ASCI probes 590 ads, upholds complaints against 355 in August and September 2018

In August and September 2018, ASCI investigated complaints against 590 advertisements. For 131 advertisements, the advertisers promptly ensured corrective action as soon as the complaints were received. ASCI’s Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) upheld complaints against 355 advertisements from a total of 459 advertisements evaluated by them.

Of the 355 advertisements wherein the complaints were upheld, 201 belonged to the education sector, 62 to the healthcare sector, 24 to the food and beverages category, 24 to personal care, seven violated BARC guidelines and 37 were from the ‘others’ category.

The most common reason for upholding complaints were unsubstantiated claims in the Education sector such as providing “100% placement”, “guaranteed immigration”, “No.1”. This was followed by exaggeration of product efficacy and exploiting consumers’ lack of knowledge, violations of Guidelines for Celebrities in Advertising, BARC Guidelines, Drugs and Magic Remedies (DMR) Regulations. Many of the claims were misleading and likely to lead to widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers.

Amongst various advertisements that were examined, the CCC observed that, a renowned celebrity was found endorsing a well-known air hostess training institute claiming to be “World’s No. 1 institute”. Another advertisement had a popular celebrity endorsing an anti-pimple product promising pimple free skin whereas this claim was inadequately substantiated and misleading by exaggeration. Furthermore, a famous celebrity couple endorsed a soap brand; the advertisement implies that the product has the effectiveness of turmeric whereas the mechanism of action is due to another antimicrobial ingredient. These advertisements contravened ASCI’s Guidelines for Celebrities in Advertising.

D Shivakumar, Chairman, ASCI, said, “Every Indian sees education as a visa to a better future. Many parts of the education eco-system are making extravagant claims and the promises are unwarranted. This time CCC upheld complaints against 201 advertisements in the education sector for reasons that include, making unsubstantiated and misleading claims such as India’s No.1, Highest package, job guarantee, etc. The advertisers have a responsibility to practice self-regulation in their advertising and under no circumstance make tall claims, misrepresent or misinform the public. Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has also offered their wholehearted support to ASCI to tackle the menace of misleading advertisements in the Educational Sector.”

Education: - Total of 201 advertisements complained against

• Direct Complaints (49 advertisements)
• Suo Moto Surveillance by ASCI (152 advertisements)

Healthcare: - Total of 62 advertisements complained against

• Direct Complaints (16 advertisements)
• Suo Moto Surveillance by ASCI (46 advertisements)

Food and Beverages: - Total of 24 advertisements complained against

• Direct Complaints (10  advertisements)
• Suo Moto Surveillance by ASCI (14 advertisements)

Personal Care: - Total of 24 advertisements complained against

• Direct Complaints (17 advertisements)
• Suo Moto Surveillance by ASCI (Seven advertisement)

Violation of BARC Guidelines: - Total of Seven advertisements complained against

• Direct Complaints (Seven advertisements)

Others: - Total of 37 advertisements complained against

• Direct Complaints (18 advertisements)
• Suo Moto Surveillance by ASCI (19 advertisements)

Direct Complaints

The advertisements given below were complained against by general public or by industry members. Of the 267 advertisements, 51 cases were informally resolved, meaning the advertisements were voluntarily withdrawn by the advertisers immediately post receiving the complaints. Complaints against 117 advertisements were upheld by the CCC. Of the total of 117 advertisements, 49 belonged to the Education category, 17 to Personal care sector, 16 belonged to Healthcare sector, 10 from the Food & Beverages category, seven violated BARC guidelines and 18 belonged to the ‘Others’ category.

The following advertisements were violation of ASCI’s Guidelines for Celebrities in Advertising. The advertisers did not provide any evidence to show that the celebrities did due diligence prior to lending their name for the endorsements, to ensure that claims made in the advertisements are capable of substantiation.:

1. Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd. (Frankfinn Institute of Air Hostess Training): The advertisement’s claim featuring Alia Bhat, “World’s No 1 Airhostess Training Institute”, was not substantiated with verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s institute and other similar institutes worldwide or through third party validation to prove its leadership position (No.1). The claim is misleading by exaggeration and is likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers. 

2.  L’Oréal India P. Ltd (Garnier Men Acnofight Facewash): The advertisement featured celebrity Tiger Shroff. The claims, “Want to win the pimple fight? Then why soap, switch to Garnier Men AcnoFight facewash” and “Stay Germ free, Stay Pimple free”, were inadequately substantiated and are misleading by exaggeration.

3. Hindustan Unilever Ltd (Sunsilk Think and Long): In the advertisement, celebrity Alia Bhatt was seen endorsing the shampoo with claims, “Sunsilk thick and long with keratin yogurt”, and “Two times thicker looking hair”. While the advertiser substantiated the claims, the disclaimer, “Based on lab test with Sunsilk Thick and Long shampoo and conditioner verses unclean hair”, qualifying the comparative claim “Two times thicker looking hair”, was not positioned in close proximity of the claim.

4. Medlife International Private Limited (Medlife Pharmacy): For the claim, “India’s Most trusted Pharmacy” the advertiser did not provide any market research data, third party validation or comparative data (between the advertiser’s pharmacy and other pharmacies selling pharmaceutical products through online portals) to prove that they are the most trusted. The claim is misleading by exaggeration and likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers.  The advertisement features two celebrities (Boman Irani and Varun Sharma) as well.

