ASCI upholds 344 advertisements in August and September, 2019

During the months of August and September 2019, ASCI investigated complaints against 564 advertisements, of which 179 advertisements were promptly withdrawn by the advertisers on receipt of communication from ASCI. The independent Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) of ASCI evaluated 385 advertisements, of which complaints against 344 advertisements were upheld. Of these 344 advertisements, 259 belonged to the education sector, 50 belonged to the healthcare sector,  eight to personal care,  eight to the food & beverages sector, and 19 were from the ‘others’ category.

There were several prominent brands in the Food and Beverage sector making comparative claims regarding the product composition, taste preferences, health benefits or market leadership.  Many of the claims were not adequately substantiated. The CCC also considered the comparisons to be unfairly denigrating the entire category in which the advertiser brands were competing in. A leading dairy brand presented their butter cookies to be superior due to presence of 25% butter and 0% vegetable oil.  However they made a sweeping statement that “other” butter cookies contain only 0.3% to 3% butter and 20% to 22% Vegetable Oil without presenting any verifiable evidence. Another snack brand, endorsed by a prominent cricket celebrity claimed that up to 60% of people said that their baked snack was tastier than other fried snack brands. However, this claim was not conclusively proven. The same celebrity also endorsed a leadership claim for a food supplement brand “No. 1 Supplement for Men”. As this ranking was achieved in the UK and not in India, the claim was considered to be misleading.  Advertisement by an edible oil brand implied that consumers should switch from their current heart oil to their product as it takes “Complete care of their heart”. Their claim stating that consumer’s current heart oil cannot fight against heart problems was considered to be disparaging as well as it seemed likely to scare the consumer into buying the product .  

ASCI continues to receive consumer complaints regarding misleading advertisements in the Food and Beverages sector. One complaint was against a brand positioned to be for diabetics and pre-diabetics. The CCC opined that even though the product contained low GI sugar, it still was sugar and should not have been positioned “diabetes friendly” as it was likely to do more harm.  A popular instant noodle brand did not mention in their communication if the noodles were fried or not, as required by FSSAI. One of India’s oldest biscuit manufacturers claimed “33% extra” on their product packaging, without mentioning the basis of comparison alongside the offer claim.

Rohit Gupta

Rohit Gupta, Chairman, ASCI, said, “Recently as per media reports, Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) issued a statement that that the advertisers must desist from making misleading claims and that the food companies could be liable to pay a fine of up to INR 10 lakhs. Consequences of misleading advertising are grave, not only for the public but also for advertisers as it damages their reputation and breaks consumers’ trust in their products. ASCI encourages advertisers to follow the ASCI Code for self-regulation in advertising and Guidelines for Food and Beverages sector in particular so that all stakeholder interests are taken care of.”

Education: - 259 advertisements complained against

• Direct Complaints (eight advertisements)
• Suo Motu Surveillance by ASCI (251 advertisements)

Healthcare: - 50 advertisements complained against

• Direct Complaints (17 advertisements)
• Suo Motu Surveillance by ASCI (33 advertisements)

Personal Care: - Eight advertisements complained against

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

Food and Beverages: - Eight advertisements complained against

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

Others: - 19 advertisements complained against

• Direct Complaints (10 advertisements)
• Suo Motu Surveillance by ASCI (nine advertisements)

Direct Complaints

The advertisements given below were complained against by the general public or by industry members. Of the 115 advertisements complained against, 32 advertisements were promptly withdrawn by the advertiser on receiving communication from ASCI. For the remaining 83 advertisements, complaints against 43 advertisements were upheld by the CCC. 17 advertisements belonged to the Healthcare sector, eight belonged to the Education sector, six belonged to the Food & Beverages sector, two from the Personal Care sector and 10 from the ‘Others’ category. 40 advertisements were not considered to be objectionable or in contravention of the ASCI code.

Healthcare

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. Starkey Laboratories India Pvt. Ltd. (Atharva Speech and hearing Care Pvt Ltd. - Hearing aid): The print advertisement’s claim “The World’s Best Hearing Aid Costing Rs. 3.5 Lacs Merely at The Price of Our Entry Level Model”, was not substantiated. The CCC observed that the advertisement promoted hearing aid worth Rs. 3.5 lakhs at a lower price. However, the advertiser did not substantiate that their products were “World’s best” as claimed.

2. T.A. Majeed’s Fair Pharma: The print advertisement promotes treatment of cancer patients who have difficulty in swallowing. The claim “By taking our herbal medicine, this problem in swallowing food can be solved. This problem is brought about by viruses that cross Blood Brain Barrier”, was not substantiated as the advertiser did not provide any details regarding the medicines used for the treatment, and their approval status by the regulatory authorities. The advertiser also did not provide any clinical evidence nor any scientific rationale or published clinical literature references to support the claim.   

The following 15 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 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. CL Educate Ltd. (Career Launcher - CAT         2018 result): The print advertisements claim "28,603 IIM calls in CAT 2018 and counting", and “28,655 IIM calls in CAT 2018”, were inadequately substantiated and are misleading by ambiguity. The CCC observed that the data validated by the CA certificate was for the number of interview calls received by 80 students; however, the reference to IIM was missing in the certificate, contrary to what is claimed in the advertisements. Furthermore, the claimed figures of 28,603 and 28,655 appeared to be unrealistic.

2. KISH Academy (http://kishacademy.org): The website advertisement’s claim “The Most Successful Institute in India” was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s institute and other similar institutes in India, to prove that they are more successful in terms of results and placing their students in IIMs than all other similar institutes.

Complaints against advertisements of the below six educational institute 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 and Best in their respective fields.

Personal Care

1. Dabur India Ltd (Odomos Fabric Roll- on): The product packaging claim, “Just four Dots on Your Clothes, Mosquitoes Won’t Come Close” when seen in conjunction with the visual of the girl surrounded by a blue bubble with no mosquitoes inside and several outside, giving an impression of 100% protection was inadequately substantiated. The product provides only a moderate degree of repellency (4% to 40%, which is less than half). On the claim of safety of product, the CCC observed that the advertiser did not provide any test report of safety for the product when in proximity to human skin.

2. ITC Limited (Fiama Scents Bodywash): The print advertisement’s claim, “with just a simple touch anytime, anywhere", was inadequately substantiated and is misleading by ambiguity. The test data provided, was not adequate to conclusively prove that a forearm lab test on a small number of panel members can be extrapolated to a “real life” bathing, towel drying and post bathing situation to adequately substantiate “capsule deposition all over the body and (fragrance capsules) bursting on touch over a period of 8 hours on dry skin”.

Food and Beverage

1. Parle Products Limited (Parle Happy Happy Biscuits): The back panel of product pack claims “Net Weight: 60g + 20g* Extra ₌ 80g with MRP Rs.10.00”, and front panel of pack claims “33%* extra”. Though offer claim of “33% extra” on 60g pack was not considered objectionable, its presentation on pack was misleading by omission as it does not mention the basis of comparison alongside the offer claim, in font size equal to or more than 25% of the font size of “33% extra” claim. The advertisement also violates ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers which states that for comparative claim, the basis of comparison must be stated in a font size that is at least 25% of the size of the claim, which is being qualified and positioned immediately next to or immediately below the claim. 

2. Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. (Amul Butter Cookies): The print and twitter advertisement claims “Other butter cookies contain 0.3% to 3% butter and Amul Butter Cookies contain 25% Amul butter” and “Other butter cookies have 20% to 22% Vegetable Oil and Amul Butter Cookies contain 0% Vegetable Oil” were not substantiated. The advertiser makes generalised claims by indicating the “Other” Butter Cookies rather than “Some” Butter cookies. Additionally, the advertiser did not mention the source of such data or the basis of comparison in the advertisement. The claims unfairly denigrates the entire category of butter cookie products.

3. Nestle India Ltd: Maggi Nutrilicious New Masala Oats and Maggi Nutrilicious New Masala Veg Atta: The advertisement did not clearly indicate whether the noodles are “Fried” or “Non-Fried”. This was considered to be a violation of FSSAI Regulation, 2011 which states that “instant noodle product shall be presented as ‘Fried Noodles or Non-Fried Noodles’. The information needs to be “presented” as required by the FSSAI within the advertisement - regardless of where it appears (i.e. on pack, digital advertisement, YouTube advertisement). 

