ASCI PROCESSES COMPLAINTS AGAINST 415 ADVERTISEMENTS, OF WHICH 373 WERE REGARDING MISLEADING CLAIMS

Mumbai, March 30, 2019: In December 2018 and January 2019, ASCI investigated complaints against 415 advertisements, of which the advertisers ensured corrective action for 125 advertisements as soon as they received the complaints from ASCI. ASCI’s Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) upheld complaints against 230 advertisements from a total of 290 advertisements evaluated by them. Of these 230 advertisements, 106 belonged to the education sector, 61 to the healthcare sector, 32 to the food & beverages sector, Nine to personal care, and 22 were from the ‘others’ category.

Among several advertisements that were examined, the CCC observed that in two separate cases renowned cricketers were endorsing liquor brands that did not meet the ASCI Guidelines for Qualification of Brand Extension of Product or Service. Additionally, a famous Bollywood celebrity was seen endorsing two face cream product variants of the same brand, both made absolute claims of removal of skin marks which were unsubstantiated and hence misleading. Advertisements for two hair oil brands featuring celebrities were also considered misleading. Claims regarding mosquito repellent product by a famous Bollywood celebrity and claims regarding an online pharmacy endorsed by a cricketer were considered to be unsubstantiated. These advertisements were in violation of ASCI Guidelines on Celebrities in Advertising.

A significant number of complaints looked into by the CCC pertained to Education sector arising out of Suo Motu surveillance activity by ASCI followed by Healthcare products and services. The most common reason for upholding complaints were unsubstantiated and exaggerated claims that exploit consumers’ lack of knowledge.

D. Shivakumar, Chairman, ASCI said, “Being a self-regulatory organisation in advertising, ASCI’s efforts have always been towards protecting the interest of consumers. In order to create mass consumer awareness about objectionable advertisements, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) issued an advisory for a scroller to be carried by all TV broadcasters in support of self-regulation for grievance against objectionable advertisements that refers to ASCI. With more and more TV channels carrying the ASCI WhatsApp number 77100 12345 in a scroller, there has been over a tenfold increase in consumers reaching out to ASCI. The impact of this scroller is evident from this consumer video testimonial (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_nkXkJJC1c ).”

EDUCATION: – Total of 106 advertisements complained against

• Direct Complaints (15 advertisements)

• Suo Moto Surveillance by ASCI (91 advertisements)

HEALTHCARE: – Total of 61 advertisements complained against

• Direct Complaints (Six advertisements)

• Suo Moto Surveillance by ASCI (55 advertisements)

FOOD AND BEVERAGES: – Total of 32 advertisements complained against

• Direct Complaints (17 advertisements)

• Suo Moto Surveillance by ASCI (15 advertisements)

PERSONAL CARE: – Total of Nine advertisements complained against

• Direct Complaints (Eight advertisements)

• Suo Moto Surveillance by ASCI (One advertisement)

OTHERS: – Total of 22 advertisements complained against

• Direct Complaints (13 advertisements)

• Suo Moto Surveillance by ASCI (Nine advertisements)

DIRECT COMPLAINTS

The advertisements given below were complained against by general public or by industry members. Of the 155 advertisements, 34 cases were informally resolved, meaning the advertisements were voluntarily withdrawn by the advertisers immediately post receiving the complaints. Complaints against 59 advertisements were upheld by the CCC. Of these 59 advertisements, 17 belonged to the Food & Beverages sector, 15 belonged to the Education sector, eight belonged to Personal Care sector, six belonged to Healthcare sector and 13 to the ‘Others’ category.

The following advertisements were in violation of ASCI’s Guidelines for Celebrities in Advertising. The advertisers did not provide any evidence to show that the celebrities did due diligence prior to lending their name to the endorsements, to ensure that all description, claims and comparisons made in the advertisement are capable of substantiation:

1. Allied Blenders and Distillers Pvt Ltd (Officers Choice Blue Snacks): In two advertisements, celebrity MS Dhoni was seen endorsing surrogate advertisements for the promotion of a liquor product – Officer’s Choice Blue. The advertisements are misleading by implication and contravened Chapters I.1, I.4 and III.6 (b) of the ASCI Code. Furthermore, the advertisements did not meet the requirements of the ASCI Guidelines for Qualification of Brand Extension Product or Service and thereby contravened Chapter III.6 (a) of the ASCI Code.

2. United Spirits Ltd (Royal Challenge Sports Drink): In the advertisement, famed cricketer Virat Kohli was seen pulling the emergency chain in a train. When the train stops, he says it is a bold move to pull the emergency chain. The advertisement is a surrogate advertisement for promotion of liquor product – Royal Challenge whisky. The advertisement is misleading by implication as it did not meet the requirements as per ASCI’s Guidelines for Qualification of Brand Extension of Product or Service and thereby contravened Chapter III.6 (a) of the ASCI Code. The advertiser also did not submit any testimonials, or evidence of celebrity’s consent for the claims.

3. Bajaj Corp Ltd (Bajaj Nomarks Ayurvedic Antimarks Cream): The advertisement’s claim, “No Nishaan” is an absolute claim and implies that the product delivers such results which will leave no mark on the skin under any condition irrespective of individual skin type, which was not substantiated as the study results did not support complete removal of marks. Additionally, the product claim of being “New” was not justified since it was only a change in packaging graphics and the disclaimer was also not on the same front panel, thus the product pack claim of “New” is misleading by ambiguity and implication. Additionally, the advertisement featuring celebrity Taapsee Pannu was found to violate the ASCI Guidelines for Celebrities in Advertising.

4. Bajaj Corp Ltd (Bajaj Nomarks Ayurvedic Antimarks Cream): The front panel of the product pack claims “NEW” but the disclaimer added on the back of the pack reads, i.e. “New Pack Graphics”, which is a violation of ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers. The advertisement featuring celebrity Taapsee Pannu was also found to violate the ASCI Guidelines for Celebrities in Advertising.

5. Marico Ltd (Hair and Care Fruit Oil): The advertisement’s claim, “Hair & Care Fruit Oil has nutrition of Olive and Vitamin E oil”, was inadequately substantiated and was misleading by implication as the Advertiser did not provide any evidence showing some measure of nutrition provided by the ingredients. The advertisement featuring celebrity Shraddha Kapoor was also found to violate the ASCI Guidelines for Celebrities in Advertising.