5. Hindustan Unilever Ltd (Lifebuoy Haldi Soap): The advertisement’s claim, “Lifebuoy Haldi de skin infection ke kitanuon se suraksha” is misleading by ambiguity, implication and omission in the reference to Active Silver being the antimicrobial ingredient.

6. Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt Ltd (New Veet Nikhaar): In the advertisement, the claim, “With 100% natural Turmeric extracts”, (especially the emphasis on the presence of turmeric extract and in the context of brightening / nikhaar benefits) was considered to be misleading by ambiguity, exaggeration and implication.    The celebrity Shraddka Kapoor was seen endorsing the product by claiming “Veet Nikhar for Visibly Brighter skin” which was inadequately substantiated.

The two advertisements listed below violated Chapter III (Unsafe Practices) of the ASCI Code:

7. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd (Mahindra Scorpio): In the advertisement, an SUV was seen driving in the middle of the road on the straight line. As per traffic rules, one must not change lanes or drive on the straight line and the advertisement did not abide by the ASCI Code. This scene in the TVC portrays traffic rule violation, shows a dangerous practice and manifests disregard for safety. It also encourages unsafe or reckless driving which could harm the driver and general public.  Furthermore, the visual in the TVC did not have a cautionary message drawing the viewer’s attention to the depiction of stunts.

8. Apple India Private Limited (Apple iPhone X): In the advertisement, a male protagonist is seen playing virtual reality game and is typing a message on the iPhone while walking on the road; he subsequently imagines the characters from game in real life and is seen jumping, kicking and hitting the creatures advancing towards him. All these acts are done by a boy on the road amongst people and moving vehicles. These acts show a dangerous practice without justifiable reason, manifest a disregard for safety and encourage negligence. The actions shown are likely to encourage minors to emulate such acts in a manner which could cause harm or injury.

Education:

The following advertisements were considered to be misleading and also likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers.

1. Asian Business School: The advertisement’s claim, “Highest package offered 15 lakhs per annum”, was misleading by ambiguity and implication that the said offer was achievable by their students.

2. Singhania University: The advertisement’s claims, “India’s first innovative industrial training based placement oriented education”, and “India’s first innovative competitive exams focused integrated curriculum”, were not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data to prove that they are pioneers in providing innovative training / exams. The claims are misleading by exaggeration.

3. Nilaai Educational Trust Group of Institutes: The advertisement’s claim, “100% Placement”, was not substantiated with supporting data 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, and is misleading by exaggeration.  The advertisement is also misleading as it is promoting a government run program – PMKVY along with their other courses.

4. Touchstone Educational: The advertisement’s claim, “India's No. 1 IELTS Institute”, was not substantiated. The claim was misleading by omission of references of being No.1 India Business Partner as per IDP as well as the source and year for the same.
5. EMPI Business School: The advertisement’s claim, “Get work permit to work In Canada after course completion”, was not substantiated. The claim implies guaranteed placement in Canada, which is misleading by implication.

6. Kish Academy: The advertisement’s claim, "Most successful institute for CAT coaching in Guntur & Vijayawada”, was not substantiated with any market survey data, third party validation or comparative data of the advertiser’s institute to prove that they are better than other similar institutes providing CAT coaching. The claims, “172 students secured IIM Admissions” and “103 local college students secured IIM admissions", were not substantiated with supporting data such as detailed list of students with their contact details, enrolment forms, and their year of selection at IIMs. The claims are misleading by exaggeration.

7. Shri Ram Murti Smarak College of Engineering & Technology: The advertisement’s claim, “100% placement for eligible candidates every year in companies of global repute”, was not substantiated with authentic supporting data such as list of students placed through their Institute yearly, enrolment forms and appointment letters of these students, nor any independent audit or verification certificate was provided. The claim was misleading by exaggeration.

8. Aashvi Academy: The advertisement’s claim, “Gujarat’s well known and best education giving academy giving best results since last 10 years”, was not substantiated with any validation, market survey data or verifiable data of the advertiser’s institute proving their superiority among other institutes over 10 years. The advertiser did not provide any evidence that their institute gives 100% results. The claim is misleading by exaggeration.

9. Great Lakes Institute of Management: The advertisement’s claim, “80% of PGXPM participants got promoted within one year of completing the program”, was not substantiated with verifiable supporting data, and is misleading by exaggeration.

10. Opulentus Overseas Careers Pvt Ltd: The advertisement’s claim, “World’s No. 1 Visa and Immigration Company”, was not substantiated with any third party validation or comparative data of the advertiser’s institute and other immigration consultants in the world, to prove its leadership position (No.1). It’s an absolute claim not backed with evidence, is misleading by exaggeration.

11. Opulentus Overseas Careers Pvt Ltd: The advertisement’s claim, “We have certified consultants who have been professionally trained by World’s No: 1 visa and immigration training website: visalearning.com” was not substantiated with credible supporting evidence. The claim, “We are Certified and Trusted by immigrationadvisors.com”, was not substantiated with proof of certification.  The claim, “Since the partnership TEACH5.com has never failed to continuously train our applicants or registered full service clients towards their targeted scores.” was not substantiated with verifiable supporting data. Additionally, the claim, “Opulentus has partnered with the World’s No: 1 Online PTE & IELTS training portal TEACH 5”, was not substantiated with evidence of partnership or TEACH5.com’s leadership position. The claims are superlative and misleading by exaggeration.

12. Opulentus Overseas Careers Pvt Ltd: The advertisement’s claims, “Have been awarded the highest ranked customersatisfactionranking.com award for more than three years”, “Awarded as the top visa & immigration company on topvisaconsultants.com for the last 5 years”, and “Winners of visaconsultants.com customer satisfaction awards for the last 5 years”, were not substantiated and are misleading by exaggeration.

13. Opulentus Overseas Careers Pvt Ltd.- Opulentus Overseas Careers: The advertisement’s claim, “Only way to be healthy is to have a good job and having a bright career, your career therefore is more important than health”, is misleading by implication that career  is more important than health.  Advertiser claiming to be “Immigration Doctors” was not substantiated with supporting data.  The claims are misleading by exaggeration.

14. Opulentus Overseas Careers Pvt Ltd.- Opulentus Overseas Careers: The advertisement’s claims, We have never failed to process successful visas for Australia, United Kingdom, Canada and Unites States of America”, and “Our Premier profile assessment gives you assurance of guaranteed success and best opportunities”, were superlative and were not substantiated with any verifiable supporting data. The claims are misleading by exaggeration.

15. Opulentus Overseas Careers Pvt Ltd: The advertisement’s claims, “Our service fee is competitive & among the best you will find in the industry” and “Process Consultants are the best in the world”, were superlative, not substantiated, and misleading by exaggeration. The claims exploit consumers’ lack of knowledge.

16. Opulentus Overseas Careers Pvt Ltd: The advertisement’s claim “Opulentus - The Visa Company is the finest immigration consultant having expertise in providing quality solutions in visa processing”, was unsubstantiated, misleading by ambiguity.

17. Mind Management Tech: The advertisement’s claims, (in Malayalam and translated to English) “People of any age and having any education can study within two months (8 Saturdays). You can be an efficient expert psychiatric counsellor to solve your own mental issues and others issues. Will get Govt. of India promoted certificate and ID card after the course” were not substantiated and are misleading by exaggeration.

18. Panache Academy: The advertisement’s claim, “50% Scholarship”, was not substantiated with supporting evidence such as Scholarship availed by any of their students, financial provision made by the institute to for the scholarship, the claim was misleading by ambiguity and omission of information regarding the amount of scholarship and number of scholarships offered and the applicable criteria. For the claim, “Join Panache Academy and earn 30,000* to 1,50,000* monthly” the advertiser did not provide supporting evidence to verify the number of students who received offer letters/ job offers from the Tourism / Aviation / Hospitality industry.

Complaints against advertisements of 30 educational institutes listed below are UPHELD mainly because of unsubstantiated claims AND/OR misleading claims that they provide 100% placement/ 100% placement assistance AND/OR they claim to be the No.1 in their respective fields.

Indian Institute of Finance, Institute of Management Studies, Institute of Management Studies, IMM-FOSTIIMA Business School, Institute of Advance Network Technology (IANT institute), Gaur Hari Singhania Institute  of Management & Research, Brij Education Trust-BIMT Gurgaon, Deen Dayal Upadhya Institute of Management & Higher Studies, Bharitya Vidya Bhavan’s Centre for Communication and Management (BCCM), INDUS University-Indus Institute of Management Studies, Jamia Hamdard, Accurate Group of Institutions Accurate Institute of Advanced Management, Accurate Group of Institutions- Accurate Inst. of Mgt & Technology, Science &Technology Entrepreneurs Park-HBTI – Kanpur, Moti Lal Nehru School of Management, R.L. Institute of Management Studies, Poddar & Management Technical Campus, Institute of  Advanced Mgt & Research (IAMR), Indirapuram Institute of Higher Studies, Indus School of Business Mgt. (Gurgaon), Chathamkulam Foundation Charitable Trust- Chathamkulam Inst of Research & Advanced Studies, T. M. Bhagalpur University, Mar Athanasios College for Advanced Studies (MACFAST) , International School of Management (ISM Patna), Netaji Subhas Institute of Business Management, Christ Institute of Management (CIM), KV Charitable Trust  (KVIM Business School), Harlal Institute of Management &Technology, M.O.P. Vaishnav College for Women (Autonomous) and Bhanwar Rathore Design studio.

Personal Care:

The CCC found claims of 13 advertisements in personal care products or services to be either misleading or not adequately / scientifically substantiated; hence in violation of the ASCI Code. In several cases it was observed that the advertisements are misleading by implication and exaggeration and are likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers. Complaints against the following advertisements were upheld.

1. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (Lever Ayush Antimarks Turmeric Face cream): The advertisement’s claims, “A skin care treatment formulated with 5000 years of Ayurvedic wisdom from the granthas” and “The purifying properties of Turmeric (haldi) are known to enhance complexion” and “Kumkumadi Tailam is known to cure marks” were inadequately substantiated.

2. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (Lever Ayush Natural Fairness Saffron Face cream): The advertisement’s claims, “A fairness treatment formulated with 5000 years of Ayurvedic wisdom” and “The rich blend of Saffron and Kumkumadi Tailam is known to cure marks and lighten skin complexion” were inadequately substantiated.

3. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. – Pure Derm Shampoo: The advertisement’s claim, "100% tak Dandruff Jayega Aur Waapas Nahin Aayega” is misleading by omission and ambiguity. For the claim to hold true, it was considered necessary that the disclaimer mentions the duration of use (daily for four weeks) required to achieve “Up to 100% dandruff removal” state and that this disclaimer is legible.

4. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (Lever Ayush Whitening Toothpaste with rock salt): The advertisement’s claims, “Formulated with 5000 years of Ayurvedic wisdom”, “It contains Rock Salt (Sendha Namak), known since centuries as a powerful solution for whitening of teeth” and “Contains Arimedas Tailam known to be extremely effective in making teeth healthy” were inadequately substantiated.

5. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (Indulekha Bringha Oil): The television commercial was positioned as a solution for male pattern baldness, the claim “grows new hair” was not substantiated. The advertisement is misleading by ambiguity and implication.

6. Colgate-Palmolive (India) Ltd ( (Colgate Swarna VedShakthi Toothpaste): The advertisement’s claims,” It has a combination of Ved and Science, I see it as a double benefit” and “The perfect sangam of Ved and science” were inadequately substantiated and are misleading by ambiguity and implication.

7. Wipro Enterprises P. Ltd (Chandrika Hair Oil): The advertisement’s claim (in Malayalam) as translated in English (translation provided by advertiser), “arrests hair fall and makes your hair thicker and stronger” was not substantiated. In absence of such data, the visual showing the “competitor lifting the dumbbells with her hair without any breakage” (versus her rival breaking and losing lot of hair), was considered to be misleading by implication and exaggeration.

8. Dabur India Ltd. (Dabur Lal Tail): The claim, “kyunki ismein hanikarak untreated paraffin wala mineral oil nahi”, was not substantiated and is misleading by implication. Moreover, linking the product benefit to absence of mineral oil as incorrect. Mineral oil is a very widely used and permitted cosmetic ingredient. It is unlikely that marketed products containing mineral oils would be harmful. Such a comparison is unfair and denigrates mineral oil containing products. The advertisement has a visual of a graph showing a baby from a crawling to a walking stage, implied double increase in height of the baby, which was misleading by ambiguity and implication. Such depiction is likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers.  

9. OJB Herbals Pvt. Ltd. (Oshea Herbals UV Shield Sunscreen Gel): The advertisement’s claim, “Made with extract of porphyra umbilicalis a natural ultra violet protection factor, vetiver, aloe vera, carrot, cucumber and chamomile is ideal for hot and humid weather”, was not substantiated with supporting data showing presence of these ingredients in the product. The claims, “Protects you from all forms of sun damage like tanning, sun spots and premature ageing” and “Lightens skin by regulating skin darkening pigments” were not substantiated with any technical data, scientific rationale or evidence of product efficacy, and are misleading by exaggeration.

10. Apcos Naturals (Just Herbs): The advertisement’s claim, “Our Fair’e skin lightening gel and A’ffair skin lightening cream help in getting rid of dark spots and patches”, was not substantiated with product efficacy data. The claim “The herbs present in them detoxify the blood and boost circulation to fade freckles and skin discolorations thus making the skin tone more even toned and giving it a lighter appearance”, was not substantiated with any evidence of the ingredients present in the product and with specific benefits attributed to the said ingredients.

11. Vaadi Herbals Pvt Ltd (Vaadi 24 Carat Gold Face pack): The advertisement’s claims,  “Vitamin-E & Lemon Peel”, “This rich gold pack is specially formulated with high percentage of 24 carat gold leaves which gives an instant shine and lustre to the facial skin” and “It leaves your skin with a smooth and polished look” were not substantiated, are misleading by exaggeration and likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers.

12. Jyothy Laboratories Ltd. (Margo Neem Soap): The advertisement’s claim “New” is not justified as only the packaging artwork had changed. The claim is misleading by ambiguity and implication and also contravened Guidelines on validity & duration of claiming New / Improved. The specific reference to “1000” in the claim “Hazaar neem leaves ke guno se bana” (“Made from the Goodness of 1000 neem leaves”) was inadequately substantiated and is misleading by implication.

13. Karnataka Soaps & Detergents Ltd (Mysore Sandal soap): In the advertisement the ingredient list showing lanoline (a non-veg product), when read in conjunction with the vegetarian logo (green dot symbol) shown on the packaging is likely to mislead consumers and could lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers.

Healthcare:

The CCC found claims of 15 advertisements in healthcare products or services to be either misleading or not adequately / scientifically substantiated; hence in violation of the ASCI Code. In several cases it was observed that the advertisements are misleading by exaggeration, exploit consumers’ lack of knowledge and are likely to lead to grave disappointment in the minds of consumers. CCC also came across advertisements that were in violation of the Drugs & Magic Remedies (DMR) Act. Complaints against the following advertisements were upheld.

1. Dr. Batra’s Positive Health Clinic (Dr. Batra’s Geno Homeopathy): The advertisement’s claim, “Geno Homeopathy – a break through treatment based on Gene Analysis for ailments across all age groups” was not substantiated and was misleading by exaggeration.

2. Huxley’s Company (India) (Wintogeno Pain Reliever): The advertisement’s claim, “Most reliable and powerful pain reliever since 1899”, was not substantiated with third party validation or any verifiable yearly comparative data since 1899 of the product and other products of the category. The claim, “No harmful ingredients used”, was not substantiated with evidence of approval from regulatory authorities. The claim, “Apply Wintogeno two times a day and take Wintogeno joint pain tablet twice in a day after meals and experience the double relief”, was not substantiated with any scientific or technical data. 