4. Guiltfree Industries Limited (Too Yumm Karare): The television advertisement’s claim, "Preferred by up to 60% snack lovers" and Voice over claim - "Inki tarah upto 60% logon ne kaha hai ki Too Yumm baked Karare is tastier than your fried snack", were not substantiated and are misleading by exaggeration and implication. The CCC observed that the disclaimer refers to the Nielsen study “Company claim based on independent research conducted by Nielsen, between 5th to 12th October 2018, with a sample size of 423, among males and females aged between 20 to 35 years belonging to NCCS AB households and consumes various brands of stick format salty packaged snacks regularly (at least once in 2 weeks)………”. However, the advertiser did not furnish the details of the design and the findings of this study. The CCC was of the opinion that while hyped up advertising may be permissible, it cannot transgress the grey areas of permissible assertions, and if it does so, the advertiser must have some reasonable factual basis for the assertion made. The claim qualifier “Up to” was also considered to be misleading by ambiguity. The claim unfairly denigrated other snacks brands directly regarding their “taste” in the snacks category. The disclaimers in the TVC were not legible and not in the same language as the audio of the TVC (Hindi). The hold duration of the disclaimers were also not in compliance with the ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers.

5. Diabliss Consumer Products Pvt Ltd (Diabliss Tea with Low GI): The advertisement’s claim, “For Diabetics and Pre-Diabetics” was false and misleading by exaggeration and implication. The CCC noted that while the test report presented by the advertiser indicates that the product is low GI, that alone will not make it suitable for diabetics. The product is a tea with a “low GI sugar” that constitutes almost 99.6 % cane sugar and the remaining are extracts of herbs and fenugreek etc. The fact remains that the carbohydrate is Sucrose and is a refined carbohydrate and it would ultimately get fully absorbed even if slow. Additionally, GI alone is not enough to recommend for diabetics or pre-diabetic. The CCC observed that the advertiser has selectively quoted ADA (American Diabetes Association) who also recommend that GL (Glycemic load) and GI (Glycemic Index) should be referred together. The claim was also misleading by omission of information regarding restriction on portion sizes. The tea promoted by the advertiser contains 2 tsps of sugar in a single serving. With a recommendation of two to three times a day that amounts to 4 to 6 tsps, that is, almost 75% of daily recommended intakes even for non-diabetics leave alone pre-diabetics or diabetics. The CCC expressed concern that positioning this food product to be beneficial to diabetic, may do more harm to diabetics and pre-diabetics. The test report presented by the advertiser indicates that the product is low GI; that alone does not make it suitable for diabetics. The clinical studies submitted by the advertiser have shown a lower absorption of the product but they have not shown any significant differences in the HbA1c. Furthermore, the clinical studies submitted by the advertiser is not a randomised controlled trial (RCT) and rather a comparative study and cannot be considered as a basis for robust claim support. 

6. Vitabiotics, Meyer Organics Pvt. Ltd (Wellman Vitamins): The print advertisement’s claim featuring cricketer Virat Kohli “No. 1 Supplement for Men” was misleading. The CCC observed that Wellman, as per the Nielsen UK report, has the No. 1 rank in terms of Vitamin Mineral Supplements in the Branded Men’s category. However, the CCC was of the opinion that using this claim for advertising in India without specific reference to fact that the No. 1 rank has been achieved in the UK is a clear case of distorting facts by omission. The CCC observed that the advertiser did not provide any evidence showing that the celebrities had done due diligence prior to the endorsement. The advertisement violates ASCI’s Guidelines for Celebrities in Advertising.

Others

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

1. ARG Outlier Media (Republic TV): The Ad-mailer’s leadership claim was misleading and contravened BARC India Ratings – Principles of Fair & Permissible Usage.  The BARC Principles emphatically do not allow reporting of any ratings data as percentages. As per TRAI’s website, Mirror Now is an English/Hindi News channel, and deleting a major player in the English News genre (Mirror Now) from the computation constitutes a false claim.

2. MakeMyTrip India Pvt. Ltd: The YouTube advertisement featuring Bollywood celebrities Alia Bhatt and Ranveer Singh that claimed “60 Minutes Resolution Else Free Stay” was misleading by ambiguity, omission and implication. The advertisement categorically states that “MakeMyTrip provides 24X7 Hotline and resolution in 60 minutes for any problem for hotel booking….” It makes a blanket claim of “hotel” implying any / all hotel and does not specify on “MMT Assured Hotels only”. The advertiser did not provide any evidence showing that the celebrities had done due diligence prior to the endorsement, hence violating ASCI’s Guidelines for Celebrities in Advertising as well.

3. Amazon.com (Amazon.in): The website advertisement claim of Ajanta wall clock being sold at the discounted price of Rs.149, when the actual MRP of the product is INR 499 (70% off), is false, distorts facts and is misleading. The website advertisement was promoting `Deal of the Day’ offers on various products of which one of the product was an `Ajanta’ wall clock. However, the actual price at which this was being sold was above INR 400 and not for Rs 149.  The claim offer was qualified to mention that “Restrictions apply”. However, the advertiser did not provide the details of restrictions (rules about limits) applicable for the offer. The website also did not make reference to terms and conditions that consumers might peruse before availing the said offer, nor was any evidence provided of any of their consumers having availed the offer.

