In May 2018, ASCI’s Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) upheld complaints against 143 advertisements out of the total of 260 advertisements that were evaluated by the CCC. Of these 143 advertisements against which complaints were upheld, 42 belonged to the Healthcare sector, 61 to the Education sector, 15 to the Food and Beverages category, 10 to the Personal Care and 15 were from the ‘Others’ category.
A total of 140 advertisements were picked up by ASCI’s Suo Moto surveillance, wherein 33 cases were informally resolved as advertisements were voluntarily withdrawn and objections against 106 advertisements were upheld. Of the 120 advertisements complained against by the general public or by industry members, 17 cases were informally resolved wherein the advertisements were voluntarily withdrawn and complaints against 37 advertisements were upheld by the CCC.
The most common reason for upholding complaints was exaggeration of product efficacy. This was followed by violations of the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act (DMR Act) and the Drugs and Cosmetics (D&C) Rules and advertisements which contravened various ASCI guidelines. The other reasons included providing facts and figures which were inadequate to substantiate claims, improper use of the FSSAI logo, exploiting consumers’ lack of knowledge, claims which were misleading by ambiguity or by implication.
Among the various complaints against advertisements, the CCC observed that celebrities endorsed unsafe practices as seen in case of prominent beverage companies and for a mosquito repellent product. Such depiction may influence minors to emulate such acts. Celebrities also endorsed misleading claims in the product category of hair oil, shampoo, innerwear and audio speakers. These advertisements contravened ASCI Guidelines for Celebrities in Advertising. Advertisements by a well-known homeopathy practitioner were misleading exploiting consumers’ lack of knowledge and are likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers.
“ASCI is working closely with various Government bodies to establish an effective and transparent self‐ regulation code for the advertising industry, which upholds the highest professional and ethical standards. ASCI prides itself on its impressive track record of effectively and expeditiously disposing of consumer complaints against misleading advertisements, thereby giving form to the rights conferred upon consumers to protect them from deceptive advertisements,” said Abanti Sankaranarayanan, Chairman, ASCI
Healthcare: ‐ Total of 42 advertisements complained against
Personal Care: ‐ Total of 10 advertisements complained against
Food and Beverages: ‐ Total of 15 advertisements complained against
Education: ‐ Total of 61 advertisements complained against
Others: ‐ Total of 15 advertisements complained against
Direct complaints
The advertisements given below were complained against by the general public or by industry members. Complaints against the following three advertisements were upheld as the advertisements violated Chapter III (Against harmful situations) of the ASCI Code.
The below advertisements violated Chapter III (Unsafe Practices) of ASCI Code:
1. PepsiCo India - Pepsi: In the television advertisement, the visual showing the protagonist running on the platform in particular, shows a dangerous practice that may influence minors to emulate such acts. This manifests a disregard for safety and encourages negligence.
2. The Coca‐Cola India Pvt Ltd‐ Limca: In the television advertisement, the visual of the protagonist along with his friends falling from a human pyramid from the height of second floor of the building and falling onto the ground which turns into a pool cannot be considered as hyperbole. The actions shown manifest disregard for safety and encourage negligence and may influence minors to emulate such acts.
3. Sree Muralikrishna Soap Works (JIL Washing Powder and Soap): In the advertisement, the specific visual showing the wife putting her husband in the washing machine was dangerous and had the potential of encouraging the children to imitate such acts, which could be life‐ threatening. Regardless of the disclaimer, this act shown in the TVC encourages dangerous practices, manifests disregard for safety and encourages negligence.
Out of 120 advertisements, 37 advertisements were considered to be misleading. Of the total of 37 advertisements, eight advertisements belonged to the Personal Care category, eight to Education category, seven belonged to the Food & Beverages category, six advertisements belonged to healthcare category, and eight belonged to the ‘Others’ category.
Personal Care: ‐
1. Hindustan Unilever Limited (Pure Derm Anti Dandruff Shampoo): The advertisement’s claim, “Wash your hair every day with PURE DERM, dandruff goes and won’t come back” endorsed by Anushka Sharma is an absolute claim and was not adequately substantiated. The claim was misleading by exaggeration. The advertisement also contravened the ASCI Guidelines for Celebrities in advertising put forth by ASCI. The advertiser did not furnish any evidence of the consent of the celebrity for the above mentioned claim, hence it was concluded that the print advertisement was in contravention of the Guidelines for Celebrities in advertising.
