ASCI upholds complaints against 132 ads in May 2019

During the month of May 2019, ASCI investigated complaints against 231 advertisements, of which 67 advertisements were promptly withdrawn by the advertisers as soon as they received the ASCI communication. ASCI’s independent Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) upheld complaints against 132 advertisements, out of 164 advertisements evaluated by them. Of these 132 advertisements, 69 belonged to the education sector, 41 belonged to the healthcare sector,  four to the food and beverages sector, two to personal care, and 16 were from the ‘others’ category.

ASCI continues to see advertisements featuring celebrities falling foul of “Guidelines for Celebrities in advertising”. Among the various advertisements that were examined, CCC pulled up an advertisement where a renowned cricketer was seen endorsing a mobile gaming app making a superlative claim without conclusive evidence of its market leadership. Another advertisement featured a celebrity endorsing the product as “organic” whereas this claim was not substantiated.

Among other advertisements, a high-end phone brand promised consumers of extremely sharp and beautiful photo quality while being ambiguous about requirement of additional hardware and software requirement for achieving the depicted picture quality. Another popular beverage brand insinuated that children could consume their beverage in place of eight glasses of water which is recommended daily intake. It also claimed to have the goodness of fruits and vitamins which was misleading by ambiguity and implication. A renowned paint brand promised to purify indoor air and made an absolute claim of being able to kill germs.

A large number of complaints were pertaining to the education sector wherein the advertisers were making unsubstantiated claims of being No. 1 and this was also true for a very well-known private university. The CCC also came across a significant number of advertisement of hospitals and clinics which were misleading and exploited consumers lack of knowledge.

D Shivakumar

D Shivakumar, Chairman, ASCI said, “ASCI is a self-regulatory body that helps advertisers and consumer recognise and implement relevant and honest communication of brand messages. ASCI works with the Department of Consumer affairs and the Ministry of information and Broadcasting in ensuring that consumer awareness of their rights is fulfilled. ASCI is also working with celebrities and influencers to help educate them on what they should watch out for before endorsing brands. The CCPA is a welcome step after 34 years of the last consumer legislation and provides autonomy and authority at a district level.”

Education: - 69 advertisements complained against

• Direct Complaints (two advertisements)
• Suo Motu Surveillance by ASCI (67 advertisements)

Healthcare: - 41 advertisements complained against

• Direct Complaints (one advertisement)
• Suo Motu Surveillance by ASCI (40  advertisements)

Food and Beverages: - four advertisements complained against

• Direct Complaints (three advertisements)
• Suo Motu Surveillance by ASCI (one advertisement)

Personal Care: - two advertisement complained against

• Direct Complaints (one advertisement)
• Suo Motu Surveillance by ASCI (one advertisement)

Others: - 16 advertisements complained against

• Direct Complaints (three advertisements)
• Suo Motu Surveillance by ASCI (13 advertisements)

Direct complaints

The advertisements given below were complained against by the general public or by industry members. Of the 57 advertisements complained against, for 16 cases the advertisements were promptly withdrawn by the advertiser on receiving ASCI communication. For the remaining 41 advertisements, complaints against 10 advertisements were upheld by the CCC of which three belonged to the Food & Beverages sector, Two belonged to the Education sector, One belonged to Healthcare sector, One to Personal Care sector, and Three to the ‘Others’ category. 30 advertisements were considered to be not objectionable.

Food and Beverage

1. Mondelez India Foods P. Ltd (Tang): The television advertisement claim, “Kehte hain bacchon ko 8 glass paani peena chaihye… Mushkil hain par Tang hain na (Translated as “Children should drink eight glasses of water…Difficult but there is Tang)” was clearly insinuating that 8 glasses of Tang should be consumed. The CCC also expressed concern on the emphasis placed on using the advertiser’s product in place of water. The claim was misleading by implication and in contravention of the ASCI Guidelines for Advertising of Foods and Beverages. The tagline at the end of the advertisement states “Goodness of fruits and vitamins.” implying that the benefits offered by the product were much more than fruit taste alone. This was misleading by ambiguity and implication. 
2. Tata Global Beverages Ltd (Tetley Green Tea): The print advertisement claimed “9/10 users prefer tetleygreen tea for an active life”, the video advertisement uses the word “recommend” which is contrary to the print advertisement. The users (Home Testers Club survey members) were not provided with samples of other brand products to enable them to have a preference; the words “prefer” and “recommend” are misleading by implication. The use of word “Active Life” misleads one to think that use of the product alone would be sufficient to achieve an “Active Life”. Lastly, the quality of the survey conducted was found to be inadequate as there was ample reason to question fair and unbiased communication of information in the advertisement.
3. Danone (Protinex Lite): The product packaging claims ‘Zero sugar’ on the front while the reverse side has a disclaimer stating “Sugar refers to Sucrose”. The advertiser conceded that the product does contain sugar - as base of the product is from lactose, however, the same was not Sucrose i.e. sugar produced from sugarcane or sugar beet. In light of FSSAI regulations, it was recommended that it would more appropriate  for the advertiser to mention “Zero Sucrose” in place of “Zero Sugar” to avoid being in contravention with ASCI’s Guidelines for Disclaimers.

Education

The CCC found that the claims made in following two advertisements were misleading by exaggeration and could lead to widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers. The advertisements also violated ASCI’s Guidelines for Advertising for Educational Institutions and Programs.

1. Amity University: The print and television advertisements superlative claim  “Ranked India's #1 Not for Profit Pvt. University” was not substantiated with relevant data that there are no other private universities in India that are not-for-profit that are ranked higher than the university. In the television advertisement banner it was mentioned that the #1 ranking was based on an India Today Study, however the claim was not substantiated with details of the awarding body, process as to how the awarding body arrived at the conclusion of them being ranked #1 Not for Profit Pvt. University. More importantly, the selection methodology, criteria used for evaluation, names of other similar universities that were part of the assessment and the outcome was not explained. The CCC also observed that another private university ranked higher as per the QS Global World Rankings of Universities, thus casting a doubt on the advertiser’s claims. The claim is misleading by exaggeration and implication.

2. Triumphant Institute of Management Education P. Ltd – T.I.M.E:  The website advertisement claim “5 100 Percentilers from T.I.M.E. in CAT 2018” is misleading by ambiguity. The advertisement claimed results for CAT 2018 by using photograph of the complainant who had scored a 100 percentile in the CAT 2013 exam.

Following advertisements in the healthcare sector were found to be misleading that exploit consumers’ lack of knowledge and could lead to widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers

1. SAAOL Heart Center: The online advertisement’s claim presenting Catheter Angiography (Taar Wali Angiography) in a bad light and promoting CT Coronary Angiography as the best test for the heart was not substantiated by the advertiser with any authentic and credible scientific literature nor clinical evidence in statistically significant number of patient population to prove that CT Coronary Angiography is a better alternative than Catheter Angiography regardless of the patient’s condition. The advertiser’s claim that maximum number of people die during Catheter Angiography was not substantiated. The claims are misleading by exaggeration. The claim projecting cardiologists as people who blackmail their patients into undergoing an angioplasty or bypass surgery after undergoing the Catheter Angiography Test unfairly denigrates the entire community of cardiologists.

Personal Care

1. Wipro Enterprises P. Ltd (Santoor Aloe Fresh Soap): The print advertisement’s claim (translated from Marathi) “Lemon present in new Santoor Aloe Fresh Soap removes stickiness, due to which you remain fresh and look young” was misleading by implication. It was noted that the soap product does remove stickiness, provides freshness and brightness by its main functional ingredients i.e. surfactant / cleanser soap and the claimed performance holds true for the product as a whole. Attributing these benefits to the two ingredients alone, when such correlation for the levels present in the product are not conclusively established, is misleading.        

The CCC found that the claims made in the following three advertisements were misleading that exploit consumers’ lack of knowledge and lead to widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers.

1. Apple India Pvt. Ltd. (iPhone XS): The television advertisement showed extremely sharp and beautiful shots of the environment – animals, insects, plants and landscapes. The advertisement ends with the tagline “Don’t mess with Mother. Earth shot on iPhone.” The claim leads a lay consumer to believe that the image quality as depicted in the advertisement would be feasible on the iPhone XS alone, whereas in reality, such result would not be achievable without making additional purchases. The CCC did not agree with the advertiser’s contention that the claim is qualified with the disclaimer in the advertisement as this was in contravention of the ASCI’s Guidelines on disclaimers in advertising. The advertisement is misleading by ambiguity and implication.
2. Shwas Homes Pvt Ltd (Aqua City- Cochin): The print advertisement’s claim “It’s Big And Ready!”  when seen in conjunction with the listed amenities (Tennis Court, Basket Ball Court, Volley Ball Court, Swimming Pool, River Side Lounge and Mini Shopping Mall ) implied that the amenities were available too. The claim indicating completion of the project and availability of all amenities is misleading by gross exaggeration.
3. Kapila Krishi Udyog Ltd. (Kapila Pashu Aahar): The print and YouTube advertisement endorsed by Sanjay Dutt claimed that their product is “organic” was not substantiated with a copy of the product label, copy of product approval, product composition details or evidence that the product is organic nor a third party certification and found to be misleading.

Suo Motu Surveillance by ASCI for misleading advertisements

The advertisements given below were picked up through ASCI’s Suo Motu surveillance of Print and TV media via the National Advertisement Monitoring Services (NAMS) project. Out of 174 advertisements that were picked, 51 cases were resolved wherein the advertisers confirmed that the advertisement is being withdrawn immediately post receiving the complaints. Of the 123 advertisements examined by the CCC, complaints against 122 advertisements were upheld. Of these 122 advertisements, 67 belonged to the Education sector, 40 advertisements belonged to the Healthcare sector, One belonged to the Food & Beverage, One belonged to the Personal Care category and 13 belonged to the ‘Others’ category.

The following advertisements were in 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 all description, claims and comparisons made in the advertisement are capable of substantiation:

1. Galactus Funware Technology Private Limited-MPL (Mobile Premier League): The television advertisement’s claim “Biggest Gaming App” endorsed by Virat Kohli was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data or through an audited report or third-party validation. The advertiser did not submit any comparative data of their gaming app versus their close competitors to conclusively prove their market leadership claim. The claim is misleading by exaggeration.
2. TRZ Mart Pvt Ltd – (TRZ Footwear): The television advertisement featured celebrity Manish Paul. The claim  ‘India’s no 1 kids footwear brand’ was not substantiated with any market share data of the advertiser’s brand and other similar kids footwear brands in India, to prove that it is in the leadership position (No.1) in kids footwear, or through a third party validation. The claim is misleading by exaggeration.

The CCC found that the claims made in the following 40 advertisements were misleading that exploit consumers’ lack of knowledge and could lead to widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers. Several claims were misleading by exaggeration.

1. Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare India Pvt Ltd (Itch Guard Cream): The television advertisement’s claim “Heals infection 4 times faster” was not adequately substantiated and is misleading by ambiguity and implication.  The data relied upon for the claim support was dated and 20 years old and was specific to the active ingredient. The CCC noted that terbinafine was introduced in India in the late nineties or early 2000s. The CCC observed that over the last several years, India has witnessed an unprecedented epidemic of severe and extensive dermatophytic infections. In CCC’s opinion, to back a specific quantitative claim of better efficacy, it is important that the claim is based on current published studies of terbinafine and currently used common fungicidal agents (including those that have been introduced in the last 20 years). The Indian climatic conditions and habits and practices of Indian consumers are also required to be factored in.

In the advertisement the ASCI Guidelines on Disclaimers were also violated as the disclaimer was not in the same language as that of the voice over and was misleading by ambiguity and omission with reference to the source of the claim.

2. Arihant Hospital & Test Tube Baby Center: The print advertisement’s claim “Freedom from infertility” and “Provides trustworthy and international solutions on infertility to fulfil the dream of motherhood”, imply guaranteed cure for infertility, which were not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence in statistically significant number of patients treated at the centre.
3. Dr. Dande Hospital and Research Center: The print advertisement’s claim “Most Awarded Hospital by People”, was not substantiated with verifiable comparative data with respect to awards won by the hospital as compared to any other hospital in Nagpur / India, or through a third-party validation.
4. Skin City Super Specialty Skin Clinic: The print advertisement’s claim “India's largest super speciality skin clinic with expertise in the latest laser technologies”, was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s skin clinic and other similar skin clinics in India. The second claim “Gives freedom from excessive sweating and body odour permanently” was not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence in statistically significant number of patients treated at the clinic.
5. Gem Hospital: The print advertisement’s claim “Obesity and diabetes can be completely cured”, was not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence and it is misleading by gross exaggeration. The advertiser did not provide any clinical evidence to prove that treatment through bariatric surgery helps obese people lead normal lives even if they revert to their pre-surgery lifestyle.
6. Mahatma Cancer and Institute Gandhi Hospital Research: The print advertisement’s claims “Recognized by Limca Book of Records-2015 for the largest Cancer survivors from a single institution in the state of Andhra Pradesh” and “The most trusted & comprehensive cancer care in Andhra Pradesh”, were not substantiated.  The advertiser did not provide any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s hospital and other similar hospitals in Andhra Pradesh, to prove that they are more trusted than all the others or through an independent third-party validation.
7. Modern Diagnostic & Research Centre Pvt. Ltd: The print advertisement’s claim “Awarded as Best Diagnostic Centre in Delhi/NCR for 5 years in a row” was not substantiated with a copy of the award certificates, criteria for granting the award, references of the award received such as the year, source, and name of the awarding body for the last five years.
8. Rudra Laser Hemotherapy Clinic: The print advertisement’s claim “Performs natural bypass on 90 to 100% blocked blood vessels and enlarge them” and “Normalizes increased blood pressure, cholesterol” were not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence and are misleading by gross exaggeration.
9. Freedom from Diabetes: The print advertisement’s claim as well as the name of the organisation “Freedom from Diabetes” made an absolute claim. The CCC was of the opinion that for an absolute claim of such medical /therapeutic nature, there has to be robust and sound double blind clinical trial results on statistically significant number of representative patient population as substantiation which the advertiser was unable to provide.     
10. Amaron Remedies (Healer-AM Range of Product): The print advertisement’s claim “Provides instant relief from fever” was not substantiated with product efficacy data and is misleading by gross exaggeration.
11. Andhra Hospitals: The print advertisement’s claim “Biggest network of hospitals in Andhra Pradesh” was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s hospital and other similar hospitals in Andhra Pradesh, to prove that their hospital network is bigger than all the rest, or through a third party validation. The second claim “Performed highest number of minimal invasive cardiac surgeries in Andhra Pradesh” was not substantiated with any support data or any evidence of comparison with other hospitals in Andhra Pradesh to prove that they have achieved maximum number of minimal invasive cardiac surgeries, or through a third-party validation. The source for the claim was not indicated in the advertisement. The claim is misleading by gross exaggeration and implication.
12. Dr. Muffi’s Digestive Health Institute: The print advertisement’s claim “World's No.1 weight loss team” was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s team and other similar weight loss teams globally, to prove that it is in leadership position (No.1) than the rest in providing weight loss services, or through a third party validation. The source for the claim was not indicated in the advertisement. The claim is misleading by gross exaggeration.  Weight loss achieved by a patient as depicted via images of before and after the treatment was not substantiated with authentic and verifiable data.
13. H.L. & Co-Hairlife: The print advertisement’s claims “Freedom from fat” and “Stops hair fall from today itself through treatment”, were not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence in statistically significant number of patients treated at the clinic.
14. Preventive Care Lab: The print advertisement’s claim “People who have been suffering from allergy problems for years, got rid of it completely in days” was misleading. It was observed that the advertiser only conducted diagnostic tests to identify potential allergens. People could minimise the risk of having an allergic reaction by avoiding exposure to the allergens identified through the diagnostic test offered by the advertiser. However, the tests were not treating the allergenic tendencies per se. The claim was misleading by ambiguity, implication and gross exaggeration.
15. Reality Laser Clinic & Research Centre: The print advertisement’s claim “Dr. A. Abdul Kader Ph.D. (Arthritis) giving permanent solution by understanding the disease, by knowing the pulses through various methods of treatment” and “Cure children, paralytic patients without monthly exercises through latest treatments and within 40 days” were not substantiated. It was incorrect to claim providing “a permanent solution” for medical ailments and paralysis, that too without exercise.
16. Woodlands Hospital: The print advertisement’s claim “The most trusted hospital of laparoscopic surgery” was without a valid basis and was not substantiated. The advertiser did not provide any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s hospital and other similar hospitals, to prove that they are more trusted than all the others in conducting laparoscopic surgeries, or through an independent third-party validation.
17. Shubham Piles Hospital: The print advertisement’s claims “Cure chronic piles from roots” and “Cure any type of piles without operation” were not substantiated with any supporting clinical evidence in statistically significant number of patients treated at the hospital to prove that the advertiser was providing a permanent solution for piles.
18. Arya Manav Seva Pharmacy: The print advertisement’s claims, “Stops hair fall”, “Cures Migraine from roots” and “Freedom from knee pain in only 4 months and there is no need for knee replacement” were not substantiated and are misleading by gross exaggeration. The advertiser failed to provide details of the Ayurvedic treatment given for hair fall, migraine or knee pain nor any details regarding the medicines used and their approval status by the regulatory authorities. Advertiser also did not submit any references from classical ayurvedic literature to support their claims.
19. CRC Acupuncture Laser and Wellness Centre: The print advertisement’s claims, “Patient suffering from Asthma can be easily cured with Laser Acupuncture treatment” and “Successful treatment of Sciatica by Acupuncture Medical Science” were not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence in statistically significant number of patients treated at the Acupuncture and Laser wellness centre and are misleading by gross exaggeration.
20. K.R. Ayurvedic : The print advertisement’s claims, “One can quit alcoholism completely no matter how much old it is” and “Without any side effects” were not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence or with treatment efficacy with the use of medicines supplied by the hospital and are misleading by gross exaggeration.
21. K.R. Ayurvedic : The print advertisement’s claims, “Piles can be completely cured with 50 days medicines no matter how much old it is”, was not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence in statistically significant number of patients treated at the advertiser’s ayurvedic center with a fifty day course of medicine.
22. Navjeevan Ayurved: The print advertisement’s claims, “Get rid of unwanted hair for lifetime” and “Freedom from hair in just 6-8 months” were false. The advertiser did not provide any details of how that would result in permanent results.
23. Osho Medicare: “India's No.1 kidney expert”, was not substantiated with verifiable comparative data/market survey data, of the advertiser and other similar experts in India, or through a third party validation. The second claim “By Ayurvedic medicine, the disease gets cured from its roots”, was not substantiated with product efficacy data, and is misleading by gross exaggeration.
24. Ganga Ayurvedic Clinic : , “An accurate medicine to quit alcohol without informing and without bringing the alcoholic” and “Without admitting quit smoke, ganja, charas, medicines, bhang, cigarette gutkha, tobacco” were not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence of product efficacy and are misleading by gross exaggeration.
25. Saptarishi Herbals (Saptarishi Sandhi Sudha Oil): The print advertisement’s claim “World's No.1 Ayurvedic Oil” was not substantiated as the advertiser did not provide any verifiable comparative data of the product and other similar ayurvedic oil product being sold worldwide, to prove that it is in leadership position (No.1), or through a third-party validation. The advertisement also had a disclaimer saying “Highest Selling Teleshopping Product in Ayurvedic Knee Pain Relieving Oil Category”, however, the disclaimer did not provide any source of the claim and if the source has access to the world-wide market. The advertisement is misleading by ambiguity and exaggeration and also violates ASCI’s Guidelines for Disclaimers.
26. Samarth Hospital: The print advertisement’s claim “An infertility cure centre” was not substantiated with any authentic and verifiable data regarding the success rate of their services in treating infertility. The advertisement stating “Vandhatwa nivaran kendra” (Marathi) when seen in totality with claims such as “whatever may be the reason, you still can become mother and father”, “Apatya Swapnapurti yojana” (translated in English as - scheme that fulfils the dream of bearing a child) is misleading by implication that the couples would get sure success for infertility issues.
27. Slim in Style: The print advertisement’s claim “Lipoburst - The Most successful weight loss technique” was not substantiated with any supporting clinical evidence and with treatment efficacy data comparing this technique with other similar techniques for weight loss.

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

Education

The CCC found that the claims made in following 67 advertisements were misleading by exaggeration, exploited consumers’ lack of knowledge and could lead to widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers. The advertisements also violated ASCI’s Guidelines for Advertising for Educational Institutions and Programs.

1. Parigyaan Classes: The print advertisement’s claim “Ensure selection by studying in the institute which provided the maximum selections in the last REET recruitment exam” with respect to training and selection for the Rajasthan Eligibility Exam for Teachers (REET) was not substantiated with verifiable supporting data. The claim guaranteeing selection is misleading.
2. Parigyaan Classes: The print advertisements claim “Assure your selection into the institute that has given top rankers with highest selection in last constable recruitment exam” with respect to training and selection for the Constable/SI exam was not substantiated with verifiable supporting data. The claim guaranteeing selection is misleading.
3. Devprayagam IAS Academy: The print advertisement’s claim “The prestigious institute providing maximum success in IAS/PCS/PCS (J)” was not substantiated with any verifiable supporting data or evidence of comparison with other coaching institutes, to prove that the advertiser’s institute has given the most number of successful candidates in the IAS, PCS (J) exam.
4. CLC Career Line Coaching: The print advertisement’s claim “Highest success rate in North India”, was not substantiated as the advertiser did not provide any supporting data or evidence of comparison with other similar institutes to prove that they have provided the highest success rate in North India through coaching students for NEET and JEE.
5. Banco Career Academy: The print advertisement’s claim “Join Banco to get government job” was not substantiated with authentic supporting data such as a detailed list of students who have been placed through their Institute in government jobs, contact details of students for verification. The advertiser also did not provide any supporting data such as enrolment forms and appointment letters received by the students, independent audit or verification certificate.
6. Shrey IAS: The print advertisement’s claim “Institute providing highest result in UPSC/BPSC” was not substantiated with any verifiable supporting data or evidence of comparison with other coaching institutes in Patna, to prove that they have given the highest results in the UPSC/BPSC exams.
7. Matsya IAS Academy: The print advertisement’s claim “Guarantee that questions will appear - Sure Selection Plan” with respect to guarantee of getting pre-known questions as well as selection for the advertised posts was not substantiated with verifiable supporting data.
8. Meghe Group School of Scholars: The print advertisement’s claim “International School Award Recipient” is the very first bullet point under “salient features” of the school.  The award given to the advertiser was on the basis for Outstanding Development of International Learning in the Curriculum on 16th November. However, such reference was not provided in the advertisement. Moreover, the award granted to advertiser’s school was old and the three year accreditation for the same has since expired. The claim was not substantiated and is misleading by ambiguity, omission and implication.
9. Zentex Defence Academy: The print advertisement’s claim “The institute that has provided the highest selections in 10 years”, was not substantiated with any supporting data or evidence of comparison with other similar academies, on year on year basis for the last 10 years, to prove that they have given the highest selection of students in Defence related jobs each year.
10. Vellore Winner Academy: The print advertisement’s claim, “The cream of the best of faculty from all over India” was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s faculty and faculty from all other similar coaching institutes, to prove that the advertiser’s faculty from all over India are better than all the rest in providing coaching for the NEET/AIIMS entrance exams, or through an independent third-party validation.
11. Srushti Classes: The print advertisement’s claim “Rajasthan's best faculty” was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s faculty and faculty from all other similar coaching institutes in Rajasthan, to prove that they are better than all the rest, in providing coaching for the claimed courses, or through an independent third-party validation.
12. LawPrep Tutorial: The print advertisement’s claim “India's most experienced CLAT faculty team”, was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s faculty team and faculty teams from other similar institutes in India, to prove that they are better experienced than the rest, in providing coaching for the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) to their students, or through an independent third party validation. The claim “India's highest NLU selections from one institute”, was not substantiated with any market survey data or with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s institute and all other similar institutes in India, to prove that only they have provided the highest selections to National Law University, or through an independent third party validation.
13. Karpaga Vinayaga Educational Group (Karpaga Vinayaga College of Engineering and Technology): The print advertisement’s claim “Best Engineering College Award” is not substantiated with copy of the award certificates, details of the criteria for granting the award, references of the award received such as the year, source and category, and details about the awarding body, and is misleading by omission of disclaimer to qualify the same.
14. Gyan Ganga group of Institutions: The print advertisement’s claim “Highest placements in the region, Campus placements leader of the region” were not substantiated with any verifiable support data or evidence of comparison with other coaching institutes in the region, to prove that their institute had provided the highest placements among all other institutes in the region, or through a third party validation.
15. Goal Educational Services Pvt Ltd- Goal Institute: The print advertisement’s claim “Most popular and trustworthy institute among students” was not substantiated with any market survey data or with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s institution and other similar institutions, to prove that they are more popular than all other institutes in providing coaching for the claimed courses, or through a third party validation.
16. Gyanguru Vidhyapith: The print advertisement’s claim “The most trusted institution of management, Best science school of Bhavnagar for Std.11-12, IIT- JEE (Main/Advance) AIIMS- NEET, Best faculty” was not substantiated with any market survey data or with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s institution and other similar institutions, to prove that their management institution is the most trusted compared to all others, or through a third party validation. The claim “Best science school of Bhavnagar for Std.11-12, IIT- JEE (Main/Advance), AIIMS- NEET”, was not substantiated with any market survey data or with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s science school and all other similar science schools in Bhavnagar, to prove that they are better than all others in providing science coaching for Std.11-12, IIT- JEE (Main/Advance), AIIMS- NEET, or through an independent third party validation.  Claim, “Best faculty” was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s faculty and faculty from all other similar schools, to prove that they are better than the rest, in teaching the claimed courses, or through an independent third-party validation.  
17. Gandhi Institute of Management and Technology : The print advertisement’s claim “Written job bond” was not substantiated with authentic supporting data such as detailed list of students who have been recruited through their Institute in the Hospital Management sector or as MBA Professionals in the HR, the Finance or the Marketing sector, contact details of students for verification, enrolment forms, and appointment letters/job offer letters received by the students, nor any independent audit or verification certificate. The CCC also observed that mere signing of an agreement/written job bond with the student does not ensure that a student will get the job.
18. Galaxy Defence Academy: The print advertisement’s claim “Money back if selection is not provided” was not substantiated with supporting evidence of students who have succeeded in the Defence selection exams on taking coaching from the advertiser’s academy, or the students who did not succeed and were refunded with full paid fees.
19. Raath International School: The print advertisement’s claim “First position in Alwar consistently from last 7 years” was not substantiated with any supporting data or evidence of comparison with other similar institutes for a year on year basis for the last seven years, to prove that they have consistently achieved the first position in Alwar.
20. Rathi Forum Career: The print advertisement’s claim “Giving best performance in Maharashtra since last 19 years” was not substantiated and is misleading by exaggeration.  The advertiser did not provide any supporting data or evidence of comparison with other similar institutes for a year on year basis for the last 19 years to prove that they have provided the best performance in the Chartered Accountant (CA) exams in Maharashtra.
21. MIT-World Peace University: The television advertisement’s claim “World’s first University for Life Transformation”, was misleading. The CCC opined that Educational institutes have a significant impact on a student’s life and to call out only one particular institution capable of doing that is a farfetched claim.

Complaints against advertisements of 46 educational institutes listed below are upheld mainly because of unsubstantiated AND misleading claims that they provide 100% placement/100% placement assistance OR they claim to be the No.1 in their respective fields.

Zee Interactive Learning System - ZIMA (Zee Institute of Media Arts), Shiksha Academy, NBCE Skill Development- National Board of Computer Education, Medical IIT Point, Mata Gujri Girls’ Public School, Emerald Professional Academy, Edunova Tutorial Pvt Ltd, DLS IELTS Academy, Clat Prep Education, Chanakya Classes, Bliss Academy, Banco Career Academy, The Great Ashoka Public School, Ambition Institute, Ambition Career Point, AGM TRB Training Centre, Seth M. R. Jaipuria School, Ajay Behl Academy, The Zone Study, Madurai Coaching Centre, Betain Career Institute Pvt Ltd- BETA IIT/ NEET Academy, Saraswati IAS, Sagar School Public, Wonder Kidz The Concept School, Toppers Tuition Group, Silica Coaching, Seedling Group of Institute, Vijetha Defence Academy, Sardana Tutorials - Study Adda, Kollywood Academy, Kaplon Education Pvt Ltd, Institute of Systematic Studies, Institute of Industrial Business and Accountants, Infinity Academy, Speed Medical Institute, Aptech Limited Lakme Academy, Sri Chaitanya Techno School, Gurukul Defence Academy, Global Academy Career, Aptech Limited- Arena Animation Academy, Perfect Point, INFINITY-The Education Hub, eHomemaker Solutions India Private Limited- Livspace.com, Rishi Medical and IIT Academy, Star Healthcare Limited-Ferty9 Hospital & Research Center and Mind Coaching Classes.

Personal Care

1. Vcare Herbal Concepts Pvt Ltd (Vcare VIP Hair Colour Shampoo): the television advertisement’s claim “It will stick only on hair and not stain on any other part” was not substantiated.  The advertiser has made only assertions that the shampoo hair colour does not stain skin and gets applied only on hair; however, the advertiser did not submit any product composition details nor any technical test report to substantiate the claims nor safety of the product.

Food and Beverage:

1. S.B. Food Products (Priya Khadak Rotti):  It was observed that the advertisement shows an FSSAI logo in a non-standard format, implying that it is an endorsement from FSSAI. The improper use of FSSAI logo in the print advertisement is in contravention of the FSSAI advisory.

Others

The CCC found that the claims in the following 13 advertisements were misleading and exploited consumers’ lack of knowledge which could lead to widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers

1. Nippon Paint (India) Private Limited (Nippon Odour less Air Care): The television advertisement (in Tamil) and its corresponding YouTube advertisement in Hindi claiming “Its active carbon technology kills germs and purifies the air” was not substantiated with any details regarding the product composition, technology, scientific rationale or technical test reports to substantiate the claimed benefits. The advertisement made an absolute claims of killing germs, bacteria and removing formaldehyde and purifying the air which ensures clean air indoors. The claim is misleading by ambiguity and exaggeration. 
2. Sudarshan Saur Shakti Pvt. Ltd: The print advertisement’s claim “India's No.1 solar energy brand” was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s brand and other similar brands in India, to prove that it is in leadership position among all other solar energy brands, or through an independent third party validation.  This claim is misleading by ambiguity, implication and exaggeration.
3. Bangla Corporation (Bangla Soda Machine): The print advertisement’s claim “The oldest company in the world for soda machine” was not substantiated with any market survey data or verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s company and other similar companies in the world, to prove that their company is the pioneer of soda machines or through third-party validation to prove that they are the oldest in the world. The second claim “Certified by FSSAI” was in violation of the FSSAI advisory dated February 10, 2017 for use of the FSSAI logo in a non-standard format, implying that it is an endorsement from FSSAI. The claim was misleading by implication.
4. SPR Highliving Market of India: The print advertisement’s claim “South Asia's Largest Wholesale Market”, was misleading by gross exaggeration. The advertiser is currently developing their project “Market of India”; the marketplace was still in the process of being built and yet to be in existence, let alone qualify to be the Asia’s largest wholesale market place. A claim for a future product or services that would benefit a trader cannot hold.
5. Recall Coolers: The print advertisement’s claim “Rajasthan's only cooler with smart feature” was not substantiated with verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s cooler and other similar coolers in Rajasthan, to prove that they are the only cooler with smart features, or through a third party validation. The claim is misleading by exaggeration.
6. International Tractors Limited (Sonalika Tractors): The print advertisement’s claim “World No.1 plant” was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s plant and other similar plants in the World, to prove that it is in leadership position (No.1) than the rest in manufacturing tractors, or through a third party validation. The source for the claim was not indicated in the advertisement. The claim is misleading by exaggeration.
7. Tunwal E-Bike India (Tunwal E-Scooter): The print advertisement’s claim “Largest E-vehicle Chain in Limca Book of Records” was unsubstantiated as the advertiser did not submit any evidence of the Limca Book of Records data. Also, the selection methodology, criteria used for evaluation, names of other similar organizations that were part of the assessment and the outcome was not explained. The claim is misleading by exaggeration.
8. Glare Appliances Pvt Ltd (Glare Kitchen Wares): The television advertisement’s claim “India’s no 1 company to make kitchenware” was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data of the market share by value / volume of the advertiser’s company and other similar kitchenware companies in India, to prove that it is in the leadership position (No.1) in manufacturing kitchenware, or through a third party validation. The source for the claim was not indicated in the advertisement. The claim is misleading by exaggeration.
9. RSA Autocare Pvt Ltd (RSA Auto i-Care): The television advertisement’s claim “India's no.1 24 hr car service provider” was not substantiated with verifiable any comparative data such as market research survey. The source for the claim was not indicated in the advertisement also the advertiser did not provide any evidence of their 24hr service being in operation such as incoming consumer requests and their service records. The claim is misleading by exaggeration.
10. HB Ply & Boards: The television advertisement’s claim “No 1 plywood” was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data such as market share by value/volume of the advertiser’s product and other similar plywood products to prove that it is in the leadership position (No.1) or through a third-party validation. The source for the claim was not indicated in the advertisement. The claim is misleading by exaggeration.

Bodyzone Fitness and Spa Pvt. Ltd: The print advertisement’s claim “North India's No.1 Fitness Club”, was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s fitness club and other similar fitness clubs in North India, to prove that it is better than all the rest in providing fitness training and gym services, or through an independent third party validation. The source for the claim was not indicated in the advertisement. This claim is misleading by exaggeration and implication.

Info@BestMediaInfo.com