4. Balaji Telefilms Ltd (Judgementall Hai Kya): The Facebook and print advertisement depicted actors of the movie - a boy and a girl holding a razor blade with the sharp edge resting on the tip of their tongue. The CCC concluded that the visual in the poster shows a dangerous act and manifests a disregard for safety, which is also likely to encourage minors to emulate such act which could cause harm or injury.

5. One 97 Communications Limited (PayTM): The PayTM application advertisement claim “Free Movie Tickets Worth Rs.1200 on PayTM” is misleading by ambiguity and omission of the offer being over a period of 12 months and violated ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers. The advertiser’s application did not make any reference by way of (*) / (T&C Apply) to terms and conditions that consumers might peruse before availing the said offer.  The details of the offer were made available only once the membership was purchased. The advertisement contravened ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers.

6. Grofers India Private Limited (Grand Orange Bag Days): The website advertisement’s claim “Flat 100% Cashback Up to Rs.5000/-” was qualified with T&C However, the disclaimer was not prominent in the advertisement nor did it correspond to any asterisk. The advertisement contravened ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers.

7. Naaptol Online Shopping Private Limited (Get in shape Fitness Belt and Pant): The advertisement’s claim as translated from Hindi “Reduces 5 Kgs in one month” was not substantiated as the advertiser failed to provide product brochures, details of the product’s effectiveness for weight reduction by removal of unwanted flab from the body, and weight loss data based on rigorous trial to prove results of five kgs weight loss in one month.

8. PhonePe Private Limited (PhonePe): The television advertisement’s claim, “Pay with PhonePe QR Code at any store and win up to Rs.1000/- cashback”, were inadequately substantiated. Advertiser did not submit verifiable data of customers who had benefitted by the said offer, nor with any independent audit or verification certificate. The claim is misleading by exaggeration. Additionally, there was no generic data provided regarding what percentage of scratch cards represented Rs 1000 cash back offer.

9. People Interactive (I) Pvt. Ltd (Shaadi.com): The television and YouTube advertisement’s claim “60 Lakh Success Stories” was inadequately substantiated. The CA Certificate provided merely provides assurance that the calculations are as followed by the company. The certificate does not provide any assurance of validity of the basis of the calculation. The process rationale arrived at for the number of users who found a match on Shaadi.com, multiplying each deleted / suspended user by 2 ‘to account for the partner for each user’ was not acceptable.

10. Midas Hygiene Limited (Herbal Khatnil): The television and YouTube advertisement’s claim “…wahi be-asar kaala, hara, neela cans coils woils aur liquidators …” with visual showing aerosol cans, liquidators, and mosquito coils, was misleading by implication. The advertisement projected competitor products as ineffective, and unfairly denigrated competitive products directly in the mosquito repellent category, by showing blurred pack shot images of coloured cans and mosquito coils.

Suo Motu Surveillance by ASCI for misleading advertisements

The advertisements listed below were picked up through ASCI’s Suo Motu surveillance of Print and TV media through the National Advertisement Monitoring Services (NAMS) project. Out of 449 advertisements that were picked, 147 cases were resolved immediately wherein the advertisers confirmed that the advertisements were being withdrawn post receiving the complaints. Of the 302 advertisements examined by the CCC, complaints against 301 advertisements were upheld. Of these 301 advertisements, 251 belonged to the Education sector, 33 advertisements belonged to the Healthcare sector, six belonged to the Personal Care category, two belonged to the F&B category and nine fell in the “Others” category.

Education

The CCC found that the claims made in following 29 advertisements were misleading by exaggeration, exploited consumers’ lack of knowledge and could lead to widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers. A large number superlative claims were unsubstantiated. These advertisements also violated ASCI’s Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs.

1. Adarsh Rajasthan PG College: The print advertisement’s claim “Fees will be refunded if student does not get selected in guarantee batch”, was not substantiated with supporting evidence of the students who were selected in defence forces and in railway industry, and of fee refunds issued to non-selected students.
2. AAA College of Engineering & Technology: The print advertisement’s claim “100% scholarship worth 4 Crores” was not substantiated with supporting evidence or through an independent audit or verification certificate. The advertiser did not provide supporting evidence of 100% scholarships / part scholarship availed by any of their students, financial provision made by the institute to grant such scholarship, information regarding the amount of scholarship and the total number of scholarships being offered and the criteria used for the same.