2. Colgate‐Palmolive (India) Limited‐ Colgate Herbal Natural Toothpaste: The advertisement’s claim, “Natural toothpaste” was not substantiated and is misleading by implication. The claim exploits consumers’ lack of knowledge and is likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers.
3. Marico Ltd. (Nihar Shanti Badam Amla Hair Oil): In the advertisement, celebrity Vidya Balan claims that Nihar Shanti Amla has the goodness of badam (almonds) which gives black, silky hair. The advertisement is misleading by ambiguity and implication because there appears to be a contextual comparison with amla oil but there is no substantiation superiority over amla, nor does the consumer study indicate superiority of the product to other oils. The claim also attributes the benefit of black silky hair to “goodness of badam” which was not substantiated. The claim is misleading by ambiguity and implication that almond content in the oil is responsible for black hair and not just presence of Amla. The advertisement contravened ASCI Guidelines for Celebrities in Advertising.
4. Cosmos Online Pvt Ltd (Gizmobaba Laser power grow comb): The claims made in the advertisement, “The Gizmobaba laser comb provides low‐level laser light energy that stimulates and enlivens hair follicles promoting new hair growth”, “With consistent use, most users start seeing benefits in 16 weeks (Based on clinical studies)” and “Stops hair loss and makes hair grow thicker stronger and healthier” were not substantiated. The claims are misleading and likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers.
5. Renovision Exports Pvt Ltd. (Orthovit Oil and Capsules): The advertisement’s claims, “Stiffness in muscles, joint pain, arthritis, gout, hand‐leg pain, whatever the pain, the most effective medicine of every pain” and “Now say bye to every pain”, were not substantiated. The claims were misleading by exaggeration and implication that Orthovit Oil and Capsules are better than all other pain relief medicines.
6. Prince Pharma (2 Much Breast Cream): The advertisement’s claims, “Ayurvedic medicated Cream” and “For two‐fold effect use it along with 2 much beauty capsule,” were considered to be, prima facie, in contravention of Drugs and Magic Remedies (DMR) Act.
7. IncNut Digital Pvt Ltd (Amaira Ayurvedic Hair Growth Oil): The advertisement’s claim, “India’s first 100% Ayurvedic hair growth oil with 12 organic herbs”, was not substantiated and is misleading by exaggeration. The claim “It is made with a unique Ayurvedic formulation” was not substantiated.
8. Sarina Herbal Pvt Ltd (Zulfraj Hair Oil and Shampoo): The advertisement’s claims, “Adopt ZulfRaj with double action made up of 17 pure herbs”, “Only ZulfRaj has that quality which not only ends hair problems but also ensures you to not have the same hair problem ever by making hair strong, thick and soft”, were not substantiated with technical rationale or product efficacy data; the claims are misleading by exaggeration.
Education: ‐
1. LegalEdge Tutorials: The advertisement’s claim, “Undisputed King of CLAT Coaching in India” was not substantiated with supporting data to prove its leadership position in India as compared to other CLAT coaching classes; the claim is misleading by exaggeration.
2. 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 Research & Development 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% student renew their BYJU’s course year on year” and “51 minutes spent on the app on an average by a student everyday” were not adequately substantiated and are misleading by exaggeration
3. Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd (Bennett University): The advertisement’s claim “Leading Change for 175+ years 1838‐2017” appearing without a clear link and reference to the Times of India Group is misleading by ambiguity and implication.
4. BITT Polytechnic: The advertisement’s claims, “Best College of the Year – 2018” and “Best Polytechnic College in India – 2018”, were inadequately substantiated to prove that it is better than the rest of the colleges in India. The claims do not mention the source and date of research and are misleading by omission.
5. Jet Overseas Private Limited: The advertisement’s claims, “Canada Permit+ Personal Residency expense‐25,000/‐ “100% Job and Permit” and “Student Visa without IELTS.” were not substantiated with any verifiable evidence. The claims are misleading by exaggeration.
6. Made Easy Group (Next IAS): The advertisement’s claim, “268 selections in the UPSC civil services exam” in the advertisement was not substantiated and is misleading by exaggeration.
7. School of Indian Hotel Management: The advertisement’s claims, “100% Placement till date” (in English), and “Assured Job with written guarantee”, (in Bengali as translated in English), were not substantiated with authentic supporting data such as detailed list of students, who have been placed through their Institute in Hotel Industry, contact details of students for verification, enrolment forms and appointment letters received by the students, nor any independent audit or verification certificate, and are misleading by exaggeration.
