ASCI upheld complaints against 137 advertisements in October 2019

During the month of October 2019, ASCI investigated complaints against 344 advertisements, of which 80 advertisements were promptly withdrawn by the advertisers on receipt of communication from ASCI. The independent Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) of ASCI evaluated 264 advertisements, of which complaints against 137 advertisements were upheld. Of these 137 advertisements, 89 belonged to the education sector, 29 belonged to the healthcare sector,  four to personal care,  two to the food & beverages sector, and 13 were from the ‘others’ category.

In the CCC deliberations, the most common reason for upholding complaints was that the advertisements were misleading and exploited consumers’ lack of knowledge. This was followed by violations of ASCI Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs. The other reasons for complaints to be upheld were superlative claims and unsubstantiated claims of having won awards.

Among various advertisements that were examined, the CCC observed that a top cricketer celebrity was endorsing “Instant payment” claim being made by a well-known online platform for sale of second hand cars. An international automotive company, in their radio ad implied that consumers should not care for traffic rules hence showing a complete disregard for road safety. In the personal care category, a renowned personal care company founded by a beauty expert, mentioned SPF values that they could not substantiate by providing in vivo support data. A widely used sanitary napkin brand advertised its product to have long lasting cooling effect, which was unsubstantiated. Advertisements by hospitals offering IVF treatments were pulled up for making misleading claims regarding their success rates. An internet restaurant company’s claim of being the “World's largest internet restaurant company” was considered to be misleading in absence of relevant verifiable support data.

The CCC also came across a significant number of advertisement pertaining to the education sector with the advertisers making unsubstantiated and superlative claims of being the most trusted, No. 1 or winning awards.

Rohit Gupta

Rohit Gupta, Chairman, ASCI, said, “Building on the momentum of the fine work done by the ASCI Secretariat in the past few years, for the year 2020 our resolve is to further strengthen the advertising ecosystem. This would be by means of new initiatives, enhanced processes and new guidelines that we plan to roll out in the coming months. These initiatives would not only benefit consumers but would also result in enhanced participation of industry members in effectively practising self-regulation in advertising.”

Education: - 89 advertisements complained against

• Suo Motu Surveillance by ASCI (89 advertisements)

Healthcare: - 29 advertisements complained against

• Direct Complaints (five advertisements)
• Suo Motu Surveillance by ASCI (24 advertisements) 

Personal Care: - Four advertisement complained against

• Suo Motu Surveillance by ASCI (four advertisements)

Food and Beverages: - Two advertisements complained against

• Suo Motu Surveillance by ASCI (two advertisements)

Others: - 13 advertisements complained against

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

Direct Complaints

The advertisements given below were complained against by the general public or by industry members. Of the 149 advertisements complained against, 11 advertisements were promptly withdrawn by the advertiser on receiving communication from ASCI. For the remaining 138 advertisements, complaints against 12 advertisements were upheld by the CCC. Five advertisements belonged to the Healthcare sector and seven from the ‘Others’ category. 26 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. Aanjan Path Labs & Allergy Testing Center: The print advertisement’s claim “Psoriasis, Stomach Ache, Diarrhoea, Sore Throat, Cough - The only option for allergy treatment is diagnosis” was misleading. The advertiser incorrectly mentioned all the above ailments to be of allergen nature whereas Psoriasis is an immune system disorder, allergy as a cause of abdominal pain and diarrhoea is very limited as only a minority of patients are affected by this (6 – 8% in children below 3 years & 3% of adults) and such pain and diarrhoea are mostly due to infections.  Further, sore throat and cough are also due to other reasons such as infections in majority of the cases. The claim “The only option for allergy treatment is diagnosis” was not considered to be valid.
2. Sangam Ayurveda (1 Shot Dandruff Killer): The advertisement’s claim on the product packaging “1 Shot Dandruff Killer” which was also the name of the product and had the corresponding symbol encircled “TM”, was not substantiated. The advertiser did not provide any product specific information such as copy of Product approval license and Product composition details, nor any scientific or technical rationale for the product claim, or copy of the application applied with trade mark registry. In absence of evidence of registered trademark, the product name is a claim which needs to be substantiated with robust anti dandruff efficacy data.
3. Ayushveda Innovations Private Limited (Vindab Herbal Tea): The website advertisement’s claims “Herbal Tea for Diabetes Management”, “Better management of glucose levels, reducing insulin resistance”, “Preventing diabetic complications”, “Better blood pressure management” and “Reduction in stomach ulcers (if any) and reduction in fat” were not substantiated with scientific rationale and / or evidence of product efficacy.

The following two 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:

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. CARS24 Services Pvt. Ltd. (cars24.com): The advertisement’s claim “Get Instant Payment”, featuring cricketer MS Dhoni was considered misleading. It was observed that the advertiser offers both, an “instant payment” facility and a “deferred payment” facility for sale of cars. However, as per the FAQs provided by the advertiser if a customer avails the “instant payment” facility a fee of Rs. 1000 is levied. The advertisement creates an impression that every sale of car would be eligible for “Instant payment” which is not the case. Additionally there was no adequate evidence provided of the celebrities due diligence, hence violating ASCI’s Guidelines for Celebrities in Advertising as well.
2. Kia Motors India (Kia Seltos): The radio advertisement’s claims “He doesn’t play by the rules. He plays with them.” and “Inspired by the badass in you.” imply that one shouldn’t care about the (traffic) rules. It manifests a disregard for safety and encourages negligence.
3. Asian Paints Ltd.  (Asian Paints Royale Health Shield): The television advertisement’s claim “Antibacterial paint with Silver Ion Technology as recommended by the Indian Medical Association” was examined by the CCC. The claim “Antibacterial paint” and endorsement by IMA granting usage of the IMA recommendation of the technology with a mandatory disclaimer (Silver Ion Technology as recommended* by the Indian Medical Association) were substantiated. However, in the TVC, presentation of the product, and the word “Indian Medical Association” was more prominent and the critical disclaimer wording “Silver Ion Technology recommended* by the ….” was downplayed in terms of font size, font format and weightage. The hold duration for the disclaimers regarding product efficacy was not adequate. The advertisement contravened ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers.
4. Onsite Electro Services Private Limited. (OnsiteGo 15 Months Total Protection Plan for Mobiles) The listing’s claims on an ecommerce portal, “Total Protection For Mobiles” and “Total Protection Plan for Mobiles” were misleading as the said plan was only applicable to the screen damage and it was not mentioned upfront. The advertisement also contravened ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers.
5. Policybazaar Insurance Web Aggregator Private Limited: The website advertisement’s claim “100% guaranteed returns” was misleading. It was observed that advertisement was of 100% guaranteed returns on certain products, however, the details of such products was not accompanying the claim. The CCC did not agree with the advertiser’s contention that if a said product is approved by the IRDAI then its features which may include “100% guaranteed returns” may also be approved by the IRDAI. The advertiser failed to submit any evidence of such “IRDAI approval of advertising claim” for any particular product providing either 100% guaranteed return or returns higher than FD. The CCC opined that the said claim should only accompany specific product and cannot be used as a “blanket claim” or a generic positioning of their service. The CCC also noted that it is incorrect to compare a life cover product/ policy with a Fixed Deposit product, the way it was being projected in the advertisement. The advertisement contravened ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers.
6. Xrbia Developers (Xrbia Vangani) : The print advertisement’s claim as translated from Marathi “House in Mumbai for Rs. 6.42 lakhs” was misleading as the advertiser was promoting the said “apartment flats” in Vangani (Badlapur) and not in Mumbai.
7. Sushma Buildtech Limited: The website and hoarding advertisement’s claim “The Largest Real Estate Developer Of The Region” was not substantiated as the advertiser did not provide any verifiable comparative data versus other similar real estate developers in the region, to prove that they are larger than all the rest in real estate development, or through an independent third-party validation. The source for the claim was not indicated in the advertisement.

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 195 advertisements that were picked, 69 cases were resolved immediately wherein the advertisers confirmed that the advertisements were being withdrawn post receiving the complaints. Of the 126 advertisements examined by the CCC, complaints against 125 advertisements were upheld. Of these 125 advertisements, 89 belonged to the Education sector, 24 advertisements belonged to the Healthcare sector, four belonged to the Personal Care category, two belonged to the F&B category and six fell in the “Others” category.

Education

The CCC found that the claims made in following seven 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. One Day World: The print advertisement’s claim “Most Trusted One Day Institute of North India” was not substantiated with any market survey data, or with verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s institute and other similar institutes in North India, to prove that their institute is more trusted compared to all the others for providing training for the career courses claimed, or through a third party validation.
2. Nagaji Group of Institutions-Nagaji Institute of Technology & Management: The print advertisement’s claim “7 National & 3 International Award-Winning Institute” was not substantiated the advertiser did not provide copy of the ten award certificates, reference of the awards received such as the year, source, category, the basis of the awards and the details about the awarding bodies.
3. Microtek College of Management & Technology: The print advertisement’s claim “The Most Awarded Institute” was not substantiated. The claim further included an asterisk (*) which goes on to qualify “conditions apply”.  The CCC did not consider such a disclaimer to be valid nor relevant in the context of the claim. The advertiser was not able to provide any verifiable comparative data of the awards received by their institute as compared to other similar institutes. It is not possible for the advertiser to conduct a comparative study to generate claim support for this superlative claim given the nature of the educational sector and number of such educational colleges.
4. Manav Knowledge City: The print advertisement’s claim “Highest Academic Result, Highest Placement” was not substantiated as the advertiser did not provide any support data or evidence of comparison with other similar coaching institutes, to prove that their institute has given highest  academic results of students for the courses claimed, and have also given highest placement by placing their students in various industry sector or engineering firms, or through an independent third party validation. The second claim “Lowest Fees”, was not substantiated with evidence of comparison with other similar coaching institutes, to prove that their institute charges fees lower than all other institutes.
5. Arihant Education Group- Arihant College: The print advertisement’s claim “Recipient of 14 awards” was not substantiated. The CCC reviewed the print advertisement and observed that the advertiser makes claims of receiving 14 awards failed to provide the copies, details of the award certificates, details of the awarding bodies, references of the awards received such as the year, name of the award. The details of the awards were not indicated in the advertisement.
6. Akshar International School: The print advertisement’s claim “Make your child faster than calculator” was not substantiated. The CCC observed that the advertiser was promoting free abacus classes for students of the primary section from class 1st to 5th for which the advertiser did not provide any verifiable supporting data to show that the children trained under their school through the abacus program have become faster than the calculator as compared to students in other schools. 
7. EM2 Educational Consultants: The print advertisement’s claim “Awarded As The Best Career Counselling Institution for Higher Education”, was not adequately substantiated as the advertiser did not provide any information for the basis of the award or the methodology followed to obtain this information from consumers and industry such as the details of the process as to how the selection for the award was done, survey methodology, details of survey data, criteria used for evaluation, questionnaires used, names of other similar institutes that were part of the survey and the outcome of the survey. Also, the advertiser was referring to this old award in their current advertisement without disclosing the year 2016.

Complaints against advertisements of 82 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.

Healthcare

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

1. Urkid fertility Private Limited (Maa IVF): The print advertisement’s claim “Higher success rate” was not substantiated with any market survey data or with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s centre and other IVF centres, to prove that they are have a higher success rate in IVF treatment, or through a third party validation.  The CCC was of the opinion that it is not possible for the advertiser to conduct a comparative study to generate claim support data for this superiority claim given the nature of the healthcare services sector and number of such IVF Centres.
2. Sri Krishna Clinic: The print advertisement’s claim “Successful treatment for piles, fistula, and fissure without operation with one injection” was not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence. The advertiser did not provide details of the medicines used in the injection and any details regarding their approval status by the regulatory authorities.
3. A.H.IVF & Infertility Research Centre Pvt Ltd (AHIIRC): The print advertisement’s claim “First & Most Popular IVF Centre in Jharkhand & Bihar” was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data as the advertiser did not provide any comparative data of the Centre and other similar IVF Centres in Jharkhand and Bihar, to prove that they are the pioneers in starting the IVF centre in Jharkhand and Bihar and are more popular as compared to all other IVF centres, or through a third party validation.
4. Aakriti Slim: The print advertisement’s claim “India's first American based Lipoburst technique” was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s clinic and other slimming clinics in India, to prove that they are the first to use the “Lipoburst” technique or through a third party validation. The advertiser was offering Lipoburst technique for fat reduction, however there was no evidence submitted of due diligence done by them for arriving at the claim to conclusively prove that they are pioneers in introducing the “Lipoburst” technique in India.
5. Aster Hospital: The print advertisement’s claim “Permanent Weight Loss and cure of Diabetes (Type II)” were not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence as the advertiser did not provide clinical or scientific data to prove that treatment through keyhole weight loss surgery helps obese people get rid of Type II diabetes and lose weight on a permanent basis nor any published scientific research papers to back the claims. The CCC noted that such benefits on permanent basis are unlikely, given the inherent medical conditions and importance of other lifestyle management interventions that were not mentioned in the advertisement.
6. GBL Hospital: The print advertisement’s claim “Best Hospital” was not substantiated with any market survey data, or with verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s hospital and other similar hospitals, to prove that they are better than all the rest in providing treatment to patients suffering from stomach and liver disorders, or through an independent third party validation.
7. Getwell Hospital & Research Center: The print advertisement’s claim “Selected in Best Hospital Category by Rajasthan Government Last Year” was not substantiated. The advertiser failed to provide the copy of the award certificates, details of the awarding bodies, details of the criteria for granting the awards, survey methodology, parameters considered, questionnaires used, names of other similar hospitals that were part of the survey and outcome of the survey.
8. Javitri Hospital & Test Tube Baby Center (Javitri Test Tube Baby Center): The print advertisement’s claim “Successful Results consistently in the Field of Infertility since 19 years” was misleading. The advertisement refers to a revolutionary treatment via stem cells which has resulted in up to 80% success rate, however the advertiser was not able to provide any supporting clinical evidence to support 80% success rate as claimed in the advertisement on year on year basis for the last 19 years. The advertisement also referred to stem cell therapy for unapproved indications, and potentially violated The National Guidelines for Stem Cell Research 2013.

The following 16 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:

1. Unicharm India Pvt Ltd (Sofy Cool Napkins): The television voice over claims, “Coolpad technology that gives long lasting cool feeling and keeps irritation free” and “India’s First Cool Napkins” were inadequately substantiated. The CCC did not agree with the Advertiser’s rationale that “Irritation Free” refers to “mental comfort.” The claim of the Product providing a “cool” feeling was not conclusively proven among majority of the users.  There is no support for the claim “long lasting cool feeling”. 
2. Shahnaz Husain Group (Shahnaz Husain Total Care Day Long Sun Block-SPF 25): The print advertisement’s claim “SPF 25” was inadequately substantiated. It was observed that the advertiser produced a certificate of analysis of an in-house test report and excerpts of an external test report. The external test report indicated SPF value for the test product to be 25.2. The CCC were of the opinion that the SPF values are required to be conclusively proven for in-vivo situation.
3. Shahnaz Husain Group (Shahnaz Husain Total Care Day Long Sun Block-SPF 40): The print advertisement’s claim “SPF 40” was inadequately substantiated. It was observed that the advertiser produced a certificate of analysis of an in-house test report and excerpts of an external test report. The external test report indicated SPF value for the test product to be 42.3. The CCC were of the opinion that the SPF values are required to be conclusively proven for in-vivo situation.
4. Diviyash Herbal (Diviyash Noni Black Magic Shampoo) : The print advertisement’s claims “PPD Free”, “Makes Hair Black in 5 Minutes” and “100% Grey Coverage.” were not substantiated with product efficacy data or any technical test reports to demonstrate action due to herbal ingredients in the product. The advertiser is promoting a hair colorant shampoo under the “Diviyash Herbal” name; however, fails to provide product specific details such as composition / licence / pack artwork, evidence of the active ingredients present in the product.

Food and Beverage

1. Sresta Natural Bio-Products (24 Mantra Organic) – The print advertisement’s claim “India’s #1 Organic Brand” was inadequately substantiated as the advertiser failed to provide latest data to substantiate the claim of no.1 organic brand. The advertiser provided a report of 2016, where they held a 37% of market share in the packed organic food in the market and 7.8% share in the packed organic beverages market. The CCC was of the opinion that due to the availability of more market players in the organic food sector, the advertiser ought to have provided latest data for this claim to be tenable.
2. Nirmal Traders Tea: The print advertisement’s claim “The Best Tea” was not substantiated with market survey data or any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s product and other similar tea products to prove that they are better than all the rest, or through an independent third party validation. Additionally, the second claim “Fresher and Gives More Pep” were comparative claims and were not substantiated with any verifiable comparison of the advertiser’s product and other competitor tea products to prove that their product performs better in terms of freshness and providing pep or through an independent third-party validation. 

Others

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

1. Rebel Foods: The print advertisements claim “World's Largest Internet Restaurant Company” was not substantiated. The CCC opined that news clippings provided by advertiser are not conclusive and reliable evidence for market leadership claim. The advertiser should have provided verifiable comparative data or market survey data of their company in terms of worldwide turn over or market share by value / volume and other similar internet restaurant companies to prove that they are the largest.
2. Shankus Water Park & Resort: The print advertisement’s claim “India’s First Water Park” was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s park and other similar water parks in India, to prove that they are the first to introduce a water park in India, or through a third party validation. The second claim “Best Water Park of Gujarat by Gujarat Tourism” was also not substantiated with the copy of the award certificate, details of the awarding body, details of the criteria for granting the award, references of the award received such as the year, source, category, survey methodology, parameters considered, questionnaires used, names of other similar water parks that were part of the survey and outcome of the survey.
3. Quiknoxx Solutions Private Limited: The print advertisement’s claim “100% Assured Visa within 50 Days” was not substantiated as the advertiser failed to provide a detailed verifiable list of candidates who have received visa approvals within 50 days of application of work permits for Canada, New Zealand and Australia, verifiable evidence to support their enrolment including contact details for independent verification.
4. Sweta Estates Pvt Ltd (Central Park): The print advertisement’s claim “Winner of 32 Realty Awards” was not substantiated as the advertiser failed to provide copy of the claimed 32 awards certificates, references of the awards received such as the year, source and category, the basis of the awards and the details about the awarding bodies.
5. Radiant Digitek Network Pvt. Ltd: The print advertisement’s claim “Rajasthan's No.1 Digital Cable TV Network” was not substantiated with verifiable comparative data of the advertiser and other Digital Cable TV Network operators in Rajasthan, to prove that they are in leadership position (No.1) than all the rest, or through an authentic independent third party validation.
6. Devdarshan Overseas – Devdarshan Dhoop Agarbatti : The print advertisement’s claim “India’s No.1” was not substantiated with comparative data of the advertiser’s product and other dhoop agarbatti brands in India, to prove that their brand is in leadership position (No.1).

Info@BestMediaInfo.com