3. Accord School: The print advertisement’s claim “Most awarded school with outstanding results”, was inadequately substantiated and is misleading by exaggeration and implication. The CCC observed that the advertiser did not provide verifiable comparative data of the awards received by them as compared to other similar CBSE schools, to prove that they have received more awards than all the others, and their results have been outstanding compared to others.

4. Abhishek Mishra Classes: The print advertisement’s claim “Given the Best results every year from dropper's batch”, was not substantiated with market survey data, or with verifiable comparative data on year on year basis since inception, of the advertiser’s classes and other similar coaching classes, to prove that they have given better results every year in Dropper Batch than all the rest, or through an independent third party validation.  

5. Abhiprerna Career Institute: The print advertisement’s claims, “The First choice of students for IIT-JEE and NEET in Bikaner” and “The best so far” were misleading as the advertiser did not provide any support data or evidence of comparison with other similar institutes in Bikaner, to prove that their institute was considered as the first choice for students to join for IIT-JEE and NEET courses, as compared to all the others. Advertiser also did not provide any market survey data, or verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s institute and other similar institutes, to prove that they are better than all the rest in providing coaching for the courses claimed, or through an independent third party validation.

6. ALLEN Career Institute: The print advertiser’s claim “Highest number of selections in Olympiads and NTSE”, was not substantiated with verifiable comparative data, or through an independent third-party validation.

7. ALLEN Career Institute: The print advertiser’s claim, “Highest selections from a single institute of any city in Madhya Pradesh”, was inadequately substantiated. Advertiser did not provide any support data or evidence of comparison with actual results of all other top competitor institutes in various cities in Madhya Pradesh, to prove that their institute has given the highest number of selections of students than any other institute. 

8. Vision Point: The print advertisement’s claim “Pass student in only 45 days”, was not substantiated with details of their 45 days coaching program and verifiable supporting data of students who have availed their coaching for 45 days and as a result have passed, with contact details of these students for independent verification.

9. GEMS International School: The print advertisement’s claim “The largest private K-12 education provider of the world” was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data on a worldwide basis of the advertiser’s school and other similar schools, to prove that they are larger than all the rest in providing K-12 education methodologies,  or through a third party validation.

10. Global Educational Consultants: The print advertisement’s claims, “Most Trusted Overseas Education Consultants Award” And “Kerala's Most Trusted and Highest Rated Overseas Educational Consultants” were not substantiated with any market survey data or with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s institute and other similar institutes in Kerala, to prove that they are more trusted and are rated higher as compared to all others, in providing Overseas Educational Consultancy services, or through a third party validation.

11. GOAL Institute: The print advertisement’s claim “Most of the Jharkhand/ Bihar toppers in NEET (UG) 2018 are from Goal Institute” and “The Best result oriented Hostel in Engineering/Medical stream in India” was not substantiated with market survey data, or with verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s hostel and other similar hostels in India, to prove that they have achieved better results in engineering and medical stream than all the rest, or through an independent third party validation.

12. Gurukul Defence Academy: The print advertisement’s claim, “Guaranteed selection of 12th Sci (Maths) students scoring more than 60% in Navy or Airforce along with B.A., B.Sc. or else return of fees in a written agreement”, was not substantiated with verifiable supporting data. The claim was not supported with a disclaimer that should have stated “Past record is no guarantee of future job prospects” and hence was considered misleading.

13. ICS Coaching Centre: The print advertisement’s claim, “Only one choice to get government job is ICS”, was not substantiated with any support data or evidence of comparison with other similar institutes, to prove that they are the only institute to give government jobs as compared to all the others, by providing training for the various career courses as claimed.

14. Shekhawati Defence Academy: The print advertisement’s claim, “Rajasthan's Oldest and Most Successful Defence Academy” was not substantiated with any market survey data or with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s academy and other similar defence academies, to prove that their institution is older and more successful as compared to all the others, or through a third party validation.

15. Star PMT Tutorials – Star Hybrid School: The print advertisement’s claim, “The Most Trustworthy Name of Purvanchal” was not substantiated with any market survey data or with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s school and other similar schools in Purvanchal, to prove that their school is more trusted as compared to all the others, or through a third party validation.

16. BTRIX Medical Classes: The print advertisement’s claim, “Consistently producing highest selection ratio of Kota” was misleading without any support data or evidence of comparison with other similar medical classes in Kota, on year on year basis, or for the last three years, to prove that their coaching classes has given highest selection of students in NEET and AIIMS exams than any other coaching classes nor any independent third party certification.  

17. SAPE Events & Media Pvt. Ltd (SAPE Career Fair): The print advertisement’s claim, “Siliguri's oldest & most reputed Education Fair in this region” was not substantiated with any market research data, or any verifiable comparative data to prove that the advertiser’s education fair is the oldest and most reputed compared to Education Fairs organized by other institutes nor any independent third party certification.

18. Indian Airman Academy: The print advertisement’s claim, “Refund fees if there is no selection from guarantee batch”, was not substantiated with any supporting evidence of refund of fees to non-selected students for Air Force and Navy.  

19. Bharath Institute of Higher Education and Research: The print advertisement’s claim “Most awarded university in India” was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data of the awards received by them as compared to other universities, to prove that they have received more awards than all others.

20. Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services: The print advertisement’s claim “World’s Largest Immigration Group”, was not substantiated with any market survey data, or any verifiable comparative data worldwide, of the advertiser’s group and other Immigration groups in the world, to prove that the advertiser is larger than all the rest, in providing services in the area of student and business immigration, or through a third-party validation.

21. A D Joshi Junior College: The print advertisement’s claim “India's Most Renowned and Prestigious IIT/ NEET Expert program” was not substantiated with market survey data, or with verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s institute and other similar institutes in India, to prove that their IIT/NEET Expert Program is more renowned and more prestigious compared to similar programs offered by all the others, or through an independent third party validation.

22. Vidyamandir Classes: The print advertisement’s claim, “India's Most Premium Brand for Engineering & Medical”, was not substantiated with any details as to how the brand was considered to be “premium” with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s institute and other similar coaching institutes in India, to prove that their brand is the most premium as compared to all the rest in providing engineering and medical coaching to their students, or through an independent third party validation.

23. Vidyadhish Vidyasankul: The print advertisement’s claim, “Highest Selection in JEE Advanced in All Over Bhavnagar In Terms of Number of Students”, was not substantiated with verifiable comparative data, or through an independent third-party validation.

24. K L Deemed to be University: The print advertisement claim, “The Biggest Education Fair”, was not substantiated with any market survey data or any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s education fair and other similar education fair’s conducted for admissions to various academic programs, to prove that their fair is bigger than all the rest, or through a third-party validation.

25. Universal Coaching Centre: The print advertisement’s claim, “Producing Highest Number of IAS/ IPS/ KAS Rank Holders from Karnataka since 20 Years”, was not substantiated with verifiable comparative data on year on year basis for the last 20 years as claimed, of the advertiser’s institute and other similar coaching institute in Karnataka, to prove that their institute has given the highest number of IAS/IPS/KAS Rank Holders than any other coaching institute, or through an independent third party validation.

26. Swarnandhra College of Engineering & Technology: The print advertisement’s claim, “Bestowed with Many National and International Awards”, was not substantiated with copy of the award certificates, details of the awarding bodies, details of the criteria for granting the awards, references of the awards received such as the year, source, category, survey methodology, parameters considered, questionnaires used, names of other similar institutes that were part of the survey, outcome of the survey. The claim, “The Most Preferred Institute Among Students Not Only in Andhra Pradesh But Also in India” was not substantiated with any market survey data or with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s institute and other similar institutes in Andhra Pradesh and India, to prove that they are more preferred than all other institutes by students, or through a third party validation.
27. Takshila Institute: The print advertisement’s claim, “Toppers 1st Choice” was not substantiated with survey data or evidence of comparison of their institute with other similar institutes, to prove that their institute was considered as the first choice by topper students for engineering and medical entrance preparation, in general and not just by their own students or through an independent third-party validation

28. Thewindowsclub.com: The print advertisement’s claim, “India's No.1 Blog in Terms of The Web Traffic”, was not substantiated with verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s blog and other similar online blogs in India, to prove that they are in leadership position (No.1) in garnering the maximum web traffic to their blog, or through an independent third party validation.

29. Hans Raj Mahila Maha Vidyalaya: The print advertisement’s claim, “The Premier Most Women Institution of North India”, was inadequately substantiated with authentic, verifiable comparative data of their institute versus other similar women institutes in North India. 

Complaints against advertisements of 222 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 and Best in their respective fields. The advertisements also violated ASCI Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs.