “Controls blood sugar level and cholesterol”, “Prevents Cancer”, “Improves Immune System”, and “Slows down Ageing Process”, were not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence of product efficacy and are misleading by exaggeration.

15. Perfect Point: The advertisement’s claims, “Reduce obesity without stress in just three days a week” and “Get unlimited weight loss”, 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 is misleading.

16. Speedwell Botanical Pvt Ltd (Speedwell Botanical Range of Products- Perfekt Slim Tablets): The advertisement’s claim, “Contains 100% Ayurvedic advance formula and removes more weight from the problem source”, was not substantiated with any evidence of the ingredients present in the product and with specific benefits attributable to the ingredients responsible for the weight reduction claim. The claim, “Received the GMP certificate which is completely safe and this is the product of guaranteed success”, was not substantiated with supporting evidence. The claims are misleading by exaggeration. The visual in the advertisement and the pack visual imply that a significant weight loss around the tummy would be feasible, which is also grossly misleading.

17. Dr. Bindiya Holistic Health: The advertisement’s claims,  “One can reduce up to 2-3 kilograms in the first week & up to 6-8 kilograms in one month (scientific and natural way)”, “Stronger immune system, boosts energy, rids the body of any excess waste, anti-ageing benefits”, and “One stop solution to lose weight and detoxing the body with unique, scientific and easier ways to reduce weight”, were not substantiated with scientific rationale or with supporting clinical evidence, and with treatment efficacy data, and the claim as well as visual in the advertisement are misleading by exaggeration.

18. Dr. Shah’s Hair Clinic: The advertisement’s claim, “Awarded Hair Expert Clinic” was vague as well as inadequately substantiated with detail. Also, the claim is misleading by ambiguity and omission of the references pertaining to the award received such as name of the award, year, source and the category.

19. Hair Doc Trichology Hair Clinic: The advertisement’s claim, “Stop hair problems on time” was not substantiated with supporting clinical data. The claim, “30 years of healthy hair experience”, was not substantiated with supporting evidence. Also, the claim, “Reduce hair fall, increase hair density and grow new hair within eight weeks”, was not substantiated with any hair growth data based on rigorous trial on a statistically significant number of patients.

The following advertisements were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act and are being referred to the Ministry of Health:

The following advertisements were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of The Drugs & Cosmetics Rules and are being referred to the Ministry of Health:

1. Speedwell Botanical Pvt Ltd (Speedwell Botanical Range of Products Tripura Herbal Hair Oil): The advertisement’s claims, “To control hair fall, prevent dandruff, relief from scalp infections, helps to promote hair growth, protection from premature greying,”, were not substantiated with any technical rationale regarding product efficacy based on their formulation and specific benefits attributed to the ingredients present in their formulation.  The claims in print advertisement are misleading by exaggeration as the on pack declaration for claims has a qualifier that the product “helps” in various conditions.

2. Amar Products India (Collegian Cream): The advertisement’s claim, “Trusted since 1954”, was not substantiated with supporting evidence or any independent audit or verification certificate, and is misleading by exaggeration. The claims, “No other cream compared to this cream which is beneficial for e