ASCI looks into 533 objectionable ads in March-April, 2020; 115 ads withdrawn by advertisers

BestMediaInfo Bureau   Delhi, June 24, 2020

During the months of March and April 2020, ASCI investigated complaints against 533 advertisements, of which 115 advertisements were promptly withdrawn by the advertisers on receipt of communication from ASCI. The Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) evaluated remaining 418 advertisements, of which complaints against 377 advertisements were upheld. Of these 377 advertisements, 187 belonged to the healthcare sector, 132 belonged to the education sector, 15 to the food & beverages sector, nine belonged to real estate sector, five to the personal care and the immigration sector each and 24 were from the ‘others’ category.

Call for entries open for BuzzInContent Awards 2020 ENTER NOW

Around mid-March when Mumbai started its gradual Lockdown, ASCI adapted quickly to navigate through these difficult times. Not only did the team manage to stay the course with minimal disruption; but also launched a drive to act against misleading advertisements claiming prevention or cure against COVID-19. The Ministry of AYUSH sought help from the ASCI team to alert them about such advertisements. The ASCI team picked over 50 such COVID cure advertisements in April, notifying the advertisers to withdraw them forthwith within a week.  ASCI closely monitored Digital Media, Social Media handles and web-sites of the advertisers. Over 90 cases of potential violation of the Drugs and Magic Remedies regulations were also flagged to the regulator. During this period, the CCC continued their meetings over video conferencing.

ASCI exercised the “Suspension Pending Investigation” (SPI) option against an extremely offensive advertisement of an online video app. The contents of the advertisement were extremely obscene and vulgar.  The advertiser issued an apology and internally banned all similar video content on their platform.

Among various complaints examined by the CCC, complaints against advertisement of a well-known brand was upheld as the depiction of a woman protagonist slapping the male protagonist was considered as normalizing violence.

Complaint against a famous skincare product claiming to provide “HD glow” to the face was considered to be misleading as the advertiser had used image enhancement effects. While the advertisement did not make any reference to “fairness” as a product benefit, the mention of the brand name being a trademark was missing in the advertisement.

ASCI continues to see advertisements featuring celebrities in violation of ASCI’s “Guidelines for Celebrities in Advertising”. Two advertisements of a veteran celebrity couple were considered to be misleading as they suggested that one can consume unrestricted quantities of deep fried food items such as batatavada and samosa and yet not worry about fitness if a particular brand of edible oil is used. The advertisement undermined the importance of regular exercise and healthy lifestyle. A renowned sportswoman endorsed a honey brand that made misleading claim of “No added sugar”. A popular Bollywood actress endorsed a hair oil brand that promised nourishment of almonds in every drop of the oil and 3X vitamin E as compared to unbranded hair oils sold loose in the market.

The CCC observed that many liquor brand advertisements contravened ASCI's Guidelines for Qualification of Brand Extension Product or Service and hence were considered to be surrogate advertisements.

Rohit Gupta

According to Rohit Gupta, Chairman, ASCI, “I am very proud of our ASCI team that has remained accessible and responsive to all stakeholders during this pandemic situation. Our Consumer Complaints Council has been very efficient as we continue to deliberate via video conferencing. We appreciate the cooperation being extended by the complainants as well as the advertisers to ensure self-regulation of advertising content by ensuring time bound compliance.”

Healthcare: - 187 advertisements complained against

• Direct Complaints (2 advertisements)
• Suo Motu Surveillance by ASCI (185 advertisements)

Education: - 132 advertisements complained against

• Direct Complaints (Two advertisements)
• Suo Motu Surveillance by ASCI (130 advertisements)

Food and Beverages: - 15 advertisements complained against

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

Real Estate: - Nine advertisements complained against

• Suo Motu Surveillance by ASCI (Nine advertisements)

Personal Care: - Five advertisements complained against

• Direct Complaints (Two advertisements)
• Suo Motu Surveillance by ASCI (Three advertisements)

Visa/Immigration Services: - Five advertisements complained against

• Suo Motu Surveillance by ASCI (Five advertisements)

Others: - 24 advertisements complained against

• Direct Complaints (15 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 92 advertisements complained against, 28 advertisements were promptly withdrawn by the advertiser on receiving communication from ASCI. For the remaining 64 advertisements, complaints against 23 advertisements were upheld by the CCC. Two belonged to the Healthcare category, two belonged to education, food & beverage and personal care each. While, 15 advertisement belonged to the others category. 41 advertisements were not considered to be objectionable or in contravention of the ASCI code.

Healthcare                                                                                         

1. Tulison Pharma (KasMadhu Herbal Cough Syrup): The television advertisement’s claim “For viral infections like cough, cold, sore throat, ayurvedic medicines are more effective than allopathic medicines”, was not substantiated with product efficacy data. The advertiser was promoting an ayurvedic/herbal cough syrup and claims that ayurvedic medicines are more effective than allopathic medicines in treating viral infections such as cough, cold. The advertiser did not provide any scientific rationale or technical data indicating that their ayurvedic product is better than allopathic products. In view of the current pandemic situation of COVID-19 virus, the CCC considered the advertisement to be misleading by gross exaggeration.
2. Kshetrapal Hospital Multispecialty & Research Centre: The print advertisement’s claim “The Best Neuro Centre of Ajmer”, was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s hospital and other similar multispecialty hospitals in Ajmer, to prove that their neuro care centre is better than all the rest, or through a third-party validation. The advertisement also ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers in Advertising

Food and Beverages

1. The Kute Group (Tirumalla Oil): The television advertisement’s claims as translated from Marathi, “I regularly eat savoury snacks of my liking” and “If you have Tirumalla oil in the house, then you don’t have to worry about fitness” endorsed by Sachin and Supriya Pilgaonkar were not substantiated. The advertisement undermines the importance of healthy lifestyle and is misleading regarding the nature of nutritive value of the advertised product. The advertisement implies that if one uses Tirumalla oil for daily cooking then they can regularly indulge in eating deep fried food (which generally is not considered advisable for health-conscious people) yet remain fit. The CCC also noted that the advertiser did not submit any product specific details and FSSAI approval for the claims being made in the TVC, if any, any scientific rationale or clinical evidence of special properties of the product, to prove that the cooking oil alone maintains fitness of a person regardless of the diet followed or lack of exercise etc.  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 advertisement are capable of substantiation. The advertisement contravenes the Guidelines for Celebrities in Advertising.
2. Rasna International Pvt. Ltd (Rasna Native Haat Honey): The print advertisement’s claim “No chemical”, “No preservatives” and “No added sugar” endorsed by Saina Nehwal were not substantiated. The advertiser did not submit any product specific details such as composition / pack artwork, nor evidence of absence of any chemicals, preservatives or any added sugar or any technical test report. 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 advertisement are capable of substantiation. The advertisement contravened ASCI’s Guidelines for Celebrities in Advertising.

Personal Care

1. Hindustan Unilever Ltd (Fair and Lovely Advanced Multi Vitamin): The print advertisement showing image enhancement effects such as brightening / lightening to be misleading.  Regarding the complainant’s objection of the image being photo-shopped, the CCC observed that the advertiser admits that it is a common industry practice to make some minor enhancement of the image to improve the aesthetic appeal of the visual. However, the advertiser did not specify the nature or the extent of image touch up conducted by them. The advertiser further asserts that brightness and / or quality of the print is also dependent on the publisher, over which they have little or no control. Furthermore, the CCC noted that while the advertisement does not make any reference to “fairness” as a product benefit, the name of the product itself is “Fair and Lovely” which is without the mention of this being a trademark. The CCC is aware that post production image enhancements are used by the advertisers. However, these should not be used in a manner which suggests that the product delivers that specific performance. The advertisement is about a skincare product claiming that it would provide an “HD glow” to the face. The CCC considered the image enhancement effects such as brightening / lightening to be directly relevant to the claimed performance of the product. The advertiser had not included any disclaimers in the advertisement and the print advertisement was misleading by omission. 
2. Namyaa Natural Skincare (Namyaa Vaginal Tightening Gel): The Facebook advertisement’s claim “Naamya Vaginal Tightening Gel” is not substantiated and is misleading by gross exaggeration. The advertiser did not provide a copy of the product label, copy of product approval license, product composition details, any technical rationale for the product claim nor any product efficacy test reports.

Education

Complaints against advertisements of two educational institutes listed below are upheld because of unsubstantiated AND misleading claims.

1. Career Launcher (CAT Online Classes): The website advertisement’s claim, ““………1 out of every 4 enrolled students receiving an IIM call”, was not substantiated and misleading by exaggeration. The advertiser did not provide authentic supporting data such as batch size of students per year, detailed verifiable list of students who had received IIM call, evidence to support their enrolment, contact details of students for verification, nor was the claim backed by a CA certification or an independent third-party validation.
2. Law Prep Tutorial (CLAT Coaching): The website advertisement’s superlative claim, “Get the Best CLAT Coaching in India” was not substantiated with market survey data, or with verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s coaching institute and other coaching institutes in India, to prove that they are better than all the rest in providing coaching for law entrance exams specifically CLAT to their students, or through an independent third party validation.

Others

1. Asian Paints Ltd. (Asian Paints Damp Proof): The YouTube advertisement’s depiction of a woman protagonist slapping the male protagonist was considered as normalizing violence. The CCC did not agree with the advertiser’s contention that the situation was depicted in a humorous manner. The CCC further observed that the woman’s face in the advertisement portrays anger, grimacing and is not light-hearted as asserted by the advertiser. The wife’s action results in the baby getting scared and starts to cry as well. The CCC did not agree with advertiser’s submission that the wife’s act was meant to catch the attention of the husband. It depicted a much more serious tone that not only was demeaning but also disrespectful.
2. Reliance Industries Ltd. (AJIO.com): The print advertisement promoting the “No ifs & buts sale” on their online shipping website (www.ajio.com) which offers a wide range of clothes, footwear and accessories by various brands was considered misleading. The advertisement contains two text captions (“Flat 60% off**” and “On 2, 00,000+ Styles**”) that are qualified with (**) and the text “**Terms & Conditions Apply”. The print advertisement contravened Guidelines for Disclaimers in Advertising.
3. Reliance Industries Ltd. (Jio): The mobile app advertisement’s claim “Rs.2121 – Enjoy 12 Unlimited Months With JIO”, was considered to be misleading. The fine print below the advertisement indicated a validity period of 336 days and a disclaimer below indicates “Month denotes 28 days”. The CCC opined that when the advertiser claims that the validity of the package is for 12 months, the advertiser should not attempt to correct a misleading claim by then indicating that a “month indicates 28 days” or that the validity period is for “336 days”.  The advertisement contravened ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers in Advertising.
4. S.C. Johnson Products P. Ltd (All Out Sattva): The print advertisement’s claim “All Out Sattva fits into all machines”, was considered misleading. The advertisement displayed a prominent caption “ALL OUT SATTVA fits into all machines” which was an absolute claim and was contradictory to the disclaimer which stated “Fits in all leading / famous machines. But for best use, only use the refill in All Out Machines”. Further, the advertiser’s own submissions indicated that the machine fit was not tested among ALL the products available in the market. As per ASCI’s guidelines, the disclaimer in the advertisement should not contradict the material claim made or contradict the main message conveyed by the advertiser nor should it attempt to correct a misleading claim made in the advertisement. The advertisement contravened ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers in Advertising.
5. Tata Motors Ltd (Tata Altroz): The print, Ad-Hoarding, Website advertisement and Instagram advertisement’s claim “India's Safest Car”, was not substantiated. The CCC observed that the advertiser positions its product as the “Safest Car” in India. The CCC noted that as per the Global New Car Assessment Programme ("GNCAP") which provides ratings for different vehicles that undergoes extensive tests on safety parameters, the Complainant’s product (Mahindra XUV300) achieved a 5-star adult safety rating, 4-star child safety rating and "highest combined safety score".  The advertiser did not provide any substantiation for their claim such as any technical data or verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s automobile product and other automobiles in the same category, to prove that their advertised product is safer than all the rest, or through a third-party validation. The advertisement contravened ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers in Advertising.
6. FCA India Automobiles Private Limited (Jeep Compass): The television advertisement’s visuals (1) Shots not depicting indicator lights prominently while Vehicle swiftly changing lanes, (2) Taking U turn in between the other moving vehicles on the road, (3) Driver shown speaking over a call, although operating via Bluetooth device, while driving – an action which could distract the driver; were considered unsafe and in potential violation of the traffic regulations. The CCC observed that the Jeep is shown being driven in normal traffic conditions and thus the visuals in the advertisements were not considered as stunts. The advertisement contravened ASCI Guidelines for Advertisements depicting Automotive Vehicles.
7. Grofers India Private Limited (Grofers House Full Sale): The website advertisement’s claim “Guaranteed ½ kg Free Kishmish with every order”, was not adequately substantiated. The advertisement indicates “Guaranteed ½ kg Free Kishmish with every order”. The two conditions listed below the advertisement indicate, “No Coupon Code Required” and “Min Order INR 2000”. The CCC observed that the objected advertisement claim did not contain any specific link or indication specifying the terms and conditions of the offer and specifying that the consumer himself had to add the “free product” to the cart to avail of the offer. The advertiser did not submit any evidence of any other customers who successfully availed the said offer. The CCC was of the opinion that the said condition should have been stated upfront in the claim itself to avoid such ambiguity. The advertisement contravened ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers in Advertising.
8. MakeMyTrip India Pvt. Ltd: The website/internet advertisement’s claim “Up to INR 10,000 instant discount on International Flights”, was not substantiated. The terms and conditions provided by the advertiser indicated that the “offer (HDFCINT) is valid for one booking per card throughout the offer period. The offer is also valid on one way, return and multi city flights originating from India.” The CCC noted that the card was used for another MMT bank offer “HDFCDOM” for Domestic Flights and the complainant received a discount of INR 1000 for the flight booking. However, the CCC observed that while the complainant may have already availed an MMT offer using another coupon code, the terms and conditions did not explicitly indicate that the said card could not be used again while availing another offer. Moreover, the complainant was not able to avail of the offer from any of the other three HDFC cards used. The advertiser did not submit any evidence that the claimed offer was availed by any customers. The advertisement contravened ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers in Advertising.
9. PayPal Payments Pvt. Ltd and Urban Company: The website/internet advertisement’s claim “Get Upto Rs.500 Cashback Voucher”, was not substantiated. The CCC noted that the advertisement indicated “Get up to Rs. 500 cashback voucher” on paying through PayPal for services used on Urban Clap. The offer states that “New PayPal users get 50% cashback voucher up to Rs.500 max” and “Existing PayPal users get 15% cashback voucher up to Rs. 400 max.” The CCC noted that the evidence of correspondence between the complainant and the advertiser indicate that the advertiser did not submit any reason for denial of the cash back offer. Advertiser’s argument that they were not obligated to reveal the details of risk management or its security procedures for which they may deny the cashback offer was not acceptable. The advertiser failed to conclusively prove that the advertised offer was genuine and that the complainant was denied the offer for a valid reason.
10. InterGlobe Aviation Limited (IndiGo Airlines): The twitter advertisement’s claim “Domestic sale fares starting at Rs 999*”, was not substantiated. The claim was accompanied with the text “T&C apply”. However, the advertiser did not submit the specific T&C for the said offer. The advertised fare of Rs 999 was only for the Imphal-Agartala sector, and the same was not indicating in the advertisement. The advertiser cannot relegate the claims to the terms and conditions or a footnote when the broader claim was for the domestic sector as a whole and not several intra city sectors. The CCC noted that the advertiser ought to have provided sale details or details of customers who availed the said airfare of Rs. 999 even for the Imphal-Agartala sector. The CCC opined that the major terms and conditions should have been explicitly publicized, as advertisements inviting the public to avail of offers should take clearly all material conditions as to enable the consumer to obtain a true and fair view of their prospects in such offers.
11. Zee Media Corporation Limited (Zee Business): The advertisement’s leadership claim “Zee Business No.1 in HSM Metros” by referring to percentage share “Zee Business 48.0%”, was misleading and in violation of the BARC Advisory. The advertiser claims to be “No.1 in HSM Metros” and qualifies this claim by indicating that they have the highest % share compared to other three news channels. The advertiser has chosen a form of data presentation which is impermissible under the BARC Guidelines.
12. Joshi Enterprises (Snehadeep Project): The print advertisement’s claim “Snehadeep project” to be a `completed project’, was misleading, and is misrepresentation of facts by giving false information about the housing project. The CCC also considered the Complainant’s grievances of the said project being incomplete and mandatory dues and possession of flat not being handed over to him despite his repeated requests.
13. Omaxe Group (Omaxe Chowk): The print advertisement’s claim “Commitment before and after – 12% p.a. till possession / 9% p.a. lease rental”, was not substantiated. The advertiser claims to provide 12% p.a. returns till possession and 9% p.a. returns on lease rental. However, the advertiser did not submit any evidence to indicate the methodology of calculation of returns, explanation of how the customers can get 12% p.a. returns till possession and 9% p.a. returns on lease rentals after investing in this project as claimed in the advertisements, nor any indication that the customer may suffer loss on those returns.
14. Karshni Realtors India Private Limited: The print advertisement’s claim “Approx 50% Price Appreciation in Six Months”, was not substantiated. The advertiser did not submit any evidence to indicate the methodology of calculation of appreciation, explanation of how the customers can get a 50% price appreciation within six months after investing in this project as claimed in the advertisements, nor any indication that the customer may suffer any loss.
15. Kwai Technology India Private Limited (Uvideo): The ASCI Secretariat examined the complaint received and observed that the content of the advertisement on an online video app was in serious breach of the ASCI Code and its continued transmission on/through/by any medium would cause public harm and its continuation would be against public interest. Therefore, ASCI Secretariat processed the complaint under Suspension Pending Investigation (SPI) mechanism. The CCC viewed the online video advertisement and noted that the text in the advertisement (“sex karate samay …. Savari toh mat girao”), was extremely obscene, vulgar, offensive and contained swear words as well as expletive. The CCC concluded that the advertisement, in the light of generally prevailing standards of decency and proprietary was repulsive and is likely to cause grave and widespread offence.

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 441 advertisements that were picked, in 87 cases the advertisers promptly confirmed that the advertisements were being withdrawn post receiving the ASCI communication. All other 354 advertisements examined by the CCC were found to be misleading. Of these 327 advertisements, 185 advertisements belonged to the Healthcare sector, 130 belonged to the Education sector, 13 belonged to the F&B category, Nine belonged to Real Estate, Five to Visa/Immigration Services, Three belonged to the Personal Care category and Nine fell in the “Others” category.

Healthcare

1. Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Limited (Apollo Proton Cancer Centre): The print advertisement’s claim “Cancer is conquerable”, was misleading by omission. The CCC did not agree with the advertiser’s opinion as the word “conquer” is an affirmative sign that cancer can be overcome irrespective of the stages of cancer. The reference quoted by the advertiser itself states that “advances in technology for early diagnosis and early surgical treatment have elevated the cure rate of gastric cancers.”  The early diagnosis and early treatment are the key drivers for success.
2. ILasik House: The print advertisement’s claim “The Best Treatment for Cataract with World's Best Centurion Phaco Machine”, was not substantiated. The advertiser did not provide any worldwide data to prove that the Centurion Phaco machine used by them for Cataract treatment is the world’s best machine and the claim was also not backed by any independent third party validation.
3. Lotus Hospital: The print advertisement’s claim translated from Hindi, “Painless Delivery”, was not substantiated. The advertiser did not provide any details of the treatment procedure, modalities of the delivery procedure, nor any details whether the procedure involved the use of any pain killers/local anesthesia or epidural injections.
4. G.C Gupta Hospital: The print advertisement’s claim translated from Hindi, “Normal Delivery without Pain”, was not substantiated. The advertiser did not provide any details of the treatment procedure, modalities of the delivery procedure, nor any details whether the procedure involved the use of any pain killers/local anesthesia or epidural injections.
5. Manisha Maternity and General Hospital: The print advertisement’s claim translated from Hindi, “Normal Delivery without Pain”, was not substantiated. The advertiser did not provide any details of the treatment procedure, modalities of the delivery procedure, nor any details whether the procedure involved the use of any pain killers/local anesthesia or epidural injections.
6. Hirani Bone and Joint Clinic: The print advertisement’s claim translated from Hindi, “The Only Surgeon for Most Successful and Affordable Treatment of Fracture, Surgery and Joint Transplant”, was not substantiated with any claim support data. The advertiser had no basis to make the absolute and superlative claims for the said advertisement.
7. Javitri Hospital & Test Tube Baby Centre: The print advertisement’s claim “The Only Centre of State to Have Highest Successful Results”, was not substantiated with verifiable comparative data 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 superlative claim as treatment results data for each hospital/treatment centre is not in the public domain for such comparison. Hence, it was unlikely for the advertiser to have such support data.
8. Samast Patidar Aarogya Trust (Kiran Hospital Multi Super Specialty Hospital & Research Center): The print advertisement’s claim “State's Number One Kiran Hospital”, was not substantiated with verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s hospital and other similar hospitals in the State (Gujarat), to prove that they are in leadership position (No.1) than all the rest, for treating the diseases claimed, nor the claim was backed through an independent third party validation. 
9. Krsnaa Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd (Krsnaa Diagnostics): The print advertisement’s claim “India's Largest Healthcare Service Provider in PPP Mode”, was not substantiated. The CCC observed that the advertiser has relied upon data from an Edelweiss Report which showed Geography-wise presence of Diagnostic current players (at All India level) in North, South, East, West and Central India. However, this report only indicated that the Advertiser’s centre was listed in the 13th position amongst other Healthcare / Diagnostic centres showing their centre’s presence at all India level.  The report showed that there were other Healthcare / Diagnostic centres in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 9th, 10th and 12th position marked as `big players’ which were ahead of the advertiser. The CCC opined that the advertiser’s diagnostic centre may be working on various Public Private Partnership (PPP) projects, their claim of them being India’s largest healthcare service provider in PPP mode was not established.
10. Shalby Multi-Speciality Hospitals (Shalby Hospitals (Jaipur)): The print advertisement’s claim “Rajasthan's Best Cardiology Experts”, was not substantiated with market survey data or with verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s hospital and similar other hospitals in Rajasthan, to prove that their Cardiology Experts are better than all the rest.  The CCC was of the opinion that in the absence of any objective criteria for evaluation, it is not possible for the advertiser to generate claim support data for this superlative claim. Hence, it was unlikely for the advertiser to have such support data.
11. Ishan Netralay: The print advertisement’s claim “The Best and the Safest”, was not substantiated with market survey data or with verifiable comparative data of the advertiser versus other similar eye treatment centres to prove that Centurion Silver machine being used for Cataract treatment is the best among all and is also safer compared to others.
12. R G Stone & Super Speciality Hospital: The print advertisement’s claim “India's Largest & Trusted chain of Urology & Laparoscopy Hospitals”, was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s hospital and other chain of Urology and Laparoscopy Hospitals in India, to prove that they are larger and trusted than the rest, nor the claim was backed by an audited report or third-party validation.
13. Shri Mahant Indiresh Hospital: The print advertisement’s claim “The Most Trusted and affordable Hospital of Uttarakhand and North India”, was not substantiated with any market survey data, or with verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s hospital versus other similar hospitals in Uttarakhand and North India, to prove that their hospital is more trusted and affordable than all the rest for their treatment services provided, nor the claim was backed by an independent third party validation.
14. Neelkanth Infertility and IVF Center: The print advertisement’s claim “The Best Success Rate and Result”, was not substantiated with any market survey data, or with verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s infertility centre versus other similar infertility (IVF) centres, to prove that the success rates and results achieved by them for their treatment provided, is better than any other treatment centres. 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 superlative claim as the results of each organization are private and not available in the public domain for such comparison. Hence, it was unlikely for the advertiser to have such support data. 
15. New Birth IVF Center/ Shelat Hospital: The print advertisement’s claim “World Lifetime Achievement Award for Pioneering IVF Technology”, was not substantiated. The second claim “100% Success at First Attempt to Many Couples” was also not substantiated. The CCC opined that the advertiser ought to have provided verifiable evidence to substantiate their claim. The print advertisement contravened Guidelines for claiming Awards / Rankings in Advertisements and ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers in Advertising.
16. Bavishi Fertility Institute Pvt Ltd. (Bavishi Fertility Institute): The print advertisement’s claim “First in Western India for Continuously Five Years”, was not substantiated with supporting ranking data on year on year basis for the last five years as claimed. The advertiser did not provide copy of the award certificates as claimed, reference of the awards received such as the year, source, category, the basis of the awards or the survey methodology followed to obtain this information for the awards claimed, such as the details of the process as to how the selection for the awards was done, details of survey data, and the details about the awarding bodies. The second claim “Best IVF Clinic Chain in India”, was not substantiated with market survey data, or with verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s clinic and other similar IVF clinics in India, to prove that their chain of IVF clinics are better than all the rest, or through an independent third party validation. The print advertisement contravened ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers in Advertising and ASCI Guidelines for Usage of Awards/Rankings in Advertisements.
17. Onco-Life Cancer Centre: The print advertisement’s claim “Awarded the Best and Trusted Hospital in Maharashtra”, was not substantiated. It was observed that the there was a mismatch of the claim versus the text in the award certificates.  The advertisement was also contravened ASCI Guidelines for Usage of Awards/Rankings in Advertisements as the advertiser did not provide details of how selection of their centre was done for the award.    
18. Renuka Homeo Clinic: The print advertisement’s claim “Permanent Riddance from Psoriasis”, was not substantiated with robust clinical evidence of treatment efficacy. The advertiser did not provide any details of the homeopathic treatment procedure for treating Psoriasis, nor any details regarding the medicines used for the treatment, and their approval status by the regulatory authorities, nor any published scientific references in support of the claim.
19. Star Homeopathy/ Star Ayurveda: The print advertisement’s claim “Complete Cure or Else Money Return – Varicose Vein and Psoriasis”, was not substantiated. The advertiser did not provide supporting robust clinical evidence of their patients successfully treated and completely cured of Varicose Veins & Psoriasis, and evidence of refund of money for those patients who were not benefitted by their treatment.
20. Mahalaxmi Ayurveda: The print advertisement’s claim “Remove any type of skin disease from roots”, and “…..complete ayurvedic medicine for skin diseases like psoriasis (eczema), eczema (fungal infection) & pimples which gives result in just 8 days”, were not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence of treatment efficacy, based on rigorous trial on their patients who achieved the claimed results in just 8 days. The advertiser did not provide any details of the ayurvedic treatment procedure, nor any details regarding the ayurvedic medicines used for the treatment, and their approval status by the regulatory authorities, nor any published scientific references in support of the claims.
21. Dr. Edward Health Care Centre: The print advertisement’s claim “Honoured with India's Top Ranking Award”, was not substantiated with ranking data. The second claim “Delhi's Best and Bareilly's Oldest Reliable Sexologist Centre”, was not substantiated with any market survey data or with verifiable comparative data of advertiser’s healthcare center versus all other similar Sexologist healthcare centres in Delhi and Bareilly, to prove that their center is better than all the rest in Delhi,   and the oldest reliable Sexologist centre than all the rest in Bareilly, for providing treatment for sexual diseases. The print advertisement contravened ASCI Guidelines for Usage of Awards/Rankings in Advertisements and ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers in Advertisements.
22. Dr D C Sharma Institute of Diabetes, Thyroid & Hormones Srajan Hospital: The print advertisement’s claim “The Best Hospital Diabetes, Thyroid, Sex and Hormones Hospital of North India”, was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s hospital and other similar hospitals in North India, or through a third-party validation. The advertisement contravened ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers in Advertising.
23. Saroj Hospital: The print advertisement’s claim “The Safest Place of Sikar for Childbirth”, was not substantiated. The claim also implied that other hospitals were unsafe. The CCC was of the opinion that it is not possible for the advertiser to conduct a comparative study to generate such claim support data as such data for any hospital is private and is not in the public domain for such comparison. Hence, it was unlikely for the advertiser to have such support data.
24. Sancheti Hospital: The print advertisement’s claim “Ranked No.1 Orthopedic Hospital” and “Healthcare Leadership Award”, were not substantiated with supporting ranking data. The print advertisement contravened Guidelines for claiming Awards / Rankings in Advertisements and ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers in Advertising.
25. Sankalp Eye Hospital and Retina Centre: The print advertisement’s claim “The Best Place for The Treatment of Diseases Related to Retina”, was not substantiated. The CCC was of the opinion that it is not possible for the advertiser to conduct a comparative study to generate such claim support data as such data for any hospital is private and is not in the public domain for such comparison. Hence, it was unlikely for the advertiser to have such support data.
26. Preventive Care Lab: The print advertisement’s claim “Get Rid of Your Allergy Problems” was misleading. It was observed that the advertiser only conducted diagnostic tests to identify potential allergens. People could only minimise the risk of having an allergic reaction by avoiding exposure to these allergens. However, the tests were not treating the allergenic tendencies per se nor the test was identifying each and every allergen.
27. Cell Health Medical Center: The print advertisement’s claim “It monitors 136 health parameters of the patient and analyses the state of the organs and human body within 20 minutes, without using needle for taking the blood sample / urine sample and diagnoses the diseases”, “BIOL helps in relieving pain through affecting the patient’s limbs and internal organs” and “Increases the Resistance Power of the Patient and Removes Stress from the Body”, were not substantiated. The CCC noted that the advertiser is a medical centre that uses BIOL, a technology that uses the electro-magnetic field to monitor 136 health parameters of the patient. However, the advertiser did not provide any details of the device, nor any published scientific literature or report regarding usage o\lf the device. Further, there was no authentic and credible evidence of efficacy of the device to indicate that usage of the device offers all the claimed benefits.
28. Reysim Healthcare: The print advertisement’s claim “Goodbye Diabetes”, “Prevent Damage to the Body Due to Diabetes” and “Control Sugar Level in Few Days” were not substantiated with any robust clinical evidence.
29. Mahir Dawakhana (Fatona Capsule Powder): The print advertisement’s claim “Remain Fit without Exercise”, was not substantiated with product efficacy data. The visual in the advertisement implies that a significant weight loss around tummy would be feasible with the use of the product, the effect of which can be seen within 20 days which was considered to be misleading. 
30. Weight Wonder: The advertisement’s claim “Lost 24 Kg through Weight Wonder Program” and “Reduce Weight by sitting home, naturally and without any physical labour”, were not substantiated and were misleading. The web-site link had reference to some “magical diet drops”; however the advertiser did not provide any details of the composition of these drops nor its regulatory status / approval from regulatory authorities. The second claim “Relieve Diabetes, Thyroid and PCOS”, was not substantiated. It was observed that the advertiser simply attributes this effect to the logic that obesity related hormone issues are relieved to a good extent when fitness is achieved. The CCC did not agree with the simplistic extrapolation of effect without any clinical evidence.  Furthermore, the CCC noted that such benefits are unlikely if the medical conditions are inherent. The advertisement was also undermining the importance of other lifestyle management interventions.
31. Arogyam Piles Control: The print advertisement’s claim “Get Rid of Piles Quickly in 7 Days by Medicinal Usage”, was not substantiated with any robust clinical evidence of patients who were cured of piles within seven days of treatment.
32. Chaturbhuj Pharmaceutical Company (Chaturbhuj Oil & Tablet): The print advertisement’s claim “The Most Effective Medicine in muscles & joint pains”, was not substantiated with product efficacy data indicating that their product is the most effective medicine for muscular and joints pain among all marketed products in India and is misleading by exaggeration. 
33. Dr. Brij’s Homeopathy (B. C. German Homeo Clinic and Research Centre): The print advertisement’s claim “Bihar's No.1 Homeopathic Clinic”, was not substantiated with verifiable comparative of the advertiser’s clinic and other similar homeopathic clinics in Bihar, to prove that they are in the leadership position (No.1) in providing homeopathic treatment to their patients, or through an independent third-party validation. The second claim “Bihar's Only Homeopathic Clinic Which Guarantees 95-96% Treatment of Incurable Diseases”, was not substantiated with any evidence of them curing incurable diseases.
34. Dr. Edward Health Care Centre: The print advertisement’s leadership claim “No.1 in Quality”, was not substantiated with verifiable comparative of the advertiser and other similar clinics, to prove that they are in leadership position (No.1) in providing quality treatment to their patients, or through an independent third-party validation.
35. H.R. Hospital: The print advertisement’s claim “Relief by Touching your Pulse”, was not substantiated with any robust clinical evidence of patients who obtained relief by just pulse examination. The CCC observed that the advertiser is promoting pain relief treatment for slip disk, migraine, cervical, sciatica and paralysis. However, the advertiser failed to provide any evidence to back its claim.
36. Kashish Clinic: The print advertisement’s claim “Quit Alcohol without the Knowledge of the Person”, was not substantiated with any robust clinical evidence.
37. Gokul Clinic: The print advertisement’s claim “Cure Piles and Fissure with One Injection”, was not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence. The advertiser did not provide details of the medicines used in the injection, nor any details regarding their approval status by the regulatory authorities.
38. Naptune Ayurveda: The print advertisement’s claim “Cure Chronic Piles Permanently with Ayurvedic Desi Formula's Treatment in Just One Month Course”, was not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence of treatment efficacy.
39. Master’s Homeopathy: The print advertisement’s claim “Homeo Works Perfectly for Curing Knee Pains and with Other Treatments Relief is Only Temporary but with Homeo Treatment Permanent Cure is observed”, “There is Medicine in Homeo which Control HIV” and “Psoriasis Gets Cured For Sure”, were not substantiated. It was observed that the advertiser did not provide any details of the homeopathic treatment procedure for treating the diseases as claimed, nor any details regarding the medicines used for the treatment, and their approval status by the regulatory authorities, nor any published scientific references in support of the claims.
40. Sarkar Dispensary: The print advertisement’s claim of “Receiving International Awards Continuously” and “Awarded with The Best Ayurvedic Clinic for The Second Year in A Row on World Unani Day By Honourable Central Minister Dr. Harshvardhan”, were not substantiated with supporting ranking data. The advertiser did not provide verifiable details of the authenticity and credibility of the awarding organizations, details of the process for awards Selection, copies of the Award-Certificates, criteria for granting the awards, survey methodology, questionnaires used, weightages for the scores, names of other clinics that were part of the survey and outcome of the survey. The CCC also noted that the use of the name of the Minister of Health and Family Welfare in the advertisement poses a potential risk of encouraging consumers to believe that the advertised claims are endorsed by the Government. The advertisement is also in violation of the AYUSH advisory which refrains advertisers / advertising agencies from using the name of Government departments and institutions in the advertisements of Ayurveda, Siddha, Unani and Homeopathy Drugs, The print advertisement contravened ASCI Guidelines for Usage of Awards/Rankings in Advertisements and ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers in Advertisements.
41. Samarpan Ayurved & Nasha Mukti Kendra: The print advertisement’s claim “Quit Alcohol without the Knowledge of the Person”, “Quit Jarda, Gutkha, Bidi, Cigarette” and “Quit Afeem-Smack from First Day”, were not substantiated with robust clinical evidence of patients treated and cured of all kinds of alcohol and drug addiction.
42. Keraleeya Aryavaidya Oushadasala (P) Ltd (Rasayanamrutham): The print advertisement’s claim “Permanent Solution for Dandruff, Hormone (Thyroid, PCOD), Tension and Premature Greying”, was not substantiated with product efficacy data for the ayurvedic tablets containing vayasthapanadasarasayana.
43. Hair Res-Q (Hair Res-Q Hair Oil): The print advertisement’s claim “Stop Hairfall by using it thrice”, “With the Use for 2 Months Grey Hair will turn into Black Hair Naturally”, were not substantiated.  The advertiser did not provide any product specific information such as product composition details, copy of product approval license, product label, product composition details and evidence of the active ingredients in the product responsible for the claimed effect, nor any published literature or report regarding product benefits. The third claim “100% Natural” was also not substantiated as the advertiser did not provide any evidence of every ingredients in the product being natural.  

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.

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

Education

Complaints against advertisements of 123 educational institutes listed below are UPHELD mainly because of unsubstantiated claims AND/OR misleading claims that they provide 100% placement/100% placement assistance AND/OR they claim to be the No.1 in their respective fields/ best in their respective fields. The advertisements also violated ASCI Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs. Many advertisements also contravened ASCI Guidelines for Usage of Awards/Rankings in Advertisements and Guidelines for Disclaimers in Advertising.

The following advertisements violated ASCI’s Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs and Guidelines for claiming Awards / Rankings in Advertisements:

1. The Delhi Public School Society (Delhi Public School, Nashik): The print advertisement’s claim “British Council International School Award 2018-21”, was misleading by ambiguity and implication. The CCC observed that the support data copy of certificates provided were for “Outstanding Development of the International Dimension in the Curriculum” and for “Coordinating the Integration of International Learning in the Curriculum”. Furthermore, the certificate was for an accreditation and it was not an award as such. However, in the advertisement, the advertiser presents this as an award “British Council International School Award 2018-21”, which was a mismatch of the text used in the certificate versus the claim made in the advertisement. 
2. Jodhamal Public School: The print advertisement’s claim “British Council International School Award 2019-2022”, was not substantiated. The advertiser did not provide any copy of the award certificate, details and references of the award received such as the category, the basis of the award or the survey methodology followed to obtain this information for the award claimed. The CCC expressed concern over the usage of an accreditation as an award and not mentioning what the accreditation was for in the advertisement.
3. Coimbatore Public School: The print advertisement’s claim “British Council International School Award 2019-22” was misleading. It was observed that the accreditation was for “Outstanding Development of the International Dimension in the Curriculum”. However, in the advertisement, the advertiser simply claims “British Council International School Award 2019-22”. It was further observed that the claim was based on an accreditation provided by the British Council. 
4. St. Peter’s International Residential School: The print advertisement’s claim “ISA (International School Award)” was misleading. It was observed that the accreditation was for “Outstanding Development of the International Dimension in the Curriculum” provided by the British Council for the year 2017-2020 However, in the advertisement, the advertiser claims to be awarded the “ISA (International School Award)” and in the body copy text below the headline refers to collaboration on seven projects. This description was different from the British Council certificate text. Furthermore, there was no British Council logo in the prescribed format, this was in contravention of the British Council guidelines for ISA.
5. Catherine School: The print advertisement’s claim “British Council International School Award 2019-22” was misleading. The CCC observed that the claim was based on the accreditation provided by the British Council in the year 2019-2020. Furthermore, the CCC observed that it was for “Outstanding Development of the International Dimension in the Curriculum”. However, in the advertisement, the advertiser simply mentions “International School Award 2019-2022” keeping silent on these specific criteria. The presentation of the ISA logo in the advertisement also appeared to be in contravention of the British Council Guidelines.
6. British Fort Foundation (British Fort C.B.S.E School): The print advertisement’s claim “Most Innovative School Award by Sec. School Educational India” and “Excellence in School Education Award 2019 in British Parliament”, were not substantiated with supporting ranking data.
7. Gurukul Global School: The print advertisement’s claim “British Council International School Award (2018-2021)”, was not substantiated. The advertiser claims to have been awarded the International School Award by British Council. The CCC expressed concern over the usage of an accreditation as an award and not mentioning what the accreditation was for in the advertisement.

Food and Beverages

Food and Beverages – Brand Extension. The following advertisements were considered to be surrogate advertisements for promotion of liquor brands and they were in contravention of ASCI's Guidelines for Qualification of Brand Extension Product or Service.

1. Pernod Ricard India Pvt Ltd (Seagram’s Blenders Pride Fashion Tour Music CDs): The print advertisements are surrogate advertisements for promotion of its liquor product – Seagram’s Blenders Pride. The advertisement displayed “Blender’s Pride”, the Seagrams logo, and the text “Music CDs” in small font. The CD pack contained the caption, “Taste life in style”. The CCC observed that although the advertiser submitted trademark registration for Blenders Pride Fashion Tour and Blenders Pride Fashion Nights, they did not submit the annual market sales data of the advertised product, proof of the in-store availability of the product being at least 10% of the leading brand in the category the product competes as measured in metro cities where the product is advertised, and a valid certificate from an independent organization for distribution and sales turnover. The names of 25 retail outlets was not considered as an acceptable evidence to support in store presence. Moreover, the advertiser in their own submission mention that to carry forward the well-established associations and perceptions attached to the Blenders Pride brand, attain business stability and generate increased revenues, the Company has introduced "Blenders Pride Fashion Tour" and "Blenders Pride" Music Compact Discs.
2. Pernod Ricard India Pvt Ltd (Jacob’s Creek Music CD): The advertisement depicting the Jacob’s Creek brand name and reference to music CDs, is a surrogate advertisement for promotion of its wine product - Jacob's Creek Wines. The advertisement displayed a logo of “Jacob’s Creek” with the text “Bring Your Australian” in a small font and the text “Music CDs” in a smaller font. Further, the CD pack design submitted by the advertiser read “Jacob’s Creek”, “Made True” and “Classically Chilled”. The advertiser did not have a registered trademark with respect to Music CDs. The CCC observed that the advertiser only provided photographic evidence of the availability of the CDs on Amazon, Flipkart and Snapdeal and a list of 19 retail outlets that sell the Music CDs. The names of 19 retail outlets was not considered as an acceptable evidence to support in store presence. The advertiser did not submit the annual market sales data of the advertised product advertised, proof of the in-store availability of the product being at least 10% of the leading brand in the category the product competes as measured in metro cities where the product is advertised, and a valid certificate from an independent organization for distribution and sales turnover. Moreover, the advertiser in their own submissions mention that to carry forward the well-established associations and perceptions attached to the brand, attain business stability and generate increased revenues, the “Jacob’s Creek” Music Compact Discs was introduced.
3. Pernod Ricard India Pvt Ltd (The Glenlivet Books): The print advertisement’s is a surrogate advertisement for promotion of its liquor product - Single Malt Scotch Whisky and is misleading by implication. The advertisement displayed a copyright logo of “The Glenlivet” with the text “books” in a small font below the logo. The CCC observed that the brand name “The Glenlivet” itself symbolizes the name of the whiskey brand. Moreover, the advertiser in their own submissions mention that the credibility in the brand name prompted the advertiser to introduce this offering – The Glenlivet Books and to carry forward the well-established associations and perceptions attached to The Glenlivet brand, attain business stability and generate increased revenues, the Company has introduced “The Glenlivet Books”. The names of six retail outlets was not considered as an acceptable evidence to support in store presence. The advertiser ought to have provided the annual market sales data of the product advertised, proof of the in-store availability of the product being at least 10% of the leading brand in the category the product competes as measured in metro cities where the product is advertised, and a valid certificate from an independent organization for distribution and sales turnover.
4. Maa Sheetla Udyog Pvt Ltd (Attraction Sweet Mellow Club Soda): The print advertisement is a surrogate advertisement for promotion of a liquor product “MS Attraction Sweet Mellow Whiskey” and is misleading by implication. The advertisement also has the advertiser’s brand logo at the top. The advertiser did not provide the annual market sales data of the product advertised, required licenses and certificates as proof of their brand extension product being registered with appropriate Government authorities, proof of the in-store availability of the product being at least 10% of the leading brand in the category the product competes as measured in metro cities where the product is advertised, and a valid certificate from an independent organization for distribution and sales turnover.
5. Maa Sheetla Udyog Pvt Ltd (Naughty Boys Party Glasses): The print advertisement is a surrogate advertisement for promotion of a liquor product “– Naughty Boys – Whiskey” and is misleading by implication. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and observed that the advertiser is promoting MS Naughty Boys – Party Glasses, and shows an image of a barrel with the words “Estd 2019”. The caption at the top of the advertisement reads as, “Dosti Bula Rahi Hai, Seeti Baja Rahi Hain” along with the advertiser’s brand logo at the top right corner of the advertisement. The advertiser did not provide the annual market sales data of the product advertised, required licenses and certificates as proof of their brand extension product being registered with appropriate Government authorities, proof of the in-store availability of the product being at least 10% of the leading brand in the category the product competes as measured in metro cities where the product is advertised, and a valid certificate from an independent organization for distribution and sales turnover.
6. Maa Sheetla Udyog Pvt ltd (Jack-N-Jill Himalayan Natural Apple Juice): The advertisement depicting the brand name - MS Jack-N-Jill Himalayan Natural Apple Juice is a surrogate advertisement for promotion of a liquor product - Jack-N-Jill & Attraction- Whisky.  The advertisement shows an image of the product packaging along with the text, “Velvet Smooth Taste from the Rich Handpicked Apples from Himalayas”. The fine print at the bottom of the advertisement reads as “Your Partner In Fun”.  The advertiser did not provide the annual market sales data of the product advertised, required licenses and certificates as proof of their brand extension product being registered with appropriate Government authorities, proof of the in-store availability of the product being at least 10% of the leading brand in the category the product competes as measured in metro cities where the product is advertised, and a valid certificate from an independent organization for distribution and sales turnover.

Food and Beverages

1. The Kute Group (Tirumalla Oil): The YouTube and television advertisement’s claim “Yeh khaane se Papa ke fitness par toh koi asar nahi hoga na? Nahin hoga.” “Tirumalla oil ho ghar mein, toh fitness ki chinta don’t worry!” endorsed by Sachin and Supriya Pilgaonkar were not substantiated. The advertisement suggests that there would be no adverse effect on the protagonist’s fitness even if he indulges in eating deep fried food items like samosa – which is a high carbohydrate / high calories food item. Further, the advertisement is silent about recommended portion sizes or about the importance of regular exercise and healthy lifestyle for fitness. The advertisement implies that if one uses Tirumalla oil for daily cooking then they can regularly indulge in eating deep fried food (which generally is not considered advisable for health-conscious people) and yet remain fit. The advertisement undermines the importance of healthy lifestyle and is misleading regarding the nature of nutritive value of the advertised product. The CCC noted that the advertiser did not submit any product specific details or FSSAI approval for the claims being made in the advertisement, nor any clinical evidence of special properties of the product, to prove that the cooking oil alone maintains fitness of a person regardless of the diet followed or lack of exercise etc. The advertiser did not provide any evidence to show that the celebrities had done due diligence prior to endorsement, to ensure that all description, claims and comparisons made in the advertisement are capable of substantiation. The advertisement contravenes the Guidelines for Celebrities in Advertising and ASCI Guidelines on advertising of Food and Beverage products.
2. Gemini Edibles & Fats India Private Limited (GEF India) (Kachi Ghani Mustard Oil): The advertisement’s claim as translated from Hindi “Up to 70% Less Heart Attack Risk”, was inadequately substantiated. The CCC did not consider the advertiser’s questionnaire based study alone to be a reliable and robust claim support data to make a numerical disease risk reduction claim in absence of any actual product testing. Moreover, the study in itself cannot be used as a yardstick as consumers consume a wide variety of oils including blended oils, groundnut oil, coconut oil, olive oil etc. The conclusion of the study also states that the findings highlight the importance of diets rich in vegetables and α-linolenic acid in the prevention of IHD. However, more studies, including prospective investigations, are required to examine these associations further in India. The CCC also noted that the text in the super presented the word “Up to” in much smaller font. For the voiceover claim, “70% less Heart Attack Risk Means 100% Freedom” , the line is immediately followed by a brand jingle that says “Freedom to eat…Freedom to live”. The CCC did not agree with the advertiser’s contentions that “100% Freedom” does not imply cure. “100% Freedom” and “Freedom to eat” were also misleading by ambiguity and implication that one can eat without any restrictions. The CCC noted that the advertiser does not make these claims on their packaging. Furthermore, these claims were not as per the FSSAI’s guidance document regarding claim permitted for edible oils such as Mustard Oil with or without Erucic nor did the advertiser submit any evidence of FSSAI approval for these specific claims. The advertisement contravened ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers in Advertising.
3. Aachi Masala Foods (P) Ltd (Aachi Badam Drink Mix): The television advertisement’s claim “Have Protein, Natural Protein of Badam that Provides Proper Strength/ Nourishment to the Body”, was not substantiated. The available energy from proteins from almonds in the product (3.998 / 3.910)* is substantially less than the required 12% energy (48Kcal) contribution of the total energy of the food (400Kcal). Moreover, the CCC opined that the RDA of Protein for Indian kids (age -7 to 12) is in the range of 29.5g to 40.45g and for normal adults the range is 55g to 60g (FSSAI). The advertiser’s product therefore does not qualify against these dietary requirements.
4. DeTox Herbals (DeTox Fitness ImmuniTea): The print advertisement’s claim “Increase Immunity Power”, “Prevent Infection in Body”, “Prevent Dengue” and “Prevent Wrinkles and Ageing” were not substantiated. The CCC also observed that the advertisement shows an FSSAI logo in a non-standard format, implying that it is an endorsement from FSSAI. The use of FSSAI logo was misleading that the product has been tested/approved/endorsed by FSSAI and also, was in violation of the FSSAI advisory.
5. Jay Bharat Spices Pvt. Ltd (Bharat Masala): The television advertisement’s claim “First Choice of Every Homemaker”, was not substantiated. The advertiser did not submit any market survey data, or verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s products and other similar competitor products, to prove that their products were considered as the first choice of every homemaker. The second claim “Spices Are Made in Country’s Biggest Cryogenic Plant” was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s plant and plants of other competitor brands in India, to prove that they were bigger than all the rest in production of spices, or through a third-party validation. The advertisement contravened ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers in Advertising.
6. Azista Industries Private Limited (Azista Taste Good Karela Biscuit): It is observed that the karela biscuit product indicates that it maintains blood sugar, high on fiber, reduces hunger pangs, is diabetic friendly and prevents cholesterol. The CCC noted that individually “Maintains Blood Sugar”, “Clinically Proven” and “Diabetic-Friendly”, claims have some merit in being supported. However, considering the likely impact of the print advertisement when read in totality are likely to misguide consumers with diabetes or prediabetes. This product could be interpreted as an optional/alternative therapy for management of diabetes and may consume this product without any apprehension, leading to a likelihood of disaster in a given case. The print advertisement contravened ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers in Advertising.
7. Surat District Co-Operative Milk Producers Union Ltd (Sumul Bakery Products Range): The television advertisement’s claim “First time in India, Automated, Untouched High-Quality Bakery Products”, was not substantiated with any verifiable support data or evidence of comparison with other bakery product producers in India, to prove that they are the pioneers or the first to provide automated and untouched high-quality bakery products.

Real Estate – The advertisements also contravened ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers in Advertising.

1. Singhania Buildcon Pvt Ltd. (Singhania Buildcon Group): The print and television advertisement’s claim “Chhattisgarh’s No.1 Real Estate Company”, was not substantiated with supporting ranking data. The advertiser did not support this claim with a copy of the award certificate, reference of the award received such as the category, the basis of the award such as the details of the process as to how the selection for the award was done, details of the criteria for granting the awards, survey methodology, parameters considered, questionnaires used, names of other real estate companies in Chhattisgarh that were part of the survey, the outcome of the survey, and the details about the awarding body.  The print advertisement contravened Guidelines for claiming Awards / Rankings in Advertisements.
2. Nanak Properties Pvt. Ltd. (Amarja Hills): The print advertisement’s claim “Best Second Home Project by Construction Times Builders Award 2016”, was not substantiated with supporting ranking data and is misleading. The print advertisement contravened ASCI Guidelines for Usage of Awards/Rankings in Advertisements.
3. Avinash Group (Avinash Capital Homes 2 and Avinash Aashiyana): The print advertisement’s claim “The Most Trusted Real Estate Company of Chhattisgarh”, was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s company and other similar real estate companies in Chhattisgarh, to prove that they are the more trusted name than all the rest, or through a third-party validation.
4. Brigade Enterprises Limited (Brigade Group) (Brigade Residences): The print advertisement’s claim “Awarded 9 Years in a Row - Great Place to Work, Certified Apr 2019 - Mar 2020”, was not substantiated with supporting ranking data on year on year basis for the last nine years as claimed. The print advertisement contravened ASCI Guidelines for Usage of Awards/Rankings in Advertisements.
5. DS-Max Properties Pvt. Ltd. (DS-Max Sage): The print advertisement’s claim “Awarded as *Class-1 Contractor* by Govt. of Karnataka”, “Rated High on Customer Satisfaction (Golden Brick Awards)” and “100+ Awards and Recognitions”, were not substantiated with supporting data. The print advertisement contravened ASCI Guidelines for Usage of Awards/Rankings in Advertisements.
6. DS-Max Properties Pvt. Ltd (DS Max Sky Supreme): The print advertisement’s claim “Best Real Estate Developer of The Year”, “Top Reliable Developer of The Year” and “Most Trusted Brand of Asia by World Brand Summit”, were not substantiated with supporting ranking data. The advertiser did not provide copy of the award certificates, reference of the awards received such as the year, source, category, the basis of the awards or the survey methodology followed to obtain this information for the awards claimed, such as the details of the process as to how the selection for the awards was done, details of the criteria for granting the award, survey methodology, parameters considered, questionnaires used, names of other companies that were part of the survey, the outcome of the survey, and the details about the awarding body. The print advertisement contravened ASCI Guidelines for Usage of Awards/Rankings in Advertisements.
7. Peram Group: The print advertisement’s claim “No.1 Realtors in South India”, was not substantiated with verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s company and other similar realtor companies in South India, to prove that they are in the leadership position (No.1), or through an independent third-party validation.
8. Roma Builders: The print advertisement’s claim, “Most Trusted Real Estate Brand in Varanasi & Eastern Uttar Pradesh” and “Low Cost Housing Project of The Year”, were not adequately substantiated. The advertiser did not provide the basis of the awards or the survey methodologies followed such as the details of the process as to how the selection for the awards were done, details of the survey data, criteria used for evaluation, questionnaires used, names of other brands and housing projects that were part of the surveys, the outcome of the surveys, and the details about the awarding bodies. The source for the claims were not indicated in the advertisement. The print advertisement contravened ASCI Guidelines for Usage of Awards/Rankings in Advertisements.
9. Sree Dhanya Homes Pvt. Ltd (Vantage Point): The print advertisement’s claim “No.1 Luxury Builder in Trivandrum”, was not substantiated with verifiable comparative of the advertiser’s real estate company and other similar real estate companies in Trivandrum, to prove that they are in leadership position (No.1) as luxury builders, or through an independent third-party validation.

Visa/Immigration

1. International Academy: The print advertisement’s claim “The most trusted global study-work migration consultants”, was not substantiated with market survey data, or with verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s academy and other similar academies/migration consultants, to prove that they are most trusted than all the rest, nor the claim was backed by an independent third party validation. The source for the claim was not indicated in the advertisement.
2. Landmark Immigration Consultants Pvt. Ltd (Landmark Immigration): The print advertisement’s claim “Most Trusted Company in the Region”, was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s company versus other similar immigration consultancy companies in Chandigarh, to prove that they are the more trusted than all the rest, or through a third-party validation. The print advertisement contravened ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers in Advertising.
3. Perfect Overseas (Overseas Education Consultant): The print advertisement’s claim “Get 7+ band in 70 days”, was not substantiated with detailed verifiable list of candidates who got 7+ band in 70 days, verifiable evidence to support their enrolment including their contact details for independent verification, a CA certification or an independent third-party claim validation. The second claim “Institute with Highest Visas in the Region” was not substantiated. 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 superlative claim given the unorganized nature of the educational sector and number of such education overseas consultants. Hence it was unlikely for the advertiser to have such support data.  The advertisement contravened ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers.
4. Capri Overseas: The print advertisement’s claim “#1 Agency for UK”, was not substantiated. The advertiser did not submit any verifiable evidence to support their credentials and achievements. The CCC did not agree with the advertiser’s contention that they were “#1” because of their results. The CCC was of the opinion that it is not possible for any visa processing organization to conduct such comparative study given the unorganized nature of the sector and number of such organizations. Moreover, the output for each organization is not in the public domain for such comparison. Hence it was unlikely for the advertiser to have such support data.
5. Career Providers (Kamini Ashri): The print advertisement’s claim “Most Trusted Study Abroad Consultancy Award Winner”, was not substantiated with supporting ranking data. The source for the claim was not indicated in the advertisement. The advertiser did not provide any the copy of the award certificate, reference of the award received such as the category, the basis of the awards or the survey methodology followed to obtain this information for the award claimed, such as the details of the process as to how the selection for the award was done, details of the survey data, and the details about the awarding body. The advertisement contravened ASCI Guidelines for Usage of Awards / Rankings in Advertisements and Guidelines for Disclaimers 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. The advertisements also contravened ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers in Advertising.    

1. Bajaj Consumer Care Ltd (Bajaj Almond Drops Hair Oil): The television advertisement’s claim featuring Bollywood Celebrity Parineeti Chopra, “Every Drop has the 3 Times Vitamin E Compared to Other Ordinary Oil” is misleading by ambiguity and implication. The CCC noted that the Vitamin E in the product was compared with unbranded oils (mustard and coconut).  In the narrow technical sense, the analytical report submitted does show a 3x or 300% content of Vitamin E in the impugned product as compared to the unbranded comparator oils, arising from the fact that there is added Vitamin E to the product. The `ordinary’ oils compared with are unbranded mustard and coconut oils. The voice over says `aam oil’ whereas disclaimer states `……unbranded hair oil……’. The CCC was of the opinion that `aam oil’ means an “ordinary” oil that may be devoid of any special properties / characteristic. It does not mean “unbranded oil”, as `unbranded oil’ is oil that is sold loose and not packed in bottles as packaged goods. However, there was a mismatch between the claim in the voice over (stating ordinary oil and visual showing a bottled oil) versus the disclaimer (referring to unbranded oil / oil sold loose). The second claim “Boond Boond mein Badam ka poshan” (Nourishment of Almonds in every drop) was inadequately substantiated. The CCC observed that the test reports from a third party lab showed small effects where statistical significance of these results become important for comparisons.  The most important test, namely the DP Cell Proliferation, did not show any statistical significance. In other tests, the significance of the effects exhibited are weak. The CCC also noticed that the product label does not disclose the exact percentage of almond oil present in the product but obfuscates it (to the point of being misleading) by claiming “mustard and almond oil 22%” whereas the document reveals that the composition has a low percentage of almond oil. The advertiser did not provide any evidence to show that the celebrity herself had done due diligence prior to endorsement, to ensure that all description, claims and comparisons made in the TVC are capable of substantiation. The advertisement contravened ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimer and Guidelines for Celebrities in Advertising.
2. Mahalaxmi Enterprises (Majestic lady Anion Sanitary Napkins): The television advertisement’s claim “A Magnetic Strip That Saves from Bacterial Infection”, was not substantiated with any scientific rationale for the product benefit claimed.
3. Mohan Enterprise (Sunshine Gold Coconut Oil): The television advertisement’s claim “Stop Hair Fall”, was not substantiated with product efficacy data.   
4. Grofers India Private Limited (Grand Orange Bag Days): The print advertisement’s claim “India's Biggest Grocery Sale is back”, was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s company and other similar e-commerce companies in India, to prove that their grocery sale is bigger than all the rest, or through a third-party validation.
5. Waaree Energies Ltd (Waaree Solar Products): The print advertisement’s claim “Company with India's Largest Solar Panel Manufacturing Capacity”, was not substantiated with market survey data or with verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s manufacturing capacity versus the capacity of other similar solar panel manufacturing companies in India, nor the claim was backed by an independent third-party validation.
6. Waaree Energies Ltd (Waaree Solar Products): The print advertisement’s claim “Go with the Best”, was not substantiated with any market survey data, or with verifiable comparative data of the advertiser versus other similar solar panel manufacturing companies, to prove that their product is better than all the rest. The claim was also not supported through an independent third party validation.
7. ATUL Auto Limited (Atul Range): The print advertisement’s claim “India's No.1 Quality Three-Wheeler Manufacturer”, was not substantiated with verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s company and other similar companies in India, to prove that advertiser’s manufacturing company is in the leadership position for manufacturing three-wheeler vehicles or through an independent third-party validation.
8. Bangalore Wheels: The print advertisement’s claim, “The No. 1 Yamaha Outlet in India”, was not substantiated with verifiable comparative data or market research data of the advertiser’s outlet and other similar Yamaha outlets in India, to prove that advertiser’s outlet is in leadership position (No.1) than all the rest in terms of value or volume share, or through an independent third-party validation.
9. DS Finworld Pvt. Ltd.- Afinoz (Digitalizing Finance): The print advertisement’s claim “India's Most Trusted Online Instant Loan Providing Company”, was misleading by exaggeration and implication. The claim was not substantiated with any market survey data or with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s company and other similar online loan providing companies in India, to prove that the instant online loan services provided by the advertiser’s company to their customers is more trusted than all the rest, or through a third party validation.
10. Krishnam (Himalaya Water Purifiers): The print advertisement’s claim “The Best RO for Domestic Use”, was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s company and other similar water purifier manufacturing companies, to prove that their RO product for domestic use is better than all the rest, or through a third-party validation.
11. Jerai Fitness Pvt. Ltd: The print advertisement’s claim “India's Largest Gym Equipment Manufacture”, was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s company and other similar gym equipment manufacturing companies in India, to prove that they are larger than all the rest in manufacturing gym equipment, or through a third-party validation.
12. Anandi Atta Chakki Pvt Ltd: The print advertisement’s claim “Only Flourmill Giving 100% Result in Millet and Sorghum”, was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data or technical test results, of advertiser’s product versus other similar flourmill products, to prove that their performance is better than all the rest and only they provide 100% results in millet and sorghum, or through an independent third-party validation.

Info@BestMediaInfo.com