3. Shree Dhanvantri Herbals - Swing Forte Capsule: The advertisement’s claim, “Improves arousal and stamina in sexual disorders,” was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of The Drugs & Magic Remedies (DMR) Act.

4. Vee Excel Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Private Limited - AXL Vega Fem Breast Enlargement gel and capsules: The advertisement’s claims, “Based on natural herbal formula, the product also helps in gaining softer, smoother texture breasts as well as much younger looking cleavage without requirement for dangerous and costly implants or injections,” and “Being safe to use, these are highly effective with no side effects and the ingredients used in this product work by gradually augmenting size as well as shape of breasts which helps to promote healthy transformation,” were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of The Drugs & Magic Remedies (DMR) Act.

5. Shree Kalyan Ayurvedashram Safed Daag Psoriasis: The advertisement’s claims, “Immediately after the treatment begins, the oldest marks will change into the original colour of your skin” and “Call and get 30 days’ worth of medicine free” were considered to be prima facie, in violation of The Drugs & Magic Remedies (DMR) Act.

6. Triveni Sangam Chaitanya Jagran: The advertisement’s claim, “Cure all types of ailments (Disease) without medicine”, was not substantiated and is misleading.

7. Pankajakasthuri Herbals India (P) Ltd. (Pankaj Kasturi Breathe Easy): The advertisement’s claims, “A combination of 15 herbs and natural ingredients in specific composition has been formulated by us”, “Its unique and time tested traditional yet Ayurvedic formula harnesses phyto nutrients and antioxidants like xanthones which helps in building immunity, thereby improving the ability to breathe well” and “The herbal formulation is completely safe and is without any side effects” were inadequately substantiated.

8. Hope Ayurvedic Medicines Pvt. Ltd: The advertisement’s claims (in Marathi) as translated in English, “Can be used in all types of Cancer, HIV/AIDS, all Blood related diseases, Renal diseases, Depression, Migraine pain, Geriatric blood diseases, to increase platelets in dengue, and all those Diseases which are not relived by any other Medicines” were not substantiated with evidence of product efficacy and are misleading by implication that this medicine works even when all other treatments fail. The claim, “Patented medicine by Government of India”, was not substantiated with supporting evidence of Government of India having granted patent for their Ayurvedic medicine, and hence is misleading.

9. Seniority Ltd. (Aayu Copper Bottle): The advertisement’s claims, “The Aayu - pure copper bottle aids weight loss, boosts cardiac health, slows down ageing and fights cancer” and “It also kills all micro-organisms and prevents spread of water borne disease” were not substantiated with any scientific rationale or technical tests.

10. Dr. Richa’s Wave Health Centre: The advertisement’s claim, “To cure all incurable diseases with infrared heat therapy”, was not substantiated with authentic supporting evidence.

11. Jiva Nutrition (Jiva Nutrition Anxiety and Insomnia Combo Tablets): The advertisement’s claims, “Effective in sleep disorders”, “Improves sleep quality and duration” and “Relieves symptoms of anxiety and stress” were not substantiated with scientific rationale or clinical evidence of product efficacy.

12. Jiva Nutrition (Jiva Nutrition Shilajeet Capsules): The advertisement’s claims, “Purifies blood and rejuvenates tissues”, “It is also effective against swellings and kidney diseases” and “The ingredients of the capsule also strengthen your nervous system and help you cope with higher stress and anxiety levels” were not substantiated with  scientific rationale or clinical evidence of product efficacy.

13. Planet Ayurveda (Diabetes Care Pack): The advertisement’s claim, “The herbs are totally natural without any preservatives or chemicals” was not substantiated with supporting data showing presence of the ingredients in the product. The claim “These natural supplements can be used for years without any side effects along with the other supplements or modern drugs to control sugar levels” was not substantiated with scientific rationale or clinical evidence of product efficacy.  The claim, “Dr Vikram Chauhan Best Ayurvedic doctor in India” was not substantiated with details of his medical qualifications and any supporting data to prove that he is the best ayurvedic doctor in India. 

14. Ommrudraksha (Rudraksha for Impotency): The advertisement’s claims, “Rudraksha helps to grow the power,” “It gives relief in impotency, feeling of sexual underperformance,” and “Rudraksha also helps to get more sleep and positive feelings,” were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of The Drugs & Magic Remedies (DMR) Act.

15. Mallia & Derma: The advertisement’s claim, “Unlimited Grafts” was not substantiated with technical details regarding the procedure and clinical evidence of how “unlimited grafts” are achieved. 

FOOD AND BEVERAGES:

1. Hindustan Unilever Natural Ltd. (Red Label Care): The advertisement’s claim, “De aam viral infection se zyaada suraksha” was inadequately substantiated and is misleading by ambiguity and implication. In addition, the disclaimers in the advertisement are in contravention of the ASCI Guidelines on Disclaimers for hold duration and legibility.

2. Marico Ltd. (Saffola Active): The product description on amazon website claiming, “Saffola active absorbs 28% lesser fat as compared to other oils”, YouTube advertisement claim, “Upto 28% less fat absorption” (Original Hindi claim, “iska low abosorb khane me tel ka absorption kare 28% tak kam”), and advertiser’s website claim, “Saffola Active - Absorbs upto 28% lesser fat as compared to other single seed oils”, was inadequately substantiated and is misleading by omission.  The advertiser is making specific quantitative claim for test done only on one food item, and not for variety of fried foods that are commonly cooked at home,.

3. Marico Ltd. (Saffola Gold): The advertisement’s claim, “Saffola Gold has Losorb Technology which ensures up to 20% less oil absorption in food, as compared to other leading cooking oils” was inadequately substantiated as the advertiser is making a specific quantitative claim for test done only on one food item, and not for variety of fried foods that are commonly cooked at home.  The claim is misleading by omission.

4. Nestle India Ltd (Nestle Ceregrow): The advertisement’s claims, “Pet bharke to khila diya, par muscle bharke nahi khilaya”, “Pet bharke toh khilati hogi par immunity bharke nahi” and “Jiska har bowl hai bhara iron aur ghane poshan se” were inadequately substantiated. The CCC observed that the explanation for the claim of “Poora Poshan” given by the Advertiser is contradictory.  On one side they claim that Proteins are 38% and Vitamins and Minerals are 15% of RDA for the age for which the product is made and not 100% RDA to justify the claim “Poora Poshan”. This is misleading because Consumer mothers may think that one bowl is enough of daily nutrition of their child between 2 to 5 years. The claims are misleading by ambiguity and implication and are likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers.  Additionally, the disclaimers in the TVC were not in the same language as the audio of the TVC (Hindi).

5. Zydus Limited Wellness (Nutralite): The advertisement’s claim, “Nutralite is a Healthy Alternative to Butter”, implying the advertised product to be a better substitute for butter was inadequately substantiated with comparative technical data regarding the overall nutritional profile of the two compared products such as saturated fats, transfats, total fats, calories etc. The claim is misleading by ambiguity, exaggeration, and omission likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers.

6. KRAFT HEINZ INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (Complan): The advertiser indicates that their product has 1^st class protein. But the depiction in the print advertisement of placement of the text below yellow cup only creates an impression that the other product being compared against do not have any 1st class protein.  This aspect (absence of 1st class protein in other products) was substantiated whereas the complainant submitted data showing presence of all essential amino acids in Horlicks. This was considered to be misleading by omission and implication. The advertisement unfairly denigrates other health drinks.

7. Pernod Ricard India (Royal Stag CD): The advertisement depicting the Royal Stag brand name is a surrogate advertisement for promotion of a liquor product – Seagram’s Royal Stag.  The YouTube advertisement is misleading by implication, and has reference to the words “It’s your life. Make it Large” and contravened Chapters I.4 and III.6 (b) of the ASCI Code. Furthermore, the advertisement did not meet the requirements as per ASCI's Guidelines for Qualification of Brand Extension Product or Service and thereby contravened Chapter III.6 (a) of the ASCI Code.

8. Oziva- Nutritional Meal Replacement Shake for women : The advertisement’s claims, “Meal Replacement Shake”, “Enriched with Ayurvedic Herbs and added Vitamins & Minerals for Weight Loss & Improved Metabolism” , “Delicious Shake that saves 500-700 calories vs. a Regular Meal” were not adequately substantiated. The claims are misleading by ambiguity.

9. Kamla Kant & Company LLP (Rajshree Pan Masala): The hold duration of the disclaimer on the screen was not more than 4 seconds and hence it contravened Clause 4 (X) of ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers.

10. Ashok & Co. – Pan Bahar Ltd. (Bahar Select Pan Masala): The advertisement’s disclaimer, “Paan masala chabana haanikarak hai” and the volume of the audio contravened Clause XI of ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers (the speed of spoken disclaimers should not exceed 6 syllables per second and its volume should be the same level as the rest of the audio in the TVC.

Leadership claims by channels / Violation of BARC Guidelines:

1. ARG Outlier Media (Republic TV): In the advertisement, Republic TV has used only two hours of BARC data to stake No.1 position, which is impermissible and in violation of BARC regulations.

2. ARG Outlier Media – (Republic TV): In the advertisement, Republic TV has made leadership claim under Single Event Reporting. As per BARC Guidelines, an event that happens five times a week for 60 weeks at a trot is distinctly not a single event.  In the context of impermissible use of BARC data, the Ad – mailer contravened Chapter I.3 of the ASCI Code.

3. ARG Outlier Media (Republic TV): In the advertisement, “Republic TV has made leadership claim under Single Event Reporting. As per BARC Guidelines, an event that happens five times a week for 65 weeks at a trot is distinctly not a single event..  In the context of impermissible use of BARC data, the Ad – mailer contravened Chapter I.3 of the ASCI Code.

4. Times Network Ltd (Times Now): In the advertisement, publishing of relative shares was not permitted under BARC Usage Guidelines. The Advertisement – Television promo contravened Chapter I.3 of the ASCI Code.

5. Times Network Ltd (Times Now): The advertisement emailer was misleading by omission to mention that their channel is No.1 in English News genre. Also, the word “Always” in the claim implies that their leadership position (No.1) is consistent, which is misleading by implication and exaggeration. The claim is likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers. Also the position of the disclaimer was not correctly placed in the advertisement which contravened ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers

6. Times Network Ltd (Times Now): The television advertisement was misleading by omission to mention that their channel is No.1 in English News genre.

7. TV9 (TV9 Gujarati): The advertisement’s claim, “TV9 Gujarati No. 1”, was not substantiated with viewership data of the advertiser’s channel against all other competitive channels, to prove its leadership position (No.1), and is misleading by exaggeration and implication.

•  

1. LG Electronics India Pvt Ltd (LG Refrigerator): The advertisement’s claim, “Linear Cooling” was not substantiated with technical data for product feature claiming to offer cooling all across the refrigerator.  The claim, “Keeps food fresh up to 14 days”, was not substantiated with comparative data or with technical test reports of the product.  The claims are misleading by exaggeration.

2. Shopkio: The website advertisement offer of “Attractive Blue Colored Printed Khadi Silk Saree Online”, with the visual of the model shown with the same colour saree, misleading by distortion, and misrepresented facts. The advertisement is likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers.

3. Franke Faber India Ltd. (Faber 3D Hood Chimney): The advertisement’s claim, “Makes your kitchen completely smoke-free” was not substantiated and is misleading by exaggeration.

4. Blue Star Limited (Blue Star Water Purifier): The advertisement’s claim, “Immuno Boost Technology” was inadequately substantiated. The claim is misleading by exaggeration, exploits consumers’ lack of knowledge and is likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers.

5. Lenskart.com: The advertisement’s claim, “Two Pairs for Rs 999 for Gold members” was misleading by omission; the offer is available only on purchase of 2 pairs of spectacle frames with lenses, and subject to Terms and Conditions.  The claim offer is likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers.

6. Future Retail Limited (Big Bazaar): The advertisement displaying - Phool Gobhi, Cabbage, Bhindi, Coconut, Beans, Carrot, Lemon, Cucumber, Spinach and few others under the discount offer of “Rs.6 per 250 g”,  misrepresented the facts. The visual is likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers.

7. Paytm E-Commerce Pvt Ltd (Paytm): The advertisement’s claim related to the price of the product (Suzuki Access 125 SE CBS - Disc) quoted as Rs. 20,000/- was misleading by ambiguity and omission to mention that it is only a booking amount with an   additional convenience fees applicable.  The visual is likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers.

8. Godrej Consumer Products Ltd: The advertisement’s claim, “Kapde pe ek do teen char no machhar biting ghar ke bahar” was inadequately substantiated and is misleading by exaggeration and omission. For the claim, “100% natural” it was observed that the two active oils constituted 50% of the product whereas no details regarding the “Natural” status of the remaining 50% (excipients) was provided. In view of this observation, the visual in the advertisement of front of pack declaration of “100% Natural” is misleading by ambiguity, implication and omission of mention that this claim is limited to only the active ingredients.

9. Infibeam Avenues Ltd (Infibeam.com): The advertisement’s claim, “We are giving free domain names with Daily Earnings”, is misleading by omission to mention that the earnings start only when an advertiser registers on the domain and post advertisements are served on the page. Furthermore, the position of the disclaimer was not correctly placed in the advertisement, and contravened the ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers.

10. Reliance Broadcast Network Ltd (Reliance Digital TV): The advertisement’s claim, “Maximum time duration from booking to installation will be 30 to 45 days”, was not substantiated and is misleading by exaggeration. The claim is likely to cause grave and widespread disappointment in the minds of the consumers.

11. Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. (Reliance Jio): The advertisement’s claim, “With 4G speed, enjoy the fastest speed anywhere in the country”, was not substantiated and is misleading by exaggeration. The claim is likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers.

12. Life Fitness Gym: The advertisement’s claim, “India’s biggest ever Gym opens at Shahibaug”, was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s Gym and other fitness Gyms in India, to prove that it is bigger than the rest, or through third party validation. The source for the claim was not indicated in the advertisement. The claim is misleading by exaggeration and is likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers.

13. Tanisha Systems (Lovevivah)-  The advertisement’s claims, “India’s Top Matrimony Site”, and “We offer the most trusted & authentic matrimonial profiles for those who are looking for Indian brides and grooms for marriage” were not substantiated with any consumer survey data, or  any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s site and other matrimonial sites in India, to prove that they are amongst the top and the most trusted matrimonial matchmaking service providers, or through third party validation. The claims are misleading by exaggeration and are likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers.

14. Manhattan Sofa Makers: The advertisement’s claims, “Buy nine Seater Sofa & get items worth Rs. 25,000 free**” and “India’s largest Sofa manufacturers”, were not substantiated with third party validation or any verifiable or comparative data, to prove that they are largest. The claim is misleading by exaggeration and is likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers.

15. Resinova Chemie Ltd (ResiQuick): The advertisement’s claim, “India’s most innovative instant adhesive”, was not substantiated with any any technical rationale or comparative data to prove that their product is the most advanced.  The claim is misleading by exaggeration and is likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers.

16. Resinova Chemie Ltd (ResiQuick): The advertisement’s tagline, “aam chipkanewale chipka jaate hain” was with reference to other ordinary adhesive products being messy during use was not substantiated. This reference made is misleading by ambiguity and implication

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 323 advertisements that were picked up, 238 advertisements were considered to be misleading and 80 cases were informally resolved meaning the advertisements were voluntarily withdrawn by the advertisers immediately post receiving the complaints. Of the total of 238 advertisements that were upheld, 152 belonged to the Education category,  46 advertisements belonged to the Healthcare category, 14 belonged to the Food & Beverages category, seven to Personal care category and 19 belonged to the ‘Others’ category.

Education:

The CCC found claims in the advertisements by 22 advertisers that were not substantiated and thus, in violation of ASCI Guidelines for Advertising for Educational Institutions.

1. Udaipur Study Circle: The advertisement’s claim, “The only institute of UGC in South Rajasthan which has given highest selections in IAS/RAS/RPS and Teachers Post”, was not substantiated and is misleading by exaggeration. The claim is likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers.

2. HNN Institute of Practical Journalism: The advertisement’s claim, “Uttarakhand’s No. 1 and country’s upcoming news channel” was not substantiated with comparative viewership data to prove its leadership position (No.1) and is misleading by exaggeration and implication. Voice over claim, “Guaranteed Job” was not substantiated with verifiable supporting data of e students with jobs after completion of their training programs. The claims are likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers.

3. Cellcom Mobile Training Institute:  The advertisement’s claim, “Odisha and Bhubaneshwar’s No. 1 mobile training institute” was not substantiated with third party validation or any verifiable comparative data to prove its leadership position (No.1) in Odisha and Bhubaneshwar.  The claim is misleading by exaggeration.

4. Major Kalshi Classes: The advertisement’s claim, India’s No. 1 Defence Training Institute”, was not substantiated with third party validation or any verifiable comparative data to prove its leadership position (No.1) in India. The claim is misleading by exaggeration and is likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers.

5. Major Kalshi Classes Pvt. Ltd: The advertisement’s claim, “The only institute in India which has given 513+ selections in AirForce-2018 Exam” was not substantiated and is misleading by exaggeration and is likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers.

6. Dashmesh Academy: The advertisement’s claims, “The Most Trusted brand”, “The Best Results and maximum no. of selections in the toughest of exams in India- IAS CAT NABARD RBI”, “The Most Experienced Institute in North India”, and “Best Team of Experts”, were not substantiated with third party validation, any market survey data, or any verifiable comparative data. The claims are misleading by exaggeration and are likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers.

7. St. Soldier Institute of International Studies: The advertisement’s claim, “The safest and right way to go for Canadian Education” was not substantiated with verifiable supporting data and is misleading by exaggeration and implication. The claim is likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers.

8. DET Coaching Centre - DCC Institute: The advertisement’s claim, “The only Institute in Haryana which has given highest selections in last 15 years in BSc, Agriculture, VS and VLDA” was not substantiated through an independent third party validation or with15 years of verifiable comparative to prove highest selections of students. The claim, “Guarantee of 100% success” was not substantiated with verifiable supporting data.  The claims are misleading by exaggeration and are likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers.

9. Alva’s Education Foundation – Alva’s Pre-University College: The advertisement’s claim, “More than 350 students got Govt. seats in MBBS last year” was not substantiated with authentic verifiable supporting data of 2017 giving detailed list of students who got Government seats in MBBS, nor any independent audit or verification certificate. The claim is misleading by exaggeration and is likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers.

10. Govindam Defence Academy: The advertisement’s claim, “Institute giving highest selections in Rajasthan for Air Force and Navy” was not substantiated. The claims, “Total 274 selections from October 2017 to May 2018 which includes 125 from Air force - May 2018 Phase-II, 66 from Air Force - Oct 2017 final merit, 60 from Indian Navy (2017-18) and 23 from Indian Army and other” were not substantiated with verifiable supporting data. The claims are misleading by exaggeration and are likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers.

11. Matsya Soldier Defence Academy: The advertisement’s claim, “The only institute which has given 1345 highest selections in Rajasthan”, was not substantiated. The claim, “If not selected then no fees (written agreement)” was not substantiated with any supporting evidence of the students selection and evidence of refund in case not selected. The claims are misleading by exaggeration, and are likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers.

12. Kartavay Defence Academy: The advertisement’s claim, “If not selected, then no fees will be taken” was not substantiated with supporting evidence that all the students of the coaching center were selected or the advertiser’s institute had not taken fees from those students who were not selected for defense coaching.  The claim is misleading by exaggeration and is likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers.

13. ISEC School of Engineering & Consultancies Pvt. Ltd: The advertisement’s claim, “No.1 Technical Coaching Institution”, was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data to prove its leadership position (No.1) or any third party validation.  The claim is misleading by exaggeration and is likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers. 

14. ABES Engineering College: The advertisement’s claim, “1st in U.P.” was not substantiated for the ranking claimed and is misleading by ambiguity regarding actual ranking by NIRF. The claim is likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers. 

15. Achariya Group of Educational Institutions: The advertisement’s claim, “India's largest national topper” was not substantiated with third party validation or any verifiable comparative data prove their any.  The claim is misleading by exaggeration and is likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers.

16. Vidarbha Professional Academy: The advertisement’s claim, “The most trusted academy for commerce education” was not substantiated with any market survey data, third party validation or with verifiable comparative data to prove that it is most trusted academy The claim is misleading by exaggeration, and is likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers. 

17. ViMS Academy: The advertisement’s claim, “Best Training Centre in South India for Airline Management training” was an absolute claim and was not substantiated with any market survey data, independent third party validation or verifiable comparative data proving it is better than other institutes. The claim is misleading by exaggeration and implication and is likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers.  

18. Vidyasagar Learning Pvt Ltd- Vidyasagar Classes: The advertisement’s claim, “Maharashtra's most tr