8. Capable Workforce –Bharat Sevak Samaj: The advertiser may be providing job assistance to their students, the use of 100% numerical is not relevant for “job assistance” claim. The use of “100%” as a descriptor in the claim is misleading by implication, 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. Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Pvt Ltd. (Baidyanath Kesari Kalp): The advertisement’s claims, “Grow Younger, Stay Young” and “Now double power with dry fruits”, were not substantiated. The claims are misleading by exaggeration.
2. Pepsico India Holdings P. Ltd ‐ Quaker Oats: The advertisement’s claim, “Quaker Oats me hai “2X more protein and fibre” seeks to mislead consumers into believing that 2x protein and fibre is true as against other oats, the disclaimer states that the comparison is clearly against cornflakes. The corresponding disclaimer “*Per serve comparison with cornflakes. Reference: Atlas of Indian Foods” was not legible and not as per ASCI Guidelines on disclaimers (font size, contrast, hold duration). The claim was misleading by ambiguity and implication.
3. Crown Beers India Private Limited: In the advertisement, the claim “Budweiser Experiences” was surrogate for an alcohol brand. The Chartered Accountant’s Certificate shows that data is only for promotional activity by giving turnover of two independent event agencies, and could not satisfy whether this turnover is also marketed as a Budweiser Experience. The advertisement was a surrogate advertisement for Budweiser beer and in India Budweiser is always identified with beer.
4. Dabur India Ltd (Dabur Honey): The advertisement’s claim by the protagonist (newly married lady) about honey and water in preventing/reducing weight gain could mislead both obese and non‐obese consumers by ambiguity and implication.
5. Tata Chemicals Limited (Tata Rock Salt): The advertisement’s claim, “Add a few crystals of rock salt to your lassi to cure stomach ailments and help in deworming”, was not substantiated with any clinical evidence. When seen in conjunction with the claim “Also keeps you in the best of health”, the claim implying cure for stomach ailments besides being not permissible for any food product, it is misleading by exaggeration and exploits consumers’ lack of knowledge and is likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers.
Healthcare:
The CCC found claims of six advertisements in healthcare products or services to be either misleading or false or not adequately / scientifically substantiated; hence in violation of the ASCI Code. Complaints against the following advertisements were upheld.
2. Prince Pharma / 2 Much Gold: The advertisement’s claims, “An ultimate ayurvedic solution for all sexual problems” and “Being specially blended with choicest herbs, rejuvenators & stimulants, it produces best results in nervous strain, neurasthenia, impaired vitality, chronic mental and physical exhaustion and conditions of weakness due to organic troubles after thoughtless excess indulgence in sexual activity, general lassitude, worriedness, mental somatic debility, nervous dyspepsia, insomnia, loss of energy, premature old age & pre‐mature ejaculation” were considered to be, prima facie, in contravention of Drugs And Magic Remedies (DMR) Act.
3. Luna Pharma / Stonecure: The advertisement’s claims, “Kidney Stone? Cure without operation, get instant relief with medicine”, “Recognised formula”, and “100% benefit” considered to be, prima facie, in violation of The Drugs & Magic Remedies (DMR) Act
4. Natural Care: The advertisement’s claim, “Herbs can help cure most of the diseases ranging from common cold to cancer, asthma, arthritis, baldness, diabetes, skin disease, auto immune disease, etc. be it chronic or acute, herbs can help cure them and that too without using the knife, was considered to be prima facie, in contravention of Drugs And Magic Remedies (DMR) Act
5. Beaut N Hea: The advertisement’s claims, “Remove your body's excess fat through the world's best technology” and “Without surgery, without side effects, only three to four sessions a month” were not substantiated with evidence of product efficacy and the claims are misleading.
6. Shathayu Ayurveda: The advertisement’s claim implying cure for migraine was not substantiated with any scientific rationale or clinical evidence. The testimonial in the advertisement is misleading by exaggeration and exploits consumers’ lack of knowledge.
Others: ‐
5. Whirlpool of India Ltd. (Whirlpool 3D Inverter AC): The advertisement’s claim, “40% faster cooling” was substantiated. However, the claim is misleading by omission of mention of the basis of comparison. The font size and the positioning of the disclaimer qualifying the claim were not in compliance with the ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers.
7. Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private Limited (Mortein Insta Tulsi): The visuals in the TVC very clearly depict tulsi leaves floating with the green vapours emanating from the vaporizer and front of pack visuals in the TVC shows a mosquito getting squished on a bed of five tulsi leaves. The front of pack panel has no reference to absence of tulsi in the product and only mentions InstaTulsi. Such depiction is misleading by ambiguity and implication. In the context of an insect repellent product, which would generally have instructions to avoid direct inhalation or direct exposure to the product, showing such a visual of a celebrity inhaling the product shows a dangerous practice that may influence minors to imitate such acts, manifests a disregard for safety and encourages negligence. The advertisement contravened Guidelines for Celebrities in advertising.
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 140 advertisements that were picked up, 106 advertisements were considered to be misleading. Of the total of 106 advertisements, 53 belonged to the Education category, 36 advertisements belonged to the Healthcare category, eight belonged to the Food & Beverages category, two to Personal Care category, and seven belonged to the ‘Others’ category.
Education: ‐
The CCC found following claims in the advertisements by 14 advertisers that were not substantiated and thus, in violation of ASCI Guidelines for Advertising for Educational Institutions.
2. Bragnam Pre School: The advertisement’s claim, “Best Preschool for Kids in India”, was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s institute and similar preschools for kids in India to prove that it is better than the rest, or through an independent third party validation. The claim is misleading by exaggeration and exploits consumers’ lack of knowledge and is likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers.
3. MGM Public School: The advertisement’s claim, “Central India's Most Trusted Name in Education” is misleading by exaggeration and exploits consumers’ lack of knowledge and is likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers.
4. Mindseed Pre School: The advertisement’s claim, “Awarded India's Best Pre‐School”, was inadequately substantiated and is misleading by exaggeration and omission of the source for the claim.
6. Rao IIT Academy: The advertisement’s claim, “Scholarship worth 10 crore.” was not substantiated with any evidence of such scholarships being provided or the financial provision made by the advertiser for the same. The claim is misleading by exaggeration.
7. Zee Interactive Learning System ‐ Kidzee Pre School: The advertisement’s claim, “India’s favourite pre‐school” was not substantiated with verifiable comparative data / market survey data of the advertiser’s institute and other similar institutes, or through a third party validation, and is misleading by exaggeration.
8. Taxila Business School: The advertisement’s claim, “Minimum placement 12 lakh”, was not substantiated with authentic supporting data such as detailed list of students, who have been placed through their Institute with the minimum stated salary of 12.0 lakhs. The advertiser did not provide any data such as 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.
9. Scottish International School: The advertisement’s claim, “Parent's most favourite school” was not substantiated with verifiable comparative data / market survey data of the advertiser’s school and other similar schools, or through a third party validation. The claim is misleading by exaggeration.
10. Shemrock and Shemford Group of Schools (Shemford Futuristic School): The advertisement’s claim, “India's fastest growing school chain” was not substantiated with verifiable comparative data / market survey data of the advertiser’s school chain and other similar school chains, or through a third party validation. The claim is misleading by exaggeration.
11. Aakash Educational Services Ltd (Aakash Medical IIT ‐ JEE Foundation): The advertisement’s claim, “Up to 100% scholarship”, was not substantiated and the claim was misleading by ambiguity and omission. The advertisement contravened the Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs
12. Knowledge Station India Private Limited‐ (The Santa Kidz): The DAV The advertisement’s claim, “India’s 1st Brain school was not substantiated with any verifiable credible evidence, or through a third party validation. The claim is misleading by ambiguity and exaggeration
13. Deeksha Classes Private Limited: The advertisement’s claim, “770 Deekshains became doctor” was not substantiated and is misleading by ambiguity and implication as the advertiser only provides coaching for the entrance exam. The claim “Get up to 100% scholarship” was not substantiated and is misleading by ambiguity and omission regarding the scholarship details such as the amount and the criteria.
14. SP Smart Digital: The advertisement’s claim, “1st School in India to offer fully digital schooling”, was not substantiated with verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s institute and similar institutes to prove that they are India’s 1st school than the rest to provide digital schooling services, or through an independent third party validation. The claim is misleading by exaggeration and exploits consumers’ lack of knowledge and is likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers.
Complaints against advertisements of 39 educational institutes listed below are UPHELD mainly because of unsubstantiated claims AND/OR misleading claims that they provide 100% placement/ placement assistance AND/OR they claim to be the No.1 in their respective fields.
Travedo Institute of Hotel Management, Golden Dreams, Institute of Science and Management, Mumbai International School, Aashvi Academy, Academics Future Solution Group, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Bansal Classes Pvt Ltd, Clat Prep Education, Crux Academy, Focus Academy for Competitive Exams, Arcot Sri Mahalakshmi Womens College, Bansal Classes, Dhokai Classes, IBT Institute Pvt. Ltd, IFBI ‐ Institute of Finance, Banking and Insurance, Kautilya Classes, Pahal Design, Rao IIT Academy, Safal Academy, Scope Computer Education, Global Institute of hotel and hospitality management, Big Learnings, Media 3 International Pvt. Ltd ‐ Media , Ahire Classes, Akbar Academy of Airline Studies ,Bodhi School International, Daiya Classes, Dashmesh Academy, Dev Classes, IBT Institute Pvt. Ltd, Ishwar Kripa Career Institute, Law Prep Tutorial, Narendra Tiwari IAS Academy, All India Education Research Academy Ltd ‐ ERA Kids A Play School, Prayas Academy, Bismi Educational Trust‐ VICT Group of Educational Institutions, Vinayaka Missions Research Foundation, AICP‐ Ashutosh Institute for Computer Professionals
Healthcare:
Food & Beverage: ‐
5. Gopal Bhog Atta: The advertisement’s claim, “100% Fibre Atta”, was not substantiated with verifiable supporting data. The claim is misleading by ambiguity and implication regarding the fibre content in the product.
6. Orange Nutraceuticals (Sweet n Zero): The advertisement shows the FSSAI logo in a non‐ standard format implying that it is an endorsement from the FSSAI which is in violation of the FSSAI advisory. The print advertisement is misleading by implication.
7. Super Salt Pvt Ltd – (Top Line Activ Natural Salt): The advertisement’s claim, “Better salt”, was not substantiated with any technical evidence or any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s product and competitor products to prove that it is better than the rest. The claim is misleading by ambiguity and implication.
8. Bhopal Sahakari Sangh Dugdha (Sanchi Milk): The advertisement’s claim, in Hindi (Sampoorn Aahar) read in English as, “complete meal”, was not substantiated. The claim implying complete meal replacement is misleading by exaggeration and exploits consumers’ lack of knowledge and is likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers.
Personal Care: ‐
1. Lotus Herbals Ltd – Lotus Colorkick Lip Sugar: The advertisement’s claim, “Colorkick Lip Sugar with SPF‐20” was not substantiated with evidence of product efficacy or technical rationale and the claim misleading.
2. Besure Healthcare Pvt Ltd/ Besure Black & Beauty Charcoal Soap: The advertisement’s claims, “Protects skin from within” and “Reduces pore size and lightens underarms”, were not substantiated with any technical rationale or evidence of product efficacy. The claims, in the context of a bathing soap, are misleading by exaggeration.
Others: ‐
3. Cambridge Clothing Company LLP – Cambridge Range: The advertisement’s claim, “Largest Men's wear showroom”, was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s showroom and other similar showrooms of competitor brands / in the same category, or through a third party validation. The claim was misleading by exaggeration.
4. Madura Fashion & Lifestyle (Van Heusen Anti‐Bacterial Innerwear): The advertisement’s claim, “The Antibacterial Innerwear” does not state for how many washes the ‘Pure Silver Antibacterial Technology’ lasts in an innerwear. The ‘Anti‐Bacterial’ claim was not substantiated and is misleading by ambiguity and omission.
5. 3M India Limited (Scotch Brite Antibacterial Scrub Pad): The advertisement’s claim, “Anti‐ bacterial scrub pad ‐ Does not let bacteria stay.” was inadequately substantiated. The claim is misleading by omission with reference to efficacy period of the product and by implication that its efficacy would remain unchanged.
6. Pommys Garments (India) Ltd – Pommys Nighties & Inner Wears: The advertisement’s claim, “India's No.1 nighty brand”, was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s brand with other similar competitor brands, or through a third party validation. The claim is misleading by exaggeration.
7. Vaani Water Solution – Vaani Water Purifier: The advertisement’s claim, “India's No.1 Alkaline RO Water Purifier”, was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s brand with other similar competitor brands or through a third party validation. The claim is misleading by exaggeration.
