MxMIndia

Tag: Consumer Complaints Council

  • Out of the total 89 advertisements against which complaints were upheld, 24 belonged to the healthcare sector

    ASCI upholds complaints against 89 erring ads for April 2018

    By A Correspondent

     

    In April 2018, ASCI’s Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) upheld complaints against 89 advertisements of the total of 162 advertisements that were evaluated by the CCC.

     

    Out of the total 89 advertisements against which complaints were upheld, 24 belonged to the healthcare sector, 34 to the education sector, 20 to the food & beverages category,  two to the  personal care and nine were from the others category. A total of 101 advertisements were picked up by ASCI’s suo moto surveillance, wherein 31 cases were informally resolved as advertisements were voluntarily withdrawn and objections against 68 advertisements were upheld. Of the 61 advertisements complained against by the general public or by industry members, 12 cases were informally resolved wherein the advertisements were voluntarily withdrawn and complaints against 21 advertisements were upheld by the CCC.

     

    Exaggeration of product efficacy was the number one reason for upholding complaints. The other reasons included providing facts and figures which were inadequate to substantiate claims, exploiting consumers’ lack of knowledge, claims which were misleading by gross exaggