ASCI upholds 257 complaints of misleading ads in June and July, 2020

In the months of June and July 2020, the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) investigated complaints against 363 advertisements, of which 76 were promptly withdrawn by advertisers. The Independent Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) of ASCI evaluated remaining 287 advertisements, of which complaints against 257 advertisements were upheld. Of these, 150 belonged to the healthcare sector, 40 to education, 20 to food and beverages, 4 to GAMA complaints, 12 to personal care and 31 to the other category.

Call for entries open for BuzzInContent Awards 2020 ENTER NOW

Covid-19, continued to be the biggest fight which in turn led to a rise in the false claims of cure and prevention from coronavirus. Holding hands with the Ministry of AYUSH, ASCI is continuously working towards eliminating such false claims for the betterment of the society. In the month of May - June 97 such cases were flagged to the regulator.

Subhash Kamath

Subhash Kamath, Chairman of ASCI throws some light, says, “There has been a flood of advertisements with dubious claims about COVID-19 cures and preventions. Especially at this time when consumers are feeling more vulnerable about the virus, it becomes more important for us as regulators to ensure that these ads don’t exploit the consumer’s anxiety.  We understand that such claims can adversely affect consumers and we are committed to work closely with the Ministry of Ayush to help eliminate such malpractices from society.”

Healthcare: - 150 advertisements complained against

 Direct Complaints (two advertisements)

Suo Motu Surveillance by ASCI (148 advertisements)

Education: - 40 advertisements complained against

Direct Complaints (one advertisement)

Suo Motu Surveillance by ASCI (39 advertisements)

Food & Beverages - 20 advertisements complained against

  Direct Complaints (Five advertisements)

Suo Motu (15 advertisements)

Personal Care: -12 advertisements complained against

Direct Complaints (six advertisements)

Suo Motu (six advertisements)

Gama Complaints: 4 advertisements complained against

Direct Complaints (Four advertisements)

Others: - 31 advertisements complained against

Direct Complaints (15 advertisements)

Suo Motu Surveillance by ASCI (16 advertisements)

Direct Complaints:

The advertisements given below were complained against by the general public or by industry members. Of the 113 advertisements complained against, 51 advertisements were promptly withdrawn by the advertiser on receiving communication from ASCI. For the remaining 62 advertisements, complaints against 33 advertisements were upheld by the CCC. Six belonged to personal care, five belonged to Food & Beverages, four belonged to GAMA, two belonged to Healthcare and one belonged to education. While 15 advertisements belonged to the others category. 29 advertisements were not considered to be objectionable or in contravention of the ASCI code.

Personal Care

1) L’Oréal India P. Ltd (Garnier Micellar Water): The YouTube advertisement depicts the protagonist as celebrity Alia Bhatt  trying to remove eye and lip makeup by wiping, rubbing and washing yet despite these steps make up still remains on the face. The protagonist then is introduced to Micellar Cleansing Water that removes makeup in one swipe. The final frame shows two bottles of Garnier Micellar Cleansing Water, one which is an oil infused variant for waterproof makeup. The package shows the word “New”. For the Pack claim of “New” shown in the advertisement, the CCC noted that the advertiser relied on the preservative change in product composition. The advertiser also justified the claim based on change in product sourcing as well as pack sizes. The CCC did not agree with the advertiser’s rationale for claiming newness. Neither the product’s utility nor function had changed and the change of preservative was the only new composition related change. For the claim, “Makeup off in just one swipe”, the claim support data submitted by the advertiser established the product efficacy of “removal of kajal and lipstick in one swipe”. However, the CCC observed that the advertisement voice over states “to remove make up, you wipe, rub, wash, make up is still left” and shows the protagonist trying to remove lipstick and applying soap on her cheeks to remove face make up. Further the voice over continues to use the word “make up” and goes on to claim “…micelles pull out make up like a magnet.” When the voice over states, “In just one swipe make up is easily removed, even kajal”; while the visual depicts removal of kajal and lipstick, it also visually implies removal of face make up and mascara. However, the test reports are specific to only lipstick and kajal. The CCC observed that for the same product, earlier submitted test results showed that up to 93.9% foundation was removed in one swipe and the corresponding values for mascara was only 60.9%. With this precedence of the product claim not holding up for removal of foundation and mascara as well as “All make up” claim, the CCC opined that “Make up off in just one swipe” was an overclaim in the current advertisement. The disclaimer in the advertisement refer only to “Basis clinical & instrumental test” and do not indicate that the test was for only lipstick and kajal. The YouTube advertisement was considered misleading and contravened ASCI Guidelines for Validity and Duration of Claiming New / Improved and Guidelines for Disclaimers in advertising. Additionally, the advertiser did not provide any evidence to show that the celebrity had done due diligence prior to endorsement, to ensure that all description, claims and comparisons made in the TVC are capable of substantiation, nor any Testimonials, or any evidence of the consent of the celebrity for the product efficacy claims. This contravenes ASCI Guidelines for Celebrities in Advertising.

2) Colgate-Palmolive (India) Ltd: The television commercial claiming, “Colgate Strong Teeth Ab Amino Shakti ke saath. Yeh daaton ka natural Calcium badhane mein madat kare aur danth banaye ander se strong” was considered misleading. The product demo being depicted in the advertisement shows comparison of untreated chalk versus chalk treated with the advertised product. While the advertiser submitted videos of demo with competitor brands, they had not conducted this demo for their own old as well as the new product; whereas the disclaimer in the advertisement stated – “conducted in controlled lab environment”. Furthermore, the chalk crumbling lab test depicted in the advertisement to be an incorrect representation of enamel structure and the impact of acid on the same, as a tooth is not expected to behave like an inorganic and non-living substance like chalk. For the claim “Andar se strong”, the advertiser relied on the recommendation of an earlier complaint. The observations of the recommendations stated that the data presented by the advertiser is a surface phenomenon, being restricted to only 1/200 the depth of the enamel layer, which is the outer portion of 2 to 3 mm within the tooth structure. It is explicitly clear that the Toothpaste does not add or increase natural Calcium from within the tooth. The claim was also considered to be misleading by exaggeration, omission and implication.  The disclaimers on the Product Packaging and in the TVC are also in contravention with the ASCI’s Guidelines for Disclaimers. The Product Packaging bears two separate claims, one “Amino Shakti” and the other “Adds Natural Calcium”. ‘Amino Shakti’ is a coined term which refers to a unique formula containing Arginine. Although ‘Amino Shakti’ appears on all panels, the disclaimer appears on just one panel, and in small print, which is not noticeable and barely legible, if noticed. The disclaimer for ‘Strengthens Teeth From Within’ is also not noticeable on the Product Packaging. The claim in the TVC, demonstrating the crumbling of untreated chalk being unable to withstand the effect of acid, unlike the chalk treated with the product, is also exaggerated.

3) Nobel Hygiene Pvt. Ltd (Rio Heavy Flow Pads): The YouTube and website advertisement claims comparing absorbency of XXXL Napkin with Rio Pads for heavy flow during periods using metal scale test implying product superiority accompanied by voice over, “……Kafi clear hai ki Rio ke heavy duty pads kahi zyaada  period mein soak kar sakte hai”,  and with the pack shot in the website advertisement “3 regular sanitary napkins are equal to one Rio heavy duty pad”,  was not substantiated and are misleading. The subject matter of comparison chosen confers an artificial advantage upon the advertiser so as to suggest a better bargain than is truly the case. The CCC observed that the advertiser relied on a third party test, internal test,  and a test demo for the video, and a repeat of the video test done in a home-video setting (https://youtu.be/fNMPA4KRmGM). As per the third party test report (entitled “Seven Parameter Absorption Test of Sanitary Pads-merged.pdf”)), the test was done as per their own internal test method and not as per the BIS test. The description of the test method does not specify the number of samples tested, nor is the raw data or any statistical analysis of variance and significance provided for reference. The test used 50 ml, 100 ml and 150 ml, to simulate the heavy flow claim. Under its test methods, it did show superiority of the impugned product for certain parameters (like overflow under high loading and rewet values) but not quantitatively for absorbency. The internal tests (Exhibit-I) showed that the Rio Heavy Flow Pads absorbed 275 ml whereas the next best tested, Whisper XXXL, absorbed 126 ml. This is a factor which works out to be 2.2x only and not a factor of 3x as claimed. The video test shows an impact test or drop test consisting of dropping a metal ruler or scale onto the products. An impact of this sort is necessarily momentary and not steady for any extended duration like a few seconds let alone one minute. This particular test also lacks reproducibility and reliability due to non-standardized conditions. The test depicted in the video does not meet any other standardized method accepted as an industry norm such as the BIS test, nor was it tested/verified to be a standardized test in any of the internal/external tests reports submitted. Thus, the CCC did not consider the test to be robust enough to serve as a “product performance test”.  Furthermore, the advertiser did not project this as a creative visualization of any other product performance other test.

4) Hindustan Unilever Ltd – Indulekha Neemraj Oil: The YouTube Advertisement claimed, “Cures Dandruff Grows New Hair” With the disclaimer that reads as follow “Based on Clinical test conducted by independent CRO in 2016-17 and 2018-2019.” The FTCP viewed the YouTube banner advertisement screen shots, examined the details of the complaint, and considered the advertiser’s rationale for claim support. The FTCP noted the observations of the technical expert on the data referred to by both the parties underlying causes and variety of treatments are offered. The clinical study has been conducted for 31 days with the external use of the product that has been studied to provide dandruff remission. The advertiser argued that they are not claiming cure from “Darunaka” but are claiming “dandruff cure”. The FTCP did not agree with the advertiser’s contentions they have not claimed that the product can cure dandruff in all cases, irrespective of the underlying issue such as a severe medical condition. The FTCP observed that the claim is a categorical, blanket claim of “Cures dandruff” and implies a permanent effect for every user. The term “cure” pertains to the disease and not the symptoms. While the symptoms can be alleviated by external use products, in this particular case, use of the term “cure” is misleading. The FTCP concluded that the claim “Cures Dandruff” was not adequately substantiated and was misleading by exaggeration.

5) Dabur India Ltd– Dabur Red Toothpaste: The television commercial, Youtube and Twitter advertisement’s claim, “better safai than the white toothpaste category” was misleading. The claim about “better safai than the white toothpaste category” is based on antioxidant ingredient benefit and limited in vitro studies. The claimed benefit of ‘cleaning’ is not different from regular toothpastes and is not substantiated. The disclaimers in the advertisement were in contravention of the ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers in Advertising in terms of contrast, size and legibility. Additionally, the advertiser has chosen narrow evaluation parameters of in vitro studies to prove superiority versus white toothpastes. While the advertiser has demonstrated this effect in vitro, they themselves admit that this effect is not long term / residual and the toxins continue to keep generating in the mouth (teeth and gums). Furthermore, the advertisement uses the word “toxins” of which “free radicals” make up only a part and the comparative tests are only for free radicals. The advertiser agreed that some other white toothpaste could also have similar anti-oxidant activity; which they have not verified. Thus, the disclaimer “Bazaar mein dusre marketed ayurvedic aur herbal toothpaste bhi free radical ko vifal kar sakte hain.” makes the claim of superiority over white toothpaste itself, null and void. Furthermore, the advertiser has not conclusively established superiority of their product versus the market leader (Colgate) or any other white toothpaste in “in vivo” situation; whereas the images in the advertisement have a side by side comparison with teeth being cleaned of toxins and indicate residual toxins in the “White toothpaste” section. The FTCP was of the opinion that the advertiser cannot claim superiority based on antioxidant activity of the herbal ingredients alone as this test and the resultant benefit has not been conclusively extrapolated to in vivo situation. Therefore, the comparison versus White category was not considered to be adequately substantiated. The claim is misleading by ambiguity and implication and denigrates the entire category of White toothpastes.

6) Hindustan Unilever Ltd – Axe Mini Ticket Pocket Perfume: The television commercial and YouTube advertisement’s claims “India’s No.1 Pocket Perfume” and “Product of the Year” were misleading. For the study provided as claim support data, the FTCP that the study was conducted with a sample size of 2400 people out of which only 519 gave a response in respect of the category of the pocket perfumes. The study does not appear to be nationally representative.  The sample of 29% male and 71% female; with 73% of social class A and 27% of social class B appears to be a fairly skewed sample and a study done among 12 of the largest cities being described as ‘nationally representative’ does seem an exaggeration. The study covered only 2 other brands excluding the leading players in the category.  Hence it is also not representative of the pocket perfume category.  Therefore the study is not entirely truthful and claim based on results of the study is inadequately substantiated. The claims made in the last frame of the advertisement appear to give the impression to the consumer that this brand is No.1 in the category which would imply No.1 position   in market share by volume or value.  The advertisers themselves have accepted that they do not have the No. 1 market share in the pocket perfume category.  ASCI recognizes a claim of No.1 position of a brand only if substantiated by market share or sales data in terms of volume or value. The advertisement violates ASCI Guidelines for Usage of Awards/Rankings in Advertisements which clearly states that “there should be no direct or indirect payment made by the advertiser to the Institution or organisation granting such award”.  The website of the awarding organization clearly mentions a substantial payment for participation in the award contest as well as for continuous use of its logo by winners. 

Food and Beverage

1) Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation ltd: (Amul Ice Cream): The advertisement claimed benefit shown in the form of the father saying “…ek glass dudh pila raha hoon” and showing it to be equivalent to one scoop of ice cream, was not substantiated and is misleading.  The CCC was of the view that the advertiser is promoting their ice cream which is a high sugar content product (sweetened product) by comparing it with one glass of milk. The father by saying “…ek glass dudh pila raha hoon…” and shown offering one scoop of ice cream is clearly equating one scoop of Amul ice-cream to one glass of milk. The CCC observed that the advertisement is drawing a direct comparison with plain milk - a product which, in common perception is considered to be healthy. In general, ice cream being a processed, high sugar content product, the two food items cannot be simply equated on the quantum of one glass of milk and imply recommending multiple servings on that basis.  Moreover, the advertiser had not addressed the complainant’s objection of equating one glass milk to one scoop of ice cream nor did they submit the milk content in one scoop of their product. 

2) Gujarat Tea Processors and Packers Limited (Wagh Bakri Green Tea): The TVC & YouTube advertisement claims “Bus Yoga aur Wagh Bakri green tea” and “Har sip mein fitness”, were not substantiated and are misleading. The advertiser did not submit any claim substantiation to support the claims. The CCC was of the view that the word “Bas” in the claim, “Bas Yoga aur Wagh Bakri green tea” undermines the importance of other forms of physical exercises, healthy lifestyle and balanced diet. Contribution of other important factors cannot be relegated to a disclaimer, especially if the voice over in the TVC emphasizes on the word “Bas”. Claim “Har sip mein fitness” implies that drinking the green tea will directly, proportionately and significantly affect a person’s fitness level. The CCC noted that Green tea alone by itself may not necessarily result in fitness. It may be helpful in controlling or reducing ones calorie intake, which typically results from consumption of other beverages due to milk or sugar content.

3) Lion Dates Impex (P) Ltd. (Lion Kashmir Honey): The television and YouTube advertisement’s claim made as a disclaimer, “The Only Honey with AGMARK Grade A Certification” was not substantiated and is misleading by exaggeration. The advertiser did not provide any verifiable evidence to prove that their product is the only one to be awarded with Agmark Grade A Certification.

4) Mahesh Value Products Private Limited (TT Perungayam): The television and Facebook advertisement’s claim “US patent is granted to a medicine that cures H1N1 virus using Asafoetida”, was inadequately substantiated. The CCC observed that the opening shot shows a picture of a virus with a voice over stating that using asafoetida (Perungayam) H1N1 virus curing (not disease curing) medicine has been given an American patent. The image is not that of H1N1 but is the image of the Coronavirus.  The US Patent document submitted by the advertiser is not a Product Patent but a Process patent for the Methanolic extraction of a component of Asafoetida (Ferula Foetida) called as Sesquiterpene which has been tested by an in vitro (in test tube) culture of human cancer cells in which the H1N1 virus was grown and when the extract was added to that culture it was shown to kill the virus. This is neither an approved drug, nor is it asafoetida as such nor has it been shown to cure the H1N1 influence in any clinical trial published in any journal.  Though on technicalities and literal meaning of the advertisement vis a vis the US patent it may not at the face value appear to be violative, the intent as could be understood by a common man would mean that the Coronavirus (as the image shows) is either the same or similar to H1N1and that asafoetida has been granted a US approval for treatment of the H1N1 virus which means it would work for Corona as well. The advertiser has not provided any published clinical trial data or a FDA or CDSCO (Indian drug regulatory) approved drug formulation containing an ingredient of asafoetida used in the treatment of human subjects with H1N1 influenza. Regarding all other clinical benefits listed there seems to be evidence in traditional literature that Asafoetida as such has some benefits.

5) Marico Ltd – Saffola Honey: The product packaging claim “100% Pure”, was not adequately substantiated. FTCP referred to the FSSAI regulations and noted that contrary to the advertiser’s arguments, the guidelines do not specify any criteria for making a numerical claim of “100%” pure. The FTCP did not consider the claim “Pure” to be objectionable. However, in absence of any regulatory criteria or specification for the “100% pure” claim for a naturally sourced food product like honey, the numerical claim “100%” was not adequately substantiated.

Gama

1)  Acko General Insurance Ltd. : The advertisement offering one month extended coverage on any new policy issued and subsequent promise of “We're unable to give an extra month on your policy, so we’ve included an additional discount that saves you the premium instead.” was considered misleading. The CCC opined that the advertiser, being registered with IRDAI, should have sought permission from IRDAI before advertising the ‘one-month extension’ policy to the policyholders. Based on this assessment, the CCC concluded that the advertisement offering one month extended coverage on any new policy issued and subsequent promise of “We're unable to give an extra month on your policy, so we’ve included an additional discount that saves you the premium instead.” was false and misleading. The CCC noted that the advertised e -mailer was already withdrawn by the advertiser. The CCC noted details of the table provided by the advertiser and opined that the discount of 20% offered by the advertiser, only on Own Damage premium amounting to INR 132, in lieu of their ‘one-month extension’ is not equivalent to one-month worth premium, from the total annual amount charged to the consumer.

2) Samsung Electronics India Pvt Ltd.: The twitter advertisement by the advertisers India contained  the symbol of ‘5G’ after the word “GalaxyS20” however the 5G variant is not available in India, the twitter post was considered misleading by implication. The CCC did not agree with the advertiser’s contentions that merely use of the “#” would result in the automatic appearance of the “5G emoji symbol” as Twitter post copy can be tailored by the Twitter handle itself, right the first time by choosing the right hashtag. The CCC also noted that the advertiser has included a disclaimer in their YouTube and Facebook communication that “5G network compatibility is available in limited territories only. In India, products are 4G compatible” and/or “5G variant is not available in India”. The CCC considered the reference to 5G in the claim as a copy text of the Twitter post, regardless of the disclaimer in any other media, to be false and misleading, especially when 5G variants are not available in India as admitted by the advertiser.

3) ECom Gateway Private Limited (eCompus): The Facebook advertisements claim, “100% cashback. Up to Rs. 3,000 Cash Back” is misleading by omission of disclaimer to mention that it is subject to terms and conditions. The advertisement stated that “Due to Coronavirus outbreak Study Materials are Available Online…”. The advertisement also claimed – “100% cashback.  Up to Rs. 3,000 Cash Back”. The advertiser’s website (www.ecompus.in) reflected an image of ‘study material’ and just above that an image of ‘cashback’ was shown. However, both the Facebook advertisement and the Website advertisement did not carry any disclaimers to mention that terms and conditions apply, nor was there any link made available for reference to the terms and conditions.

The CCC also considered the complainant’s grievance that he had purchased nursery study material online from the advertiser, for which he was promised a cashback of Rs.2500/- which was later not offered to him.  On approaching the advertiser, he was informed that the cash back offered could only be redeemed on categories other than ’Study Material' ' currently being offered. As evidence, the complainant provided a copy of the communication exchanged between him and the advertiser.  Based on the materials available, the CCC was of the view that the claim offer of cash back is misleading as it is not applicable for study material.

4) DealsKart Online Services Private Limited (Lenskart.com): The website, facebook and Instagram  advertisement’s claims, “Lenskart All Eyeglasses with BLU Thin Lenses Now At Just Rs. 999” and “ALL Glasses Rs. 999 with BLU Thin Lenses First Pair Only” were not substantiated. The body copy of the advertisement shows images of Lenskart eyeglasses with a caption, “ALL Glasses Rs. 999 with BLU Thin Lenses First Pair Only”.  The CCC was of the view that the headline clearly calls out that all the ranges of Lenskart eyeglasses are being sold at Rs.999,  whereas the actual fact is that the offer is being given on first pair of eyeglasses only which is clarified in the body text of the advertisement.  The CCC concluded that the headline, “Lenskart All Eyeglasses with BLU Thin Lenses Now At Just Rs. 999” when read in conjunction with the body text, “ALL Glasses Rs. 999 with BLU Thin Lenses First Pair Only”, appears contradictory and is hence misleading.

Healthcare

1) GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Ltd. (Iodex Ultra Gel): The TVC & YouTube advertisement shows a man with a white coat and stethoscope presented as Dr. Sanjeev Anand, Orthopaedician, practicing in England, declared via a super. The frame carries a disclaimer to mention “…..Developed for audiences in Indian subcontinent only”.  It was observed that as per ASA UK, Dr. Sanjeev Anand, Orthopaedician, practicing in England is neither permitted to endorse any product or formula nor can he appear in any advertisement in his home country. However, he is shown to be endorsing and recommending the formula allegedly sold in the UK and which is distinctively identified in the advertisement by the brand name Iodex Ultra Gel in India. Neither does this brand exist in his home country nor is it likely that he is permitted by the General Medical Council in the UK to advertise the formula based on his experience with products and patients in the UK. The CCC was of the view that the Code of Medical Ethics prohibits any Indian doctor to advertise and endorse any products in India.  Similarly, the General Medical Council of UK does not permit UK doctors to endorse or advertise OTC products. The advertiser did not submit any documentary evidence for the testimonial granted by Dr Sanjeev Anand nor any proof that Dr Sanjeev Anand had been permitted to advertise Voltarol formula in India by the General Medical Council of UK. The CCC concluded that the claim of doctor recommendation for the product formula was not substantiated. Furthermore, the advertisement creates a strong impression that the Orthopaedician Dr Sanjeev Anand is recommending Iodex Ultra Gel and his UK patients are coming back to him with their feedback about the advertised product Iodex Ultra Gel.  For a lay consumer it is difficult to discern between the “product” and the formula when the advertisement has strong visual cues of the Iodex Ultra Gel brand. The advertisement makes no reference to Voltarol (UK product). The advertisement was considered misleading.

2) K KS Urology and General Hospital: The Website advertisement’s claim, “Largest Urology Tertiary Care Hospital in not only Rajasthan but entire North India” was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s hospital and other similar Urology hospitals in Rajasthan and North India, to prove that they are larger than all the rest in providing urology tertiary care to their patients, or through a third-party validation. The source for the claim was not indicated in the advertisement. The website advertisement was misleading and contravened ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers.

Education

1) Careeranna Education Private Limited (Online CAT Coaching Classes): The Facebook advertisement’s claim “India's No.1 Online CAT Coaching” was not substantiated with verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s online coaching classes and other similar online coaching classes in India, to prove that they are in the leadership position (No.1) in providing online coaching to their students for CAT preparation, or through an independent 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 leadership claim given the unorganized nature of the educational sector and number of such online coaching institutes in India. Hence it was unlikely for the advertiser to have such support data.

Others:

1) Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd (&Flix and &Flix HD): The Ad emailer’s claim, “We Are The Most Engaging English Movie Channel For The Second Consecutive Week” was not adequately substantiated and is misleading. The CCC opined that while TSV is an aspect of engagement, TSV is not, in and of itself, enough to claim a limited leadership on 'Engagement'. Niche channels often have small audiences with very high TSV. The justification provided by the advertiser does not adequately substantiate the rather broad claim made in the Ad - emailer.  The advertiser has used two weeks data which does not hold true to claim superiority of their channels.  Broadcast Audience Research Counsel (BARC) Guidelines, demand that claims be based on four consecutive weeks of data – “The period of comparison must cover at least four consecutive weeks of data". Week on week data for just two weeks fails to meet this requirement. The advertiser has chosen a form of data presentation which is impermissible and in violation with the BARC Guidelines.

2) Wipro Enterprises Pvt. Ltd (Max Kleen): The print advertisement, “Removes 99.9% germs” was inadequately substantiated for the advertised product. The CCC noted that the advertiser, post ASCI communication, conducted an “in vitro test” for efficacy of its product on “fungi”. As per the new results provided by the advertiser The Advertiser has sent only final results (99.9% reduction) without the actual Original counts and the reduction in counts of C.albicans. The new results are only internal testing. No third party testing was conducted. This particular test was performed by old method i.e E2315 -03 which has been superseded by E2315 -16. The CCC was of the view that the advertiser ought to have provided efficacy data that tests surveillance of microbial survival in disinfectant use solutions in practice and of microbial survival on disinfected surfaces and devices to understand the survival and resistance of cleanroom fungi. Further, repeated isolated strains should be tested for susceptibility to corresponding biocides. The advertiser also submitted data regarding efficacy of 0.05% BKC against Corona virus post contact time of 10 minutes. This concentration and contact time is much higher than what is referred for other microorganisms. The CCC further observed that “99.9%” is a quantitative claim, for which the advertiser ought to have conducted tests of their product against other microorganisms. Further, the advertisement and its qualifying disclaimer should have ideally specified the specific microorganism against which the product works and is tested. Moreover, the tests were confined only to the laboratory and were not tested against the efficacy of the product on various surfaces – floors or normal surroundings. The print advertisement contravened the ASCI Code and ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers in Advertising.

3) Shantinath Detergents Private Limited: The television commercial and YouTube advertisements claims, the protagonist saying “Kapde lagenge brand new hamesha”, and the claim appearing in the last frame, `Kapde lage brand new hamesha!’ were inadequately substantiated.

For the claim - ‘Kapde lagein Brand New Hamesha’ (“Clothes look brand new Always”) - the advertiser argues that the use of the word `Hamesha’ is not to be taken literally but as a word that gives emphasis. However, the CCC was of the view that the word has an implied meaning in a context, in the present case, the advertisement refers to product performance. The test results submitted by the advertiser are based on 431 people being asked to visually differentiate new (unwashed) and clothes washed a specific number of times (maximum is 20 times). The results show that up to 58% could not differentiate between the new and washed ones. Of the remaining 42% who claimed they could differentiate, they could not identify the washed sequences properly. These results can be acceptable that the new and washed clothes are indistinguishable. However, this is evidence only that they look like new only up to 20 washes, but not always. There is no standard anyway to establish what always is equal to 30 washes, 50 or 100. In this context of referring to product performance, the CCC considered the claim and the word `Hamesha’ in the claim to be absolute in nature.

For the claim “NEW Safed” The CCC observed that the voice over claim in the advertisement of 2017 says, ` New improved Safed’, in the advertisement of 2020 the protagonist (Vidya Balan) says `New Safed’. But the pack shown in both the advertisements does not make a claim of “New”. The product has been in the market for at least two years, and the advertiser is claiming the product to be `New’ based on the changes made on the packaging in January 2020.  The CCC considered this practice to be unacceptable as the product per se was not new.  A new pack alone, without any change in the product characteristics, will lead to a perception that the product is new. The CCC noted that the claim, “New” made by the advertiser implies that the product has a new formulation for efficacy, which is not true in the present case.  The CCC noted that the advertiser has made only certain graphical changes on the product packaging of (01/20), whereas the protagonist saying “New Safed” in the advertisement implies the product to be with new formulation. Because there is a change in packaging, the product cannot be considered as new. The advertisement also violated ASCI Guidelines for Validity & Duration of claiming New/Improved. Additionally, the disclaimers in the advertisement were in English whereas the claims in the voice over were in Hindi. The legibility of the disclaimer was not good due to poor contrast.

4) Aegon Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (Aegon Life): The Facebook advertisement’s claim “Most Recommended Life Insurance Brand” and “Most Recommended Brand” was not substantiated with any market survey data or with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s life insurance plans and similar life insurance plans offered by other Life Insurance Companies, to prove that their Life Term Insurance Plan is most recommended brand than all the rest, nor the claims were backed by a third party validation. The source for the claims was not indicated in the advertisement.

5) RR Kabel Wires & Cables (RR Kabel): The TVC and YouTube advertisement’s claim (in Hindi) “Hamaare Desh mein aatankvaad se roj lagbag ek jaan jaati hai aur baadh aur bhukamp, aandi se teraah”, (In our country approximately one life is lost due to terrorism every day and 13 due to floods, earthquakes and cyclones) was not substantiated.  There was no supporting data provided to prove the exact figures claimed for human lives lost.  The source for the claims was not indicated in the TVC / YouTube advertisement.

6) Life Insurance Corporation Of India: The Television and YouTube advertisement’s claim, which has a testimonial by Satish Nachane, Businessman of Thane saying (translated from Marathi) “......after a life of struggle ….. I am living a peaceful and satisfied retired life because I invested in LIC”. The end frame of the TVC shows an LIC logo with a headline (translated from Marathi) “LIC – why go anywhere else” was not adequately substantiated and misleading. The CCC considered the advertiser’s response and the evidence provided by the complainant of screenshot of LIC’s website wherein the advertiser uses the term `contract of insurance’ and not “investment”.  The CCC was of the opinion that LIC products are primarily for “Insurance of life”. Not all products of LIC are providing investment options. The TVC does not call out the specific product/s for which the claim holds true. The advertiser did not provide adequate substantiation to establish that the advertised product has been available since year 2010 (the original date of the advertisement as per YouTube link). There were no disclaimers to state the specific insurance plan which is being referred to, nor that it is applicable to certain policies.

7) Trendsutra Platform Services Pvt. Ltd. (Pepperfry): The YouTube & Twitter advertisement shows that a woman is angrily cutting vegetables (green onions). She appears to be furious at her husband sitting on the couch yawning as he watches the TV. She throws the chopping knife towards the man who protects himself by using a wooden stool as a shield while being pleased with himself.  The advertisement shows two more knives on the table, indicating there were two more attempts made by the woman to injure the man. The advertisement carries a disclaimer, "Performed under expert supervision. Do not imitate". The CCC did not agree with the advertiser’s contention that the act shown in the advertisement is a hyperbole and marketing puffing. The CCC was of the view that children (minors) actually could try doing the act in a household situation as shown, and if replicated in real life would be very unsafe causing them physical harm and injury.  Furthermore, disclaimer shown during the performance of the Knife act was considered irrelevant in the context of the advertisement.  The CCC observed that the advertiser is promoting their household products (Chopping Board, Knife Set, Sofa, Stool etc.) meant for certain chores whereas the advertisement depicts the product being used to cause harm to an individual, quite contrary to the product’s utility. The advertisement portrays a dangerous act and manifest a disregard for safety. Regardless of the disclaimer, this act is also likely to encourage minors to emulate such acts which could cause harm or injury.

8) Intex Technologies (I) Ltd: The twitter advertisement’s claim, “Be Indian. Buy Indian”, was considered misleading. The text of the Tweet mentions, “Let’s take a step towards building a Self-Reliant India.  Become #Atmanirbhar today and support Indian brands.  Be Indian. Buy Indian”.The top left corner of the Ad shows a logo of “Made In India”, the top right corner highlights the advertiser’s name – INTEX. The Ad shows images of consumer durables, electronic items, mobile phone accessories. Complainant submitted a copy of product packaging labels (back of pack) of a few electronics/mobile products (mobile battery charger, computer multimedia speaker, mobile earphone), in support of his grievances that the advertiser being Chinese importers and not an Indian company.  On reviewing these back of pack images, the CCC observed that each of the pack images stated –`Imported, Marketed and Supported in India by Intex Technologies (India) Ltd’, `Country of origin – China’.  The CCC was of the view that the logo of ‘Made in India’ when seen along with the various product images shown, implies that the advertiser is an Indian company selling Indian made brands/products. The consumer takeaway on seeing the advertisement would give an impression that the products shown are made in India by the advertiser. Whereas the evidence provided by the complainant proves that they are importers selling rebranded Chinese items as their own.

9) Realme Mobile Telecommunications (India) Private limited (Realme Smart TV): The twitter advertisements claim, “India’s Fastest selling Smart TV ever!” and “15000+ Units sold in Less Than 10 mins” are not substantiated and misleading. The CCC was of the view that if the CEO in his official capacity, has posted the content, then it is considered as an official communication which cannot be denied.  The Twitter post of June 2020 was the advertiser’s own tweet posted on their official link as it carried the `realme’ logo and read as `realme Link’. The twitter and the website advertisement claimed Realme Smart TV to be “India’s Fastest Selling Smart TV Ever!” with “15,000+ Units Sold* in Less Than 10 Minutes”. The disclaimer reads as “*BAU days in India” (Business as Usual). The CCC opined that the consumer take-away from the advertisement is that the TV is being sold to consumers and it is the fastest selling brand.  The advertiser did not clarify whether 15,000+ Realme TV was really sold to the consumers or it was sold to their dealers, retail chain units, or distributors. Furthermore, the sale appeared to be a flash sale, in which case the number of TVs sold could be higher when the sale happens only on one day for 15 mins, then how can the advertiser  justify it with 'Business as usual - BAU' when it is actually not. Advertiser did not provide verifiable comparative data of their TV brand and other similar Smart TV brands of other manufacturers in India, to prove that 15,000+ units of Realme Smart TV were sold in less than 10 minutes making it the fastest selling TV than any other TV brands in BAU days as claimed, nor was the data backed by an independent audit or third party validation. The source for the claims was not indicated in the advertisement.

10) Kia Motors India Private Limited (Kia Seltos): The Youtube advertisements portrayed a “Small Kid scratching and spoiling the walls of a public property”. The advertisement carries a disclaimer to mention “Actions are performed under expert supervision in a controlled environment and are not meant to invoke vandalizing public or private property. Please do not imitate”. The CCC was of the view that the compound walls, house compound gate, public garbage bin, private car being scribbled are public as well as private property and are not meant to be vandalized as depicted.  The disclaimer is miniscule and is contradictory to the visuals shown.  Regardless of the disclaimer in the advertisement, or how the advertisement eventually concludes, the children viewing this advertisement are bound to consider destruction of public or private property to be acceptable and are likely to emulate the same. The CCC concluded that the acts performed by a school going boy of defacing public / private property, portrays his bad behaviour, which is likely to create a negative impression on children.

11) TikonaInfinet Private Limited (Tikona): The print advertisement’s claim, “Free to use Wi-Fi Router”, “Free Installation Charges” was not substantiated and misleading. The complainant provided evidence of email communications exchanged with the advertiser, with copy of E-Bills and receipts of the payment made for the broadband. On reviewing this information, the CCC observed that the email communication of the advertiser mentioned the details of the ‘Auto Renewal Plan’ (PRIME_ULQ_C3) purchased by the Complainant, which made an offer of Validity for 3 Months, with Renewal Amount of  Rs. 3182.46, and the Net Payable Amount of Rs. 2145.16. It was observed that this subscription amount consisted of Installation charges (as applicable) Plan rental Service tax, with no refundable deposit applicable. There was no break-up of the amount shown to indicate the individual charges applicable for installation and Wi-Fi device. For a renewal plan the question of installation charges does not arise, as installation charges are only charged for a new connection of Broadband. The CCC observed that the actual price of the broadband for the quarterly plan, as advertised in the Ad-leaflet was Rs. 3182, with the free offer for Wi-Fi Router and Installation Charges, whereas the complainant was charged Rs. 3980. The Ad–leaflet did not carry any disclaimers to mention that terms and conditions apply, and the validity period of the offer, nor was there any link for reference to the terms and conditions.

12) The Times Network Ltd (Times Hollywood Network): The TV advertisement claim claim, "Go Out & #LiveTheNew" when read along  the claim, “Around the world, common flu and road accidents used to affect more lives every day, than Covid does", refers to a dangerous practice without justifiable reason, manifests a disregard for safety and encourages negligence. The CCC was of the view that when seen in isolation the claim, "Go Out & #LiveTheNew", which is in the same context as of the claim, “Around the world, common flu and road accidents used to affect more lives every day, than Covid does", is minimising the danger of Covid. It is encouraging people to that extent to not take so much cognizance of the threat of Covid, which is against the Government directives. The claims downplay the risk of Covid and prompts people to step out and go about their business, as if these were normal times.

13) iQOO Communication Technology Co. Ltd (iQOO 3): The Online advertisement’s claims “India’s Fastest Smartphone powered by ……. Powerful Qualcomm Snapdragon 865”, “India’s Fastest Smartphone packed with Snapdragon 865”, “Capture India’s Fastest Smartphone - Qualcomm Snapdragon 865”, “India’s Fastest Smartphone'', were not substantiated and are misleading by exaggeration. The advertiser did not provide verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s smart phone and other manufacturers / marketers of Smart phone brands in India, to prove that the advertiser’s smart Phone brand is India’s fastest using Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 Processor, nor the claims were backed by an independent third party validation.  The source for the claims was not indicated in the advertisements.

14) A. O. Smith India Water Products Pvt. Ltd: The print advertisement claims “Boost your immunity* with a glass of purified hot water”, was not substantiated. The advertiser has claimed “Boost your immunity* with a glass of purified hot water”.  The asterisk (*) in the claim qualifies to read as “*As published by the Ministry of Ayush”.  The CCC did not agree with the advertiser’s contention that reference to Ministry of Ayush is only to emphasize the claim that drinking hot water boosts immunity which is in line with the recommendation of the Ministry. The CCC  was of the view that hot water does not boost immunity, and this claim is contrary to The Ministry of Ayush document titled “Ayurveda’s immunity boosting measures for self-care during COVID 19 crisis” which says `drink warm water throughout the day’ as one of the recommended measures.  The USP of the selling of this particular brand of water purifier is basically based on immunity boosting with a glass of purified hot water. The advertiser is selling a product on the basis of immunity booster which is coming out of the advertiser’s machine – A. O. Smith water purifer, which is definitely not as per the Government – Ministry of Ayush directives. The only substantiation that the advertiser has provided is that the claim is based on the advisory issued by Ministry of Ayush, which was considered to be inadequate by the CCC. Advertiser did not provide scientific rationale or clinical evidence to prove that hot water has the properties to boost immunity.

15) Hindustan Unilever Ltd – Lifebuoy Laundry Sanitizer: The YouTubeand Facebook advertisement claims ‘Ab Kapade Sirf Saaf Nahi Safe Bhi’ was not substantiated and upheld for plagiarism. The FTCP viewed the Safeguard advertisement of the complainant, Lifebuoy laundry sanitizer, examined the details of the complaint and also examined that advertisement YouTube () Facebook ( The FTCP noted that the advertiser, in their personal hearing, admitted that Lifebuoy and Safeguard compete directly in several countries and had they known the prior use of this line by P&G, they would have probably re-considered whether to use this slogan. The advertiser representatives expressed their limitation for conducting a thorough check on prior usage of such slogan. However, Safeguard being a key competitor to Lifebuoy globally and in view of the slogan being part of an intra company dispute in Pakistan, the FTCP was of the opinion that the advertiser had failed in their due diligence, if this was done unknowingly.

 The FTCP agreed with the complainant’s argument that the choice of words “Saaf bhi, safe bhi” is in Hinglish and is unique. Moreover, the line being used by Lifebuoy is identical to the Safeguard advertisement.  The FTCP noted that the sanitizer category did not exist for the “Lifebuoy” brand prior to introduction of this new product. They noted that the advertiser is presenting this wording as a product “claim” and so did not agree with this argument. The dictionary meaning of a slogan is “short and striking / memorable phrase used in advertising” and the line being used fits this criterion. So, it concluded that the Lifebuoy advertisement was similar to Safeguard’s earlier run advertisement in “slogan” so as to suggest plagiarism. As the complainant had registered their complaint within 12 months of the first general circulation of the advertisement and were able to prove the claim of prior usage abroad, the complaint was UPHELD.

Suo Moto Surveillance 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 250 advertisements that were picked, in 25 cases the advertisers promptly confirmed that the advertisements were being withdrawn post receiving the ASCI communication. All other 225 advertisements examined by the CCC were found to be misleading. Of these 225 advertisements, 148 advertisements belonged to the Healthcare sector, 39 belonged to the Education sector, 15 to Food and beverages, six to Personal Care and 16 were from the “Others” category. One advertisement was not considered to be objectionable or in contravention of the ASCI code.

Health Care

1) Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd (Dynapar QPS): The television advertisement’s claims, “World’s 1st Pain Relief Serum”, “Clinically Proven For 5 (Times) Penetration” were misleading. For the claim, “World’s 1st Pain Relief Serum”, though the advertiser provided a list of 80 countries where the product has obtained a patent, the advertiser did not clarify what exactly has been patented – whether it is the product or process or other innovation. Furthermore, the advertiser did not provide any documentary evidence of the patent for the said product. As per public domain information, there were several other “serum” products in the world claiming pain relief benefit and the advertiser had not conclusively proven they are the pioneers on world-wide basis in introducing a “Pain relief serum” category.  For the claim, “Clinically proven for 5X (Times) Penetration”, the paper submitted indicates that one of the authors is the ‘General Manager-Medical Services Department’ of the advertiser, as well as the study was sponsored by the advertiser themselves. Importantly, the study was published in year 2013 and the advertised product was compared versus “conventional 1% diclofenac” gel among only six volunteers. The advertisement claim was ambiguous about what the 5X effect was verus and whether this comparison was against any marketed product at that point in time. The advertisement neither declared the basis of comparison nor the source of the claim was mentioned in the advertisement.

2) Oriental Chemical Works (Zalim Lotion): The television advertisement’s claims, “Only Zalim lotion is effective in ringworm, scabies, and itching” and “Fastest” were  not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data or technical test results, of advertiser’s product versus other similar lotions, to prove that their product is the only product that is more effective or more fast than all the rest for treatment of ringworm, scabies and itching, or through an independent third-party validation. The source for the claims were not indicated in the advertisement. The CCC observed that it was unlikely that no other products in the market are effective against the indicated conditions. The advertiser did not submit any product-specific details such as composition/license copy/pack artwork or product efficacy data.

3) Dhanvantari Nano Ayushadi Pvt. Ltd: The television advertisement’s claims, “99.99% Protection” and “100% Natural” were inadequately substantiated. The TVC also had a reference to corona virus. For the claim, “99.99% Protection”, the CCC opined that the advertiser did not provide any adequate substantiation to prove product efficacy, for providing ‘99.99%’ protection. Furthermore, the CCC opined that antibacterial cannot be equated to anti-viral benefit and in a pandemic situation, reference to COVID advisory / social distancing in the advertisement is misleading by implication. For the claim, “100% Natural”, the advertiser makes reference to 100 % natural origin. The said product “Rajat Bhasma” is metallic in preparation. Therefore, the CCC opined that using a metallic perpetration to qualify a natural claim was incorrect. Further, the advertiser also makes a reference to the use of artificial fragrances. No certificate specific to the complete list of ingredients, their origin or composition of the products depicted in the advertisement was provided.

4) Daisy Hospital Pvt Ltd: The television advertisements claims, “No need to exercise, no need to control diet” and “Definitely 4 to 5 kgs weight can be reduced easily in a month”,  were not substantiated with treatment efficacy data. The advertiser did not provide any details of their treatment procedure for weight reduction, evidence of their customers who achieved the claimed results of reducing 4 to 5 kgs weight in a month regardless of their physiological status and lifestyle and without exercise or diet. The claim, “India’s first integrated hospital” was not substantiated with supporting comparative data or through an independent third party validation. The advertiser did not provide verifiable support data or evidence of comparison with other hospitals in India to prove that they are pioneers or the first integrated hospital in India. 

5) Dr I.G Patel Satya Vishnu Hospital: The print advertisement’s claim “Cancer Treatment Without any Side Effect or Pain” was not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence. The advertiser did not provide details of the treatment procedure, medicines used in treating Cancer, nor any details regarding their approval status by the regulatory authorities.

6) Varun Trauma & Burn Centre Pvt Ltd: The print advertisement’s superlative claim “Aligarh's Most Advanced and Most Trustworthy IVF Centre” was not substantiated with any consumer research data or with verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s IVF centre versus other similar IVF centres in Aligarh, to prove that they are most advanced and most trusted than all the rest, nor the claim was backed by a third party validation. 

7) Mahatma Gandhi Cancer Hospital and Research Institute: The print advertisement’s claim “The Most Advanced & Trusted Cancer Hospital in Andhra Pradesh” was not substantiated with market survey data or with verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s hospital versus other similar cancer hospitals in Andhra Pradesh, to prove that they are more advanced and more trusted than all the rest, or through a third party validation.

AYUSH Complaints

The following advertisements were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of The Ministry of Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homoeopathy (AYUSH) order dated April 1, 2020, prohibiting publicity and advertisement of AYUSH-related claims for COVID-19 treatment in print, TV and electronic media.