6. Dabur India Ltd (Dabur Amla Hair Oil): The advertisement’s claim “Asli Amla, Dabur Amla” was considered to be misleading by implication. Additionally, the advertisement makes reference to a green bottled ‘sadharan amla’ oil and claimed two times superiority compared to Nihar Shanti amla. Phrases like “Sasta amla, wo to sirf man ko shanti dene ke liye theek hai” are crafted to directly refer to “Shanti Amla” and an intent to point to “Shanti Amla”. Hence, the references to “Sasta Amla” and “Mann ki shanti” are misleading by implication. Reference to “Dugne majboot balon ke liye”, shows a hair roller dropping with hair breakage, this was not substantiated and the tests showed that the hair was not two times stronger. The advertisement also featured celebrity Kareena Kapoor Khan and violated the ASCI Guidelines for Celebrities in Advertising.

7. Mamaearth: The advertisement’s claim, “Jo mosquito repellent aapke baby ke liye istamal kar rahe hai, who machhar se jyada baby ke liye hanikarak hai”, was inadequately substantiated, and is misleading by implication, and unfairly denigrated the category of mosquito repellents. The claims, “Mamaearth’s Natural Mosquito Repellent, jo aapke baby ko de 100% Natural protection”, and “100% protection indoor as well as outdoor” were inadequately substantiated, and are misleading by ambiguity and implication. The advertisement with celebrity, Shilpa Shetty Kundra, was also found to violate the ASCI Guidelines for Celebrity in Advertising; the visual of the celebrity when seen in conjunction with the above claims is likely to mislead consumers regarding the product efficacy.

8. Netmeds Marketplace Limited: The advertisement’s claim, “The pharmacy with over 100 years of experience” was misleading and is likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers. The claim, “Trusted by three million+ Indians”, was not substantiated with any market survey data or with an independent third-party validation. The advertisement featuring celebrity MS Dhoni, was also found to violate the ASCI Guidelines for Celebrities in Advertising. It was concluded that the visual of the celebrity when seen in conjunction with the claims is likely to mislead consumers.

Food and Beverage

The CCC found claims of the following 15 advertisements in Food and Beverage products or services to be either misleading or not adequately/ scientifically substantiated; hence in violation of the ASCI Code. In few cases the advertiser did not provide copy of product label and Product composition details nor any data of the product that demonstrated the claimed benefits and in several cases it was observed that the advertisements exploit consumers’ lack of knowledge and are likely to lead to grave disappointment in the minds of consumers. Complaints against the following advertisements were upheld.

1. Jolly Healthcare (Jolly Organic Green Tea): The advertisement’s claims, “Improving Brain Function More Efficiently and Smartly”, “Helps in burning fat which increases the physical performance by approximately 12-13%.”, and “Lowers the risk of cancer”, were not substantiated with scientific rationale and / or evidence of product efficacy, and are misleading by exaggeration.

2. Jolly Healthcare (Jolly Organic Green Tea): The advertisement’s claims, “Lowers down the risk of old age problems”, “Lowers down the risk of diabetes”, and “Lowers down the risk of obesity”, were not substantiated with scientific rationale and / or clinical evidence of product efficacy, and are misleading by exaggeration.

3. Jolly Healthcare (Jolly Organic Green Tea): The advertisement’s claims, “Prevents heart disease”, “Increases the longevity of life”, and “Increases immunity”, were not substantiated with scientific rationale and / or clinical evidence of product efficacy, and are misleading by exaggeration.

4. Duncan Tea Ltd. (Double Diamond Green Tea Bags): The advertisement’s claims, “Ideal weight loss supplement” and “Protects skin from sun damage and slows down ageing process”, were not substantiated with scientific rationale and / or clinical evidence of product efficacy and are misleading by exaggeration.

5. Duncan Tea Ltd. (Double Diamond Green Tea Bags): The advertisement’s claims, “Treat everything from headache to depression”, “Increase energy level and mental alertness”, and “Inhibits growth of cancer cells and kills the cancer cells”, were not substantiated with scientific rationale and / or clinical evidence of product efficacy, and are misleading by exaggeration.

6. Duncan Tea Ltd. (Double Diamond Green Tea Bags): The advertisement’s claims, “Favourable effect on hypertension, LLD Cholesterol and blood sugar”, “Inhibits abnormal formation of blood clots”, and “Prevents tooth decay”, were not substantiated with scientific rationale and / or clinical evidence of product efficacy, and are misleading by exaggeration.

7. Kalm Foods LLP (Organic MATCHA Green Tea): The advertisement’s claim, “Lowers Cholesterol”, was not substantiated with scientific rationale and / or clinical evidence of product efficacy. The claim, “137X the antioxidants of normal green tea”, was not substantiated with supporting data. Both the claims were is misleading by exaggeration.

8. Kalm Foods LLP (Organic MATCHA Green Tea): The advertisement’s claim, “Improves memory and concentration”, “Promotes calm mind”, and “Boosts immune system”, were not substantiated with scientific rationale and / or clinical evidence of product efficacy, and are misleading by exaggeration.

9. Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd (Amul Milk): The advertisement’s claim “Fresh Har Pal”, was not substantiated, and is misleading by ambiguity. During the CCC, it was noted that the shelf life of pasteurised milk is limited and claiming it to be fresh always is misleading. The CCC also observed that the FSSAI regulations on Advertising and Claims also refer to such claims.

10. Planet Ayurveda (Detox Tea): The advertisement’s claims, “Prevents hair loss and premature greying of hair”, “Prevents wrinkles on the skin”, and “Clears clogged arteries and prevents further hardening of the arteries”, were not substantiated with scientific rationale and / or clinical evidence of product efficacy, and are misleading by exaggeration.

11. Planet Ayurveda (Detox Tea): The advertisement’s claims, “Prevents Ageing”, “This wonderful detox tea is rich in natural herbs which are very effective in cleansing the system and preventing tissue damage”, and “Regular consumption of this wonderful tasty herbal tea gives healthier skin, healthier internal organs”, were not substantiated with scientific rationale and / or evidence of product efficacy, and are misleading by exaggeration.

12. Istore Direct Trading LLP. (Urban Platter Gluten-Free Rolled Oats): The advertisement’s claim, “Gluten-Free”, was not substantiated with any test report for the product and hence is misleading. The product packaging and the website advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code.

13. United Oil Industries (Swarnam Gingelly Oil): The advertisement’s claim, “Only brand which has passed the GLC (Gas Liquid Chromatography) test”, was not substantiated with comparative technical data/test results for the advertiser’s product and other Sesame oil brands, to show that other oils do not pass the GLC test. The claim, “Omega 3 rich oil which is healthy for Skin and Blood pressure”, was not substantiated with scientific rationale, or clinical evidence for the advertised product.

14. Dhunseri Tea & Industries Limited: The advertisement’s claim, “Rajasthan’s most favourite tasty and strong tea”, implies that this product is preferred over all other tea brands, for which the advertiser did not provide any substantiation. The claim, “Completely safe and healthy tea for children”, was not substantiated, is misrepresentation of facts. The claim as well as depiction of young children shown in the advertisement is misleading.

15. Allied Blenders and Distillers Pvt. Ltd (Sterling Reserve Music CDs): The advertisement depicting the Sterling Reserve brand name is a surrogate advertisement for promotion of liquor product – Sterling Reserve whiskey. The advertiser did not provide in-store availability of the product which must be at least 10% of the leading brand in the category of the product. The advertisement contravened ASCI’s Guidelines for Qualification of Brand Extension of Product or Service.

Education

The CCC found claims in the advertisements by following four advertisers that were not substantiated and thus, in violation of ASCI Guidelines for Advertising for Educational Institutions. In few cases it was observed that the advertisements exploit consumers’ lack of knowledge and are likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers.

1. Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd- Bennett University: The advertisement’s claim, “100% placement for 2016-18 MBA class: 27 companies”, was not substantiated, and is misleading by omission. The claim, “Average CTC Rs. 7.8 lakhs per annum.”, was not substantiated with supporting evidence to prove that students were offered the claimed salary packages, and the calculation taking into account the entire class strength and the CTC per student to arrive at the average CTC figure.

2. WeMakeScholars: The advertisement’s claims, “WeMakeScholars in association with SBI”, “WeMakeScholars supported by IT Ministry, Government of India”, and “Under digital India campaign”, were not substantiated with supporting evidence of their tie-ups with the Government and are a case of misrepresentation. The claims are making unjustified use of the names of Government departments, Ministries and SBI.

3. Jaipuria Institute of Management: The advertisement’s claim, “Best Management College in India for Placement 2017 by CEGR”, was not adequately substantiated with details of the process as to how the selection for the award was done, i.e. survey methodology, details of survey data, criteria used for evaluation, questionnaires used, names of other similar institutes that were part of the survey and the outcome of the survey. The claim is not qualified to mention the source and is misleading by omission.

4. Galgotias University: The advertisement’s claim, “Best University Award for Academics and Placements consistently Year after year” was not substantiated with copy of the award certificates on year on year basis, details of the criteria for granting the awards, references of the awards received such as the year, source and category, and details of the awarding body. The source for the claim was not indicated in the advertisement.

Complaints against advertisements of 11 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.

Claims against Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham School of Business, Don Bosco Group of Institutions, Raipur Institute of Technology, VYASA Business School, IILM Institute, United World School of Business, Accurate Group of Institutions (Accurate Institute of Management & Technology), K.R. Mangalam University, Asia Pacific Institute of Management, IMM-FOSTIIMA Business School and IMS Business School.

Personal Care

The CCC found claims in the advertisements by following 6 advertisers to be unsubstantiated and likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers.

1. MARICO LTD – Nihar Naturals Shanti Amla Hair Oil: The advertisement’s claim “Zamana badal gaya hai aur aamla tel bhi” implies that the advertised product has changed in terms of formulation. The claim was misleading by ambiguity and implication.

2. R. G Marketing Pvt Ltd (Qraa Gold Illuminating Face Wash): The advertisement’s claims, “Nourished with the nectar of natural honey and gold dust, this face wash makes skin fresh, radiant and gives illuminating complexion”, “Enriched with Mulberry extracts, it provides an even skin tone and deep cleanses the pores leaving skin fresh and tingling”, and “The rich formula washes away tan and protects it from dryness”, specifying benefits, were not substantiated with product efficacy data and are misleading by exaggeration.

3. R. G Marketing Pvt Ltd (Qraa Underarm Cream): The advertisement’s claims, “Qraa Under Arm Whitening cream is the only product in current market that instead of hiding the darkness of underarms by leaving a white patch, treats the cause of darkness by reducing melanin from there”, “Its natural ingredients, Licorice extracts and Witch Hazel, reduce melanin production and soothes skin irritation to reveal fairer, whiter underarms”, “It has high quality natural herbal extracts that are proven to reduce rashes, mild pimples and dark spots from your underarm” and “Visible results can be seen within 10 days* of use”, were not substantiated, and are misleading. Moreover, the advertiser did not provide product composition details or relevant extracts of Ayurveda / herbal references for the ingredients with their prescribed benefits as per Ayurveda / herbal texts.

4. Iba Halal Care (Iba Hair Color): The advertisement’s claim “The only hair colour which takes care of your hair” did not provide evidence of the ingredients present in the product, nor any comparative data of the advertiser’s product with other hair colour products, to prove that except their product, all the other products lead to hair damage. Additionally, in the claim “Keeps hair strong”, the advertiser did not submit any scientific rationale for the claimed benefit, nor did the advertiser provide any product efficacy data specific to the benefits attributable to ingredients responsible for strengthening the hair.

5. Eli Pharmaceuticals/ Mediaid Healthcare Pvt. Ltd (Melas Alfa Cream): In the advertisement , the advertiser made assertions regarding their Melas Cream and Lotion product which are cosmetic by classification and did not submit any authentic and credible evidence of its production volume and sale. The CCC noticed that Melas Alfa Cream has certain ingredients (Mometsone, Tretinoin, Hydroquinone combination) due to which the said product is prohibited from advertising The advertisement was a surrogate advertisement for promotion of a product Melas Alfa Cream and is misleading by implication. Furthermore, the advertisement did not meet the requirements as per ASCI’s Guidelines for Qualification of Brand Extension of Product or Service and thereby contravened Chapter, III.6 (a) of the ASCI Code.

6. G.K. Burman Herbal (India) Private Limited (Himgange): The advertisement’s claim, “Made from precious herbs of Himalaya”, was not substantiated and is misleading by exaggeration as the advertiser did not provide product specific details such as composition/licence/pack artwork or samples, nor evidence of the ingredients being sourced from the Himalayas.

Healthcare

1. Johnson & Johnson Private Limited (Benadryl): The advertisement’s claim, “50 Years Doctor’s Trust” and Voice over claim, “Pachchaas saaloon se doctoron ka bharosa”, was inadequately substantiated and is misleading by ambiguity. The survey relied upon for the claim, was conducted in the year 2012, moreover the interviewed doctors had less than 20 years of clinical experience.

2. Dr. Wellmans Homoeopathic Laboratory India Pvt. Limited (Arnica Hair Oil): The advertisement’s claims, “Prevents hair fall and increases hair growth” and “It gives cooling to brain and better sleep”, were not substantiated with product efficacy data and are misleading.

3. Mohak Bariatrics and Robotics: The advertisement’s claim “But now with advanced treatments like Bariatric and Robotic Surgeries, obese people can lead a normal life”, was not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence as the advertiser did not provide clinical or scientific data to prove that treatment through bariatric surgery helps obese people lead normal lives even if they revert to their pre-surgery lifestyle. The claim, “As per international guidelines all those who have uncontrolled diabetes, despite all medical measures and have a Body Mass Index (BMI) greater than 28, can undergo this treatment”, was not substantiated with any published literature references.

Others

The CCC found most of the claims in the following 12 advertisements that were not substantiated, misleading by exaggeration and were likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers.

1. Make my trip India Private LTD (Make My Trip): The advertisement’s claim, “Zero cancellation offer” on hotel bookings under Makemytrip.com, was misleading by omission of a qualifier that the offer is subject to terms and conditions. In the TVC, the claim offer, “Zero cancellation charge on Hotel Bookings” was qualified via disclaimer to mention that T&C apply, however the position of the above disclaimer was not correctly placed in the advertisement, and contravened Clause IV of the ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers.

2. Pitambari Products Private Limited (Pitambari Dish wash Bar): In the website advertisement of Pitambari Dish wash Bar displayed “new” on the image of the image of the current pack offered for sale. On the advertisers YouTube channel the packaging in the commercial dated 2016 is the same as the website there is no visible change in the packaging. The advertiser also did not submit any evidence of the current product (on the website) being “New”. The claim contravened ASCI Guidelines on Validity & Duration of Claiming New / Improved.

3. ACC Limited (ACC Gold Water Shield): The advertisement’s claims, “Desh ka ekmatra cement jo ghar ko rakhe seelan se door”, and “Paani ki no entry”, were not substantiated, and are misleading by exaggeration. The advertiser did not provide technical data to prove that their water-repellent cement acts as a shield against water seepage. The advertiser also did not submit any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s product and other cement brands in India to prove that their product is the only one to have water repellent properties.

4. Keystone Realtors Pvt. Ltd (Rustomjee): The advertisement’s claim, “Kids who do better at school, solving problems and facing challenges have one important thing in common: Time with Dad”, is presented as a statement of fact which was not backed with any research data to prove that only children spending personal time with their fathers are good at school, and are able to solve their own problems. The said claim when seen in conjunction with a picture of a father and two kids on a seesaw slide implies that mothers / single mothers are not able to take proper care of kids, or that kids do not enjoy the company of their mothers. Hence, the claim was not substantiated and is misleading by implication.

5. Nextra Teleservices Pvt Ltd. (Nextraworld): The advertisement’s claim, “Speed 200 Megabits per second at exciting price of Rs 599”, was misleading and not substantiated as the advertiser did not provide any evidence of customers being offered the service.

6. Live (in) Pride (Live in Pride Underwear): In the advertisement, a young couple is shown getting intimate and they have to scramble when the girl’s parents arrive. The boy manages to run but leaves behind his underwear. The girl’s father deploys his dog to sniff the underwear left behind and then sniff the under wear of other boys too. The advertisement was considered to be repulsive and vulgar, which in the light of generally prevailing standards of decency is likely to cause grave and widespread offence.

7. Add Pens Private Limited (Add Achiever Gel Pen): The advertisement’s claim, “The world’s finest gel pen” was not substantiated with comparative data of the advertiser’s product and other gel pens of leading market players worldwide, for their product to be the finest, and is misleading by exaggeration and implication. The claim, “Non-dry now up to two years”, was not substantiated with supporting evidence that the ink of the advertiser’s gel pen has non-drying properties of up to two years, and is misleading by exaggeration.

8. RSPL Limited (Xpert Hygenic Dishwash Bar): The advertisement’s claim, “Five dino ka galan test percentage – maatra 28 percent galan hui (for expert) – 73 percent galan (for blurred product image implying Exo dishwash bar)”, was not substantiated, and unfairly denigrates the other product. The advertiser did not provide any explanation with regard to the details of the products being referred to in their communication nor any comparative data of tests conducted on their product and those of competition.

9. Furniture Garage: The advertisement’s claim, “India’s Largest Sofa Manufacturer now in Ahmedabad”, was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s manufacturing capacity with that of other sofa manufacturers in India, to prove that they are larger than the rest, or through a third party validation, and is misleading by exaggeration.

10. Independent TV Limited: The advertisement’s claims, “Off 500 free to air channels”, “Free Education channels for children”, and up to 500 FTA channels”, were not substantiated with supporting evidence, and are misleading by exaggeration.

11. ARG Outlier Media (Republic TV): The advertisement’s claim, “Desh Ka Number one channel,” was misleading by omission as the CCC noted that Republic TV is not Desh Ka No.1 channel, it is the leader only within the narrow confines of the English News genre. The advertisement also contravened BARC Guidelines of Fair & Permissible Usage, and Chapters I.2, I.3 and I.4 of the ASCI Code.

12. Ashoka News: The advertisement’s claim, “Ashoka News is India’s Fastest News App, was not substantiated with verifiable comparative data or any market survey data, or a third party validation.

SUO MOTO Surveillance by ASCI

The advertisements given below were picked up through ASCI’s Suo Moto surveillance of Print and TV media via the National Advertisement Monitoring Services (NAMS) project. Out of 263 advertisements that were picked, 91 cases were informally resolved meaning the advertisements were voluntarily withdrawn by the advertisers immediately post receiving the complaints. Of the 263 advertisements, complaints against 171 advertisements were upheld. Of these 171 advertisements, 91 belonged to the Education sector, 55 advertisements belonged to the Healthcare sector, 15 belonged to the Food & Beverages sector, one to Personal care and nine belonged to the ‘Others’ category.

Education

The CCC found that the claims in advertisements by following advertisers were unsubstantiated and thus, in violation of ASCI Guidelines for Advertising for Educational Institutions. The claims were found to be misleading by exaggeration / ambiguity / implication /omission and likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers.

1. The LNCT World School: The advertisement’s claim, “The most trusted brand of Madhya Pradesh”, was not substantiated with any supporting comparative data of the advertiser’s institute and other similar institutes in Madhya Pradesh or market survey data or through a third party validation

2. Omega Classes: The advertisement’s claim, “An Institute to provide most and best results in Western Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand”, was not substantiated with verifiable comparative data, or through an independent third party validation.

3. Birsa Institute of Technology (Trust) (BITT VR World School): The advertisement’s claim, “Awarded as the best start up school”, was not substantiated with copy of the award certificates, details of the criteria for granting the award, references of the awards received such as the year, source and category, and is misleading by omission of disclaimer to qualify the same.

4. Clat Path: The advertisement’s claim, “Eastern India’s Favourite CLAT Prep Platform”, was not substantiated with any market research data, or verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s institute and other similar institutes in Eastern India, to prove that it is preferred or is a favourite as compared to others, in providing coaching to their students for CLAT, or through a third party validation..

5. Dronacharya Civil Services Academy: The advertisement’s claim, “Central India’s most trusted academy”, was not substantiated with any market research data, or verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s institute and other similar institutes in Central India, to prove they are the most trusted, in providing coaching to their students for Civil Services.

6. Harshith Institute: The advertisement’s claim, “Institute which got state 1st rank in 2017 constables/SI”, was not substantiated with supporting data for the ranking claimed. The claim, “The institute which made thousands as government officers”, was not substantiated with supporting data of the students who were provided with government jobs and recruited as government officers after the completion of their training programs.

7. Chinmaya Vishwavidyapeeth: The advertisement’s claim, “Deemed to be University”, in the TVC was misleading by ambiguity and implication, as more prominence was given to the word “University” and there appeared to be an attempt to downplay the words “Deemed to be” in terms of font size, colour and weightage.

8. Institute of Health Management Research (IIHMR University): The advertisement’s claims, “Awarded Best University for Promoting Research” and “Best University for Healthcare Management”, were not substantiated with details of survey methodology, details of survey data, criteria used for evaluation, questionnaires used, names of other similar institutes that were part of the survey and outcome of the survey, and were considered to be misleading by ambiguity and implication. The claims are not qualified to mention the source and date of research and are misleading by omission.

9. Sri Sai Guru Raghavendra Banking Coaching Centre: The advertisement’s claim, “The Leader in Banking Coaching”, was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s coaching centre and other similar coaching institutes, to prove that it is the leader in providing coaching in bank courses, or through a third party validation.

10. Shemrock Group of Preschools (Shemrock Tiny Stars): The advertisement’s claim, “India’s first play school chain”, was not adequately substantiated with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s play school chain and other play school chains in India, to prove that they were the first or through an audited report or third-party validation.

11. Extramarks Coaching Centre: The advertisement’s claim “India’s most preferred ed-tech for Foundation, Medical & JEE” was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data / market survey data of the advertiser’s coaching centre and similar coaching centres in India, to prove that they are more preferred as compared to others. The claim “One crore plus students” was not substantiated with authentic supporting evidence or with an independent audit or verification certificate.

Complaints against advertisements of 80 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.

Institute for Design of Electrical Measuring Instruments, Mimos Child Care, MIET Group of Institutions-Meerut Institute of Technology, Nikhileshwar Institute of Banking & Management, Preface Institute, Sanjeevani Group of Institutions, National Institute of Industrial Engineering, Rooman Technologies Pvt Ltd-Rooman Technologies, Shobhit University Kunwar Shekhar Vijendra Ayurved Medical College, Vanik Coaching, Winner Institute for Banking, Winner’s Academy, Desh Bhagat University, Desh Bhagat University, Grace College, Joy Paramedical Institute (Joy Vocational Junior College), Maharashtra Career Point, Mentors Eduserv, P T Reddy IAS Study Circle, Nuyu Training Centre, Sainik Defence Academy, Snowflakes Academy, St Mother Teressa School of Nursing, KC Academy, St Wilfred Education Society, Highflyer Coaching Centre, Information Technology Promotion Centre (ITPC), B.P.Marine Academy, Dev Institute, Gyanasthali Vidyalaya Senior Secondary School, Skill Ventures Pvt Ltd- Inskills, Kalrashukla Classes, Kangaroo Kids Education Ltd Billabong High International School, Amigos Solutions, Vivekananda Polytechnic College, Nova Group of Institutions, Institute of Taxation & Accounting Professionals, Shri Jagdishprasad Jhabarmal Tibrewala University, ICS Coaching Centre, Career Power, Andhra Defence Academy, Hindustan Soft Education Ltd Oxford Software Institute, Institute of Health Management Research (IIHMR University), Speed Jet Aviation, Sri Maniya International Hotel Management, Everest Career Academy, Om Muruga Educational Trust (Muruga Polytechnic College), Rainbow International School, S-TEK IT Education, SANFORT, Sathya IAS Academy, Winners Education, Image Infotainment Ltd (Image Creative Education), The Academy of Nursing Sciences and Hospital (A.N.S.H. College), Alpha College of Engineering & Technology, Balaji Institute of Management Science, Ryan International Group of Institutions, National Institute of Health Education & Research (NIHER), Innocent Hearts Group of Institutions, Airport Aviation Academy, Vikram College of Nursing, Delhi Public School, Delhi Public School, Masterprep Education Ltd, Scott Institute, Annai Veilankanni’s Educational & Cultural Society Annai Veilankanni’s Paramedical College, Chandragupt Institute of Management Patna, Dr. C.V. Raman University, Panipat Institute of Engineering & Technology, , Pinnacle Institute of Fashion Technology, Sushila Group of Institutions, Swift Group of Colleges, Takshashila College of Nursing, Vijaya International School, Adarsha Coaching Centre, Dhyeya IAS, Gyanguru Viddhyapith, Jabalpur Institute of Computer Science, Our Gurukul, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham and Scius Systems- Shaktimaan Institute for Film & Television.

Healthcare

Complaints against the advertisements listed below are UPHELD primarily due to unsubstantiated claims that exploit consumers’ lack of knowledge and lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers.

1. Bloom Fertility Centre: The advertisement’s claim, “Have given successful treatment to 90% couples without IVF”, was not substantiated with any authentic and credible data. The claim was considered to be misleading by exaggeration.

2. Amar Hospital Amar Ayurveda: The advertisement’s claim, “Permanent assured cure”, was not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence, or with treatment efficacy data, and considered to be misleading by gross exaggeration.

3. Jolly Health Care (Jolly Tulsi 51 Drops): The advertisement’s claim, “Clinically certified best brand”, was inadequately substantiated (with authentic reports) and considered to be misleading by exaggeration.

4. Vijayan’s Yoga Meditation Centre: The advertisement’s claim, “Lose weight 15-25 kgs in 3 months”, was not substantiated and considered to be misleading by exaggeration.

5. SPD Fitness & Healthcare: The advertisement’s claims, “Reduce excess fat easily without any medicine/ diet or operation”, “Permanent fat loss”, and “Have successfully provided shapely body to thousands by technology” were not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence or with treatment efficacy data.

6. NIMS Heart Foundation: The advertisement’s claim, “The prime heart care centre in South Kerala with the highest success rate” was not substantiated with supporting data, or any third-party validation.

7. Navjeevan Speech and Hearing Clinic: The advertisement’s claim, “Best Clinic in Amritsar” was not substantiated with any market survey data or verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s clinic and other similar clinics in Amritsar, to prove that they are better than the rest, or through an independent third party validation.

8. Dr Paul’s Leucoderma Centre: The advertisement’s claim, “The most effective way to treat white patches” was not adequately substantiated as there was no date submitted to suggest that a particular treatment modality for vitiligo is more / most effective.

9. Rudraksh Naturopathy Clinic: The advertisement’s claims, “After treatment of 21 days, gallstone has been completely removed” and “Remove gallstone and kidney stone without operation only in Rudraksh Naturopathy”, were not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence, and considered to be misleading by gross exaggeration.

10. Jiva Ayurveda Clinic: The advertisement’s claim “Trust of one crore patients” was not substantiated with any market survey data or through an independent third-party validation. The claim “Get treatment to remove your problems from the roots” was not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence.

11. Homeocare International Pvt. Ltd: The advertisement’s claim, “Curing thyroid since generations”, was not substantiated with supporting evidence and is misleading by gross exaggeration. The claim, “The world’s greatest brand award in Dubai” was not substantiated with copy of the award certificates, details of the awarding body, survey methodology, details of survey data, criteria used for evaluation, questionnaires used, names of other similar institutes that were part of the survey and the outcome of the survey and considered to be misleading by omission of disclaimer to qualify the same.

12. 24 Carat Natural Oil: The advertisement’s claim “Protect from 80 types of diseases arising from air and heart attack, B.P, Diabetes, Cancer, wear & tear of joints” was not substantiated with scientific rationale, or clinical evidence for the advertised product. The CCC also expressed its concern for promotion of this food product with therapeutic claims.

13. Mallia & Derma: The advertisement’s claim, “India’s No.1 clinical brand”, was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s clinical brand and other similar brands in India, to prove its leadership position (No.1) in providing treatment for hair and skin problems, or through a third-party validation. The source for the claim was not indicated in the advertisement. The claim, “Received title of “The best clinical testimonies” in hair and skin treatment”, was not substantiated with copy of the award certificates, details of the criteria for granting the award, references of the award received such as the year, source and category, and details about the awarding body.

14. Hair Science Dr Anjali Shere: The advertisement’s claim, “India’s No.1 Hair Restoration Experts” was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data of the experts from advertiser’s clinic and those from other hair treatment clinics in India, to prove that their hair experts are No.1 in treating hair problems, or through an independent third-party validation.

15. Arganshe Pvt Ltd (Bioayurveda Range of Products): The advertisement’s claim, “100% organic and botanical blends inspired by Ayurveda,” was not substantiated with Product approval license, product label, Product composition details, and any organic certification for the products listed in the advertisement, and considered to be misleading by exaggeration.

16. Dr. Batra’s Positive Health Clinic (Geno Homeopathy): The advertisement’s claim, “New STM which is one inventive hair growth treatment from France”, was not substantiated with any details of the STM Cell treatment procedure based on French technology, and considered to be misleading by exaggeration.

17. Vibgyor Clinic: The advertisement’s claims, “Get rid of alcohol without knowledge of person” and “Get freedom from addictions like smake, tobacco, Benadryl), cigarette, tablets, capsules and gutkha” were not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence, and considered to be misleading by gross exaggeration.

18. Unique Drugs Laboratories India (FST 5 DS Syrup): The advertisement’s claims, “End from roots with the intake of four to five bottles” and “Get rid of all problems of piles, and prevents from reoccurrence”, were not substantiated with product efficacy data, and considered to be misleading by gross exaggeration.

19. Unique Drugs Laboratories India (FST 5 DS Syrup and Capsule): The advertisement’s claim “Trustworthy and reliable” when seen in conjunction with the headline indicating that Operation can be avoided for piles, was not substantiated with proof of product efficacy, and considered to be misleading by exaggeration.

20. Prince Pharma (2Much Gold Capsules): The advertisement’s claim, “Best formulated herbs which remove all types of weaknesses as mentioned in Ayurveda”, was not substantiated with product specific details such as composition / licence / pack artwork, nor any relevant extracts of ayurvedic references from Classical Books and any comparison to prove that their products are the best, and considered to be misleading by gross exaggeration.

21. Naik Homoeopathy: The advertisement’s claim, “One treatment for many diseases without surgery, without side effects”, and the testimonial claim of the patient (Mohan) claiming cure for problems in Kidney “Maajhi kidney bari jhali” was not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence, and considered to be misleading by gross exaggeration.

22. Naik Homoeopathy: The advertisement’s claim, (in Marathi) “Maajha Cirrhosis of liver bara jhala” (“My cirrhosis of liver was cured”), was not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence, and considered to be misleading by gross exaggeration.

23. Naik Homoeopathy: The advertisement’s claim, (in Marathi) of the patient (Ms. Vidya), “Mhaja Thyroid, Migraine, Obesity cha trass bara jhala” (“My thyroid, migraine & Obesity was cured”), was not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence, and considered to be misleading by gross exaggeration.

24. Deemark Healthcare Pvt Ltd (Deemark Ortho Balm): The reference made to Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), a Government Institution, by claiming “Bharat Sarkar ki Sanstha CSIR NEIST ke formulation se tayaar Deemark Ortho Balm” and “CSIR NEIST Bharat Sarkar ka vishwaas” poses a potential risk of encouraging consumers to believe that the advertised balm is approved by the Government. The advertisement was misleading by implication.

25. Shree Baidyanath Ayurved (BhawanBaidyanath Chyavanprash): The advertisement’s claims, “Sharir aur dimag ki sampoorna suraksha” (“Best, complete protection of body and mind/brain”) and “Sarvashresth parivarik aushadi” (“Best family medicine”) were superlative and were not substantiated with product efficacy data and comparison with other similar products to prove its superiority, and are misleading by exaggeration.

26. Sai Pathology Clinic: The advertisement’s claim, “The Best Pathology Clinic of Varanasi.”, was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s pathology clinic and other pathology clinics in Varanasi, to prove their superiority, or through a third party validation.

27. Asian Speech & Hearing Clinic: The advertisement’s claim, “World’s best hearing aid machine”, was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data worldwide of the advertiser’s product and other hearing aid brands, to prove that their product is better than the rest, or through a third-party validation.

28. Iswarya Fertility Center: The advertisement’s claim, “Asia’s Best Fertility Centre Award 2017”, was not substantiated with copy of the award certificate, details of the criteria for granting the award, references of the awards received such as the source and category, and is misleading by omission of a disclaimer to qualify this claim.

29. Caram Healthcare India Pvt Ltd (Dia Medical): The advertisement’s claim, “Permission Obtained by the Dept. of Ayush” was not substantiated. The claim, “The best and the safest remedy in diabetes”, was not substantiated with product specific details such as composition / licence / pack artwork or samples, nor any evidence of product efficacy and is misleading by gross exaggeration.

30. Shubham Homeo Clinic: The advertisement’s claim, “Fistula – Cure for this is possible through homeopathic treatment method”, was not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence and is misleading by gross exaggeration.

31. Herbal Healthcare: The advertisement’s claims “Complete freedom from alcoholism.” and “Can forget alcoholism totally.” were not substantiated with evidence of product efficacy, nor did the advertiser provide any details of the treatment procedure, or any details regarding the medicines and their approval status by the regulatory authorities. The claims are hence considered to be misleading by gross exaggeration.

The following advertisements were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of The Drugs & Magic Remedies (DMR) Act when the advertisement was viewed in totality with the texts and visuals:

Food and Beverage

Complaints against the advertisements listed below are UPHELD mainly because of unsubstantiated claims that are misleading by exaggeration, exploit consumers’ lack of knowledge and lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers.

1. Gujarat Tea Processors & Packers Ltd (Wagh Bakri Premium Leaf Tea): The advertisement’s claim, “Preferred taste in over 40 countries” was not substantiated with other verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s tea brand and other leading tea brands to prove that it was preferred for taste over other tea brands, or through a third party validation.

2. O’leche Dairy Farms Pvt. Ltd (O’leche Cow Milk): The print advertisement shows an FSSAI logo in a non-standard format implying that it is an endorsement from FSSAI. The symbol of FSSAI logo did not contain their license number on the principal display panel in the format as suggested in the FSSAI Advisory. The improper use of FSSAI logo was misleading by implication and was also in violation of the FSSAI advisory.

3. Krishndev Dairy Farm (A2 Gir Cow Milk): The advertisement’s claims, “Gives protection against diseases like thyroid, diabetes, cholesterol, high blood pressure, etc”, “Provides relief from acidity and pain in joints”, “Cerebroside element present in it increases mental power by removing tension depression & insomnia”, and “Anti-oxidants glutathione element in A2 milk gives strength to fight against incurable cancer” were not substantiated with data relating to any scientific rationale or published literature references to support the claimed benefits and hence were considered to be misleading by exaggeration

4. Cothas Coffee Company-Cothas Coffee: The advertisement’s claims, “Kannada State’s No.1” and “Most preferred and trusted”, were not substantiated with verifiable comparative data / market survey data, of the advertiser’s product and other coffee brands in Karnataka, or through a third party validation.

5. GreenFizz Beverages Pvt. Ltd. (Fly Up Cola): The advertisement’s claims, “Loaded with natural goodness of real fruit juice” and “totally free of artificial sweeteners, which means it can be consumed by all”, were not substantiated with product label, and Product composition details and were considered to be misleading by exaggeration.

6. Sabu Trade Pvt Ltd (Sachchasabu Sabudana): The advertisement’s claim, “India’s most favourite agmark Sabudana”, implies that the advertiser’s product is preferred over other sabudana brands in India, for which the advertiser did not provide any verifiable comparative data / market survey data, nor a third party validation. The source for the claim was not indicated in the advertisement.

7. Jain Oil Industries- (Camel Active GN Oil): The advertisement’s claim, “The only oil which is made by natural process, is chemical free and double filtered”, was not substantiated with any comparative data of the advertiser’s product and other groundnut oil brands, to prove that their product is the only oil to be made by natural process and is without chemicals. The claim is misleading by implication that no other oils are made by natural process and other oils have chemicals which are harmful.

8. Yours Forever Organic – Yours Forever Organic Products: The advertisement’s claim, “100% certified organic food & wellness products” was not substantiated with evidence that the products are qualified as organic by a Certifying body and hence the claim is misleading by exaggeration.

9. Mallekan Dairy and Agro Pvt Ltd/ Dairylac-A2 Desi Cow Milk: The advertisement’s claims, “Switch to A2 milk today! Protect your family from diseases”, and “Prevents Diseases – Diabetes Type-1 and Heart related issues”, were not substantiated and are misleading by exaggeration as the advertiser did not provide copy of product label, copy of Product approval license, or FSSAI approval for the claims made.

10. Lalchand Food Products Pvt Ltd (Siyaram Food Product Range): The advertisement’s claim, “Diabetic friendly Atta without wheat”, was inadequately substantiated. The advertiser did not submit test report that the product has low Glycaemic Index, and neither did they provide a complete quantified list of all added ingredients size. It was observed that glycemic load of any food also depends of the quantity in which it is consumed hence the claim was considered misleading.

11. Ultrapower Greenfield Botanical (Ultrapower Green Tea): The advertisement’s claims “Drink ultrapower green tea for healthy living” and “Avoid diseases like cancer, diabetes, blood pressure, heart disease, obesity”, were not substantiated with scientific rationale and/or clinical evidence of product efficacy, and are misleading by gross exaggeration.

12. G. K. Tobacco Industries Pvt Ltd (Zafri Pan Masala): The advertisement’s claim, “No. 1 Pan Masala” was not substantiated with verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s product and other pan masala brands, to prove that it is in leadership position (No.1), or through an independent third-party validation. The source for the claim was not mentioned in the advertisement.

13. Go Naturel Range of Products: The advertisement’s claim, “Strengthen the immune system”, was not substantiated with clinical evidence of product efficacy, and is misleading by exaggeration.

14. Anand Masala Factory (AP Products): The symbol of FSSAI logo in the advertisement did not contain their License number on the principal display panel in the format as suggested in the FSSAI Advisory. The improper use of FSSAI logo was misleading by implication that the product has been tested/approved/endorsed by FSSAI, and was also in violation of the FSSAI advisory.

15. Jivo Wellness Pvt Ltd (Jivo Canola Oil): The advertisement’s claim, “India’s first chemical free canola oil”, (“Bharat ka pehla chemical free canola tel”) was not substantiated with any comparative data of the advertiser’s product and other cold press oils / refined oils in India, to prove that their product is the first of its kind in India to be chemical free. The claim is misleading by implication that other oils have chemicals.

Personal Care

1. Shree Sanjeevan Wellness Solutions (Pure element Cucumber Green Tea Ultralight SPF 50): In the advertisement, the pack claim shown regarding Sun Protection Factor value “SPF 50”, was not conclusively established for the finished product. The claim is misleading by ambiguity and exaggeration.

Others

1. Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited (MI A2): In the Xiaomi advertisement, the hold duration of disclaimers in the TVC “Free unlimited photo storage” was not for four seconds or more on the screen. The purpose of a disclaimer is to help a consumer to understand the claim and if an important claim is qualified, adequate time needs to be provided for a consumer to read, decipher and correlate the disclaimer. The claim contravened Clause 4 (X) of ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers.

2. Indigo Paints Pvt. Ltd (Indigo Dirtproof & Waterproof Exterior Laminate): The advertisement’s claim of being “the first in India to introduce dust and water resistant properties” (voiceover claim, “India ka pehla paint jo dhool mittee aur paani dono ko roke” was not conclusively proven. The advertiser did not provide any test conducted on their finished product, or any comparative data of their product versus other products in the same category, to prove their product being India’s first to offer these dual benefits and hence the claim is misleading by exaggeration.

3. Silo Sewing Machine: The advertisement’s claim, “No. 1” was not substantiated with verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s product and other manufacturers of sewing machines, to prove that it is in leadership position (No.1), or through an independent third party validation.

4. The Citizen Urban Co-operative Bank Limited: The advertisement’s claim, “No.1 Urban Co-op Bank of North Zone” was not substantiated with verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s bank and other banks in North Zone, to prove that it is in leadership position (No.1), or through a third-party validation. The source for the claim was not indicated in the advertisement. The claim is misleading by exaggeration.

5. Calvin Home Appliances: The advertisement’s claim, “India’s No.1 Auto Clean & Maintenance Free Chimney”, was not substantiated with verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s product and other kitchen chimneys in India, to prove that it is in leadership position (No.1), or through a third party validation. It was not clear how the Chimney was “maintenance free” and had “auto-clean” feature. The claim is misleading by exaggeration and implication.

6. Navdeep Atta Master: The claim “No 1” made by the advertiser is superlative in nature claiming leadership position; the claim was not substantiated with verifiable comparative data or market survey data, of the advertiser’s product and other Atta maker brands, or through a third-party validation. The claim is misleading by exaggeration and implication.

7. Amara Raja Batteries Limited-Ret Amaron Range: The advertisement’s claim, “U.P.’s most reliable and RTO approved retro fitment centre” was not substantiated with verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s centre and other retro fitment centres in Uttar Pradesh, to prove that others are not as reliable as implied in the claim, with supporting evidence of approval by RTO, or through a third-party validation; the claim was considered to be misleading by exaggeration

8. Supreme Solar Projects Private Limited (Supreme Solar Water Heater): The advertisement’s claim, “India’s Leading Solar Manufacturer”, was considered misleading by exaggeration as it was not substantiated with verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s solar heater capacity and capacity of other manufacturers of solar water heaters, or through a third-party validation.

9. City Corporation Ltd / Amanora Gold Towers: The advertisement’s claims, “The most awarded township in the country” and “281 prestigious awards”, were not substantiated with copy of the award certificates, details of the criteria for granting the awards, references of the awards received such as the year, source and category, and are misleading by omission of disclaimer to qualify these claims. Furthermore, the advertiser did not provide any verifiable comparative data to prove that the advertiser’s township won more awards than any other township in India, or through a third-party validation.

About The Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI)

The Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI), established in 1985, is committed to the cause of self- regulation in advertising ensuring the protection of the interest of consumers. ASCI seeks to ensure that advertisements conform to its Code for Self-Regulation, which requires advertisements to be legal, decent, honest and truthful and not hazardous or harmful while observing fairness in competition. ASCI looks into complaints across ALL MEDIA such as Print, TV, Radio, hoardings, SMS, Emailers, Internet / web-site, product packaging, brochures, promotional material and point of sale material etc. ASCI’s role has been acclaimed by various Government bodies including The Department of Consumer Affairs (DoCA), Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), Ministry of AYUSH as well as the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. The association with these Government bodies is to co-regulate and curb misleading and objectionable advertisements in the respective sectors. In January 2017, the Supreme Court of India in its judgement has also affirmed and recognized the self-regulatory mechanism as an effective pre-emptive step to statutory provisions in the sphere of advertising content regulation for TV and Radio in India. ASCI is a part of the Executive Committee of International Council on Ad Self-Regulation (ICAS). Among several awards bestowed by the European Advertising Standards Alliance (EASA), ASCI bagged two Gold Global Best Practice Awards for the Mobile App “ASCIonline” (2016) and for reducing the time taken to process complaints (2013).

(Source: www.ascionline.org)