ASCI upholds Complaints against 193 Advertisements out of 290 in February 2018

Mumbai: In February 2018, ASCI’s Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) upheld complaints against 193 advertisements out of the total of 290 advertisements that were evaluated by the CCC.

A total of 187 advertisements were picked up by ASCI’s Suo Moto surveillance and objections against 163 advertisements were upheld. Of the 103 advertisements complained against by the general public or by the industry members, complaints against 30 advertisements were upheld by the CCC. Out of the total 193 advertisements against which complaints were upheld, 154 belonged to healthcare sector, 18to education sector, eight to the food & beverages category, two to personal care and 11were From the ‘others’ category.

Gross exaggeration of product efficacy was the number one reason for upholding complaints, followed by the violation of the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act (DMR Act) and the Drugs and Cosmetics (D&C) Rules. The other reasons were failure to provide substantial facts and figures to support claims and delivering advertisements which were misleading by ambiguity and / or by implication.

Among the various complaints, CCC observed that an advertisement was encouraging binging or excessive consumption of a snacking product. Aclaim regarding “instant” result post consumption of a fast absorbing product was considered to be misleading. Similarly, claim by a leading food company to enhance IQ, was inadequately substantiated.  An advertisement by a mattress company featuring celebrities making a quantitative claim that less than six hours of sleep drains 40% brain energy was considered to be misleading. 

‘’Food Safety Standards Authority of India recently renewed its Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with ASCI as a reflection of its successful association in the first year. The MoU gives ASCI a suo moto monitoring mandate to co-regulate and curb misleading advertisements in F&B sector. This association has helped us to augment our efforts in curtailing false F&B advertisements” said Abanti Sankaranarayanan, Chairman ASCI

Direct Complaints               

HEALTHCARE:

The CCC found claims of tenadvertisements in health care products or services to be either misleading or false or not adequately / scientifically substantiated;hence in violation of the ASCICode. Some of the health care products or clinic advertisements also contravened provisions of the Drug & Magic Remedies Act and Chapter 1.1 and III.4 of the ASCI Code. Complaints against the following advertisements were UPHELD.

1. Maja Health Care Division (Vi-John Boroshield Antiseptic Cream): The pack claims, “Quick healing From nicks and cuts”, “Treats minor burns/injury“and “Prevents nappy rashes”, were inadequately substantiated and are misleading.

1. Dassan’s Life Care Ayurvedic Herbal Treatment and Research Centre (Kidney): The advertisement’s claim, “Ek mahiney ke ilaaz se hi Creatinine 10.24 se 1.9 par samanya aah gaya” (Creatinine was reduced by treatment of Dr. Dassan) was not substantiated with authentic, credible scientific / clinical evidence. The claim, “Kidney rogi transplant se bachh gaya”, implying cure for kidney diseases, is misleading by gross exaggeration and exploits the consumers’ lack of knowledge and is likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers.

1. OPTM HealthCare Private Limited: The advertisements claim, (in Marathi) “15 divsaani maajhi chikitsa getlaitantar mala 5 varsha peksha lahan vatle”, as a testimonial by Mr. Sunil Shastri, son of late PM Lalbahaddur Shastri was not substantiated.

1. OPTM HealthCare Private Limited (Varco Leg Care):The advertisement’s claim, “If varicose veins is not treated on time you might lose your legs”, is false, misleading by gross exaggeration and exploits the consumers’ lack of knowledge. The claims, “Recommended by experts”, “No.1 choice of chemist”, were not substantiated.

1. OPTM HealthCare Private Limited: The advertisement’s claims (in Bengali) related to, “Mr. Apurba Ganguly honoured as ‘Rose of Paracelsus’ by the President of European Medical Association in Germany”, “Collaboration between Jadavpur University and OPTM”, “Mr. Apurba Ganguly claiming to be a scientist and had treated patients in more than 10 countries”, were not substantiated with supporting evidence and are misleading.

1. Hindustan Unilever Ltd (Indulekha Oil): The qualifications of the Ayurvedic doctor practicing in USA as featured in the advertisement were not substantiated. The advertisement’s claim, “Jadon se kaam kare, hairfall gataye aur naye baal ugaye”, is misleading by omission of mention that it should be an adjuvant therapy for hair loss.

1. IPSA Labs Pvt Ltd (Arodent Ayurvedic Gum and Dental Paste): The advertisement’s claim, “Pyorrhoea ke liye Brahmastra”, implies that the product completely cures Pyorrhoea which was not substantiated with the product efficacy data and is misleading by implication and gross exaggeration. The claims (in Hindi) as translated in English, “As per research done in America, Pyorrhoea is more in women due to hormonal imbalance. They give premature birth to underweight children”, “heart problems are seen in Pyorrhoea patients”, were not substantiated with supporting evidence.

The following advertisements were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act1954 and were referred to the concerned regulators:

PERSONAL CARE:-

1. Hindustan Unilever Ltd (Lifebuoy Soap):In the advertisement, celebrity Kajol poses as a doctor, wherein she states “doctor se suno ……Isiliye Silver Lifebuoy” and the last frame of the TVC, shows four people in white coat, giving an impression that doctors have endorsed the product. In the absence of any market research data indicating that medical professionals in general recommend the advertised product, such visual presentation was considered to be misleading by ambiguity and implication.

1. The Himalaya Drug Company (Baby Care Range): The advertisement’s claims, “India’s No. 1 Baby Care brand” , “Himalaya provides safest baby care products” and “Most Gentle baby care products”, were inadequately substantiated and are misleading by exaggeration and implication that other competitor products are less safe or less gentle. 

EDUCATION:-

The CCC found following claims in the advertisements by two advertisers not substantiated and thus, violated ASCI Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions.

1. Koneru Lakshmaiah Charities (KL University): The visual presentation of the advertisement’s claim, “Deemed to be University”, was misleading by ambiguity and implication of the institute being a “University”.

1. Active Computer Institute & Study Circle: The advertiser’s institute claiming to be an “authorized centre”was not substantiated with supporting evidence of the certificate of authorization from the parent institute.

FOOD AND BEVERAGES:- 

1. Guiltfree industries limited (Too Yumm): The advertisement’s claims, “Eat Lot and Fikar Not” and “Eat anytime, anywhere, as much” encourage excessive consumption and product if overindulged as suggested in the TVC, it can add to calories, fat calories and sodium. The TVC contravened ASCI Guidelines on Advertising of Food & Beverages. 

1. Gopaljee dairy foods private limited (Ananda Lassi): The advertisement’s claims, “Improves digestive system”, “Strengthen bones” and “Improves immunity power”, were not substantiated with scientific rationale or evidence of product efficacy and are misleading.

1. DANONE GROUP – Protinex: The advertisement’s claim, “The only brand with Hydrolysed Protein,” was misleading as it was an absolute claim and neither held when compared to all health drink brands in the market nor its own variants.not substantiated and is misleading by implication and omission. The word “Instant” from the claim “Faster absorption for instant results and better protein delivery” was misleading.
2. GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Ltd – (Horlicks) : The advertisement’s claim, “9-In-10 children’s diet could be deficient in essential nutrients”, was not substantiated and was misleading by implication and exaggeration

1. Heinz India Private Limited – (Complan) : The advertisement’s claim, “Enhance IQ”, was inadequately substantiated and is misleading by exaggeration. 

OTHERS:- 

1. ANI Technologies Pvt. Ltd (OLA cabs): The advertisement’s claim, “Ola Auto Rs.29 for four kilometres”, was misleading by omission of a qualifier that the offer is subject to terms and conditions. 

1. Vodafone (Vodafone) India Ltd:The advertisement’s claim, “Unlimited Calls Rs.198/month”, is false and misleading in view of the capping of 250 minutes per day and 1,000 minutes per week.

1. Vodafone India Ltd (Vodafone Post-paid Plans):The advertisement’s claim, “Guaranteed, India’s Best Post-paid Plan”, was inadequately substantiated without any market/consumer research data or any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s post-paid plans and similar post-paid plans of other telecom service providers. The claim is misleading by ambiguity and exaggeration. 

1. New Delhi Television Ltd (NDTV): The advertisement’s claim, “India’s most trusted media brand”, is misleading by omission of the mention of the details of the survey and due to use of a 2015 survey for perpetuity.

1. BSH Household Appliances Manufacturing Pvt Ltd (Bosch Washing Machine): The advertisement’s claims,  “Special programmes: Monsoon (Freshen-up) Super Quick 15min / 30 min, Hygiene, Kids wear (Extra clean), Delicate (Silk), Wool (Gentle hand wash), Synthetics, Drum Clean,”, were false for the advertised model WAB16161IN Serie 2, Front Load Washing Machine and is misleading by exaggeration.

1. LG Electronics India Pvt Ltd (LG K7i Mosquito Away Phone): The advertisement’s claim, “World’s First Phone with mosquito away technology”, was neither substantiated with any scientific support data, evidence of product efficacy nor through any independent audit or verification certificate. The claim is misleading by gross exaggeration.

1. Ashok Limited Leyland: The advertisement’s claim, “Our buses help nearly 70 million people get to their destinations every day. ”, was not substantiated with supporting evidence and is misleading by exaggeration

1. Ambica Wallpapers: The advertisement’s claims, “Must visit, country’s number 1 stock depot to buy at direct merchant’s price”, and “No. 1 in Choice, No. 1 in Price, No. 1 in Quality”, were not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data or through a third party validation. The claim is misleading by exaggeration

1. OPPO Electronics (Oppo Mobiles): The advertisement’s claim “leader” in their communication “Oppo selfie expert and leader”, was not substantiated, with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s product and other competitive products or through a market survey data or through a third party validation. The claim is misleading by exaggeration.

1. Springfit Mattress (Springfit Mattresses and sleep systems):The testimonial statements of actor Karan and actress Bipasha in the advertisement, “If we don’t sleep peacefully during these six hours, our brain-energy will reduce by 40% and Springfit Mattress gives us sixhours of complete sleep”, were not substantiated with any scientific evidence or proof of product efficacy and the claims are misleading by gross exaggeration.

1. Eureka Forbes Ltd (Aquasure Maxima RO): The advertisement’s claim, “Long Cartridge Life of 6000 litres,” was not qualified and is considered to be misleading by omission of the test conditions. 

SUO MOTO Surveillance by ASCI 

The advertisements given below were picked up through ASCI’s suomoto surveillance of Print and TV media via the National Advertisement Monitoring Services (NAMS) project. Out of 187advertisements that were picked up, 163advertisements were considered to be misleading. Of the total 163advertisements, 144advertisements belonged to Healthcare, 16belonged to the Education category, and three belonged to Food & Beverage category.

HEALTHCARE:

1. The Body Care: The advertisement’s claims, “Fat reduction and inch loss”, “Reduce up to 6.8 centimetres From tummy, hips and thighs” and “Reduce weight up to 10 kilograms* + 40-50 centimetres*”, were not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence. Claims, “Fast track program in nine days”, “Get rid of surgery”, “Safe and long lasting”, were not substantiated with supporting data and are misleading by exaggeration. The visuals in the advertisement imply that a significant weight loss around tummy would be feasible, which is also misleading.

1. Rainbow Group of Hospitals (Rainbow Children’s Hospital): The advertisement’s claim, “India’s No.1 Children Hospital”, was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s hospital and other children hospitals in India or through a third party validation. The claim is misleading by exaggeration.

1. Abhay Ayurvedic Pharmacy (Medari  Range of Products): The advertisement’s claims, “Gives instant results” and “No side effects”, “ clinically certified” were not substantiated with product efficacy data for fat reduction.  The claim, “Approval by Ayush ministry” was considered to be misleading by implication that AYUSH has approved the claims as well.These claims are misleading by exaggeration.  Furthermore, efficacy being depicted via images of before and after the treatment by showing slimming transition, is misleading by gross exaggeration.

1. Ayurnava Kerala Ayurvedic Treatment Centre: The advertisement’s claim, “Best Authentic Kerala Ayurvedic Treatment centre in Gurgaon”, was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s treatment centre and similar Ayurvedic treatment centres in Gurgaon. The claim is misleading by exaggeration.

1. Sagar Malik Ayurveda: The advertisement’s claim, “Cure damaged knee without operation”, was not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence and is misleading by gross exaggeration

1. Caram Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd (Caram Healthcare Range of Products): The advertisement’s claims, “Re-activate pancreas gland” and “Instant relief by penetrating to the centre of the pain without any side effects”, were not substantiated and are misleading by gross exaggeration.

1. OPTM HealthCare Private Limited (Phyto Proflex): The advertisement’s claims, “Clinically evaluated by an International University  in Italy”, and  “Recommended by Experts”, were not substantiated with supporting evidence of the product being clinically evaluated and details of the experts recommending the product and are misleading by gross exaggeration.  The claim, “84.3% reduction in pain”, was not substantiated with clinical test/trial reports of product efficacy in reducing pain and is misleading by exaggeration.

1. OPTM HealthCare Private Limited (Phytomax Vision): The advertisement’s claims, “Blue light filter – powerful antioxidant with oral technology”, and “Absorbs harmful blue light and helps reduce eye damage”, were not substantiated with clinical evidence of product efficacy. When seen in conjunction with the rest of the claims made in the advertisement, the claims are misleading by implying that PhytoMax Vision is effective in curing symptoms of Macular Degeneration.

1. Ayurwin Pharma Pvt Ltd (Nutrislim Plus Range of Products): The advertisement’s claims related to weight loss product benefits were not substantiated with evidence of product efficacy data. Product efficacy being depicted via visuals of before and after the treatment is misleading by gross exaggeration. The claim, “Approved by Ayush Dept.”, was considered to be inappropriate as all AYUSH products in the market are required to have approval From the State Licensing authorities and calling it out separately as a claim is misleading by ambiguity and implication that Ministry of AYUSH has approved the product efficacy / claims made in the advertisement.

1. Lifespan Wellness Pvt. Ltd (Lifespan Diabetes Clinic): The advertisement’s claims, “We treat Diabetes” implying cure for Diabetes, was not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence and is misleading by glaxoexaggeration and implication. Claims, “Visit India’s Leading Chain of Diabetes Treatment Clinic”, “With 40 clinics across 12 cities, Lifespan is one of the Leading Chain of Diabetes Treatment Clinics in India”, “Over 70% of our patients have successfully treated themselves” , “R.I.S.C.TM Treatment”, were not substantiated with supporting data and are misleading by exaggeration. 

1. OPTM HealthCare Private Limited (Varco Oil): The advertisement’s claims, “Avoid Stocking and Surgery as advised by NIHC England”, and “Recommended by Experts”, were not substantiated with supporting evidence. The claims are misleading by exaggeration.

ASCI has referred 112 advertisements that were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act and were referred to the Ministry of AYUSH.

In addition to that as many as 21 advertisements that were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act / The Drugs & Cosmetics Rules and were referred to the Ministry of Health.

EDUCATION:-

1. Rajyog Academy: The advertisement’s claim, “The only institute who has given highest selection in past recruitment”, was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s institute and other similar institutes, or through a third party validation. The claim is misleading by exaggeration.

Complaints against advertisements of 15 educational institutes listed below are UPHELD mainly because of unsubstantiated claims that they provide 100% placement/AND/OR because of misleading claim that they provide 100% placement assistance/AND/OR they claim to be the No.1 in their respective fields

Kavira Classes & Defence Academy, National Small Industries Corporation  (NSCI Tool Room), CL Educate Ltd(Career Launcher),Mission An Institute Of Professional Development,  Royal IAS Academy, Om Sri Sai Siksha Samiti – (Sri Sai Institute of Paramedical Studies & Research), RC Teachers Academy, Saphalta Defence Academy & Hostel, Image Infotainment Ltd (Image Creative Education), Ramappa Police Academy, CV Raman Academy for IIT – JEE/PPB Hindu,  BSH Household Appliances Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd (BRIDGE) /Sristi Community College,BPTDC Institute of Hotel Management, Parth  Paramedical Institute, Sobhasaria Jankalyan Trust(Sobhasaria Group of Institutions) 

FOOD & BEVERAGE:-

1. Ultraapower Greenfield Botanical (Ultraapower Green Tea): The advertisement’s claims, “Increase blood cells” (Pomegranate Green Tea), “Dilute kidney stone” (Banana Stem Green Tea), “Produce more blood” (Beetroot Green Tea), “Cure eye sight” (Carrot Green Tea), “Strengthen bone” (Amla Green Tea), “Removes extra sodium/cholesterol From body” (Ginger/Garlic/Lemon Green Tea), “Improve memory power” (Centella Green Tea), “Strengthen nervous system” (Cumin Green Tea), “Cleans body cells” (Indian Copper leaf Green Tea), “Control diabetes” (Cinnamon Green Tea), “Increase immunity power” (Cloves Green Tea), “Control heart disease/diabetes” (Lemon blossom Green Tea), “Decrease joint pain/Rheumatics” (Veldt Grape Green Tea)”, were not substantiated with scientific rationale and / or clinical evidence of product efficacy.  Advertisement promoting a food product claiming benefits of therapeutic nature, was misleading by implication and exploits consumers’ lack of knowledge and is likely to result in widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers.

1. Saboo Sodium Chloro Limited (Surya Salt): The advertisement’s claim, “Has magnesium which gives relief in joints pain” and “Protects From acidity”, were not substantiated with evidence of product efficacy and are misleading by gross exaggeration.

1. Flipbald Health And Wellness – Flipbald Health & Wellness Products: The advertisement’s claims (in Hindi) as translated in English, “Increase your stayed weight upto 15 kilograms in few days”, testimonial claims, “To gain weight with guarantee and it has no side effects and because it is natural, it is effective immediately”, accompanied by FSSAI logo, were not substantiated with evidence of product efficacy and are misleading by exaggeration and implication that FSSAI has approved the product efficacy / claims made in the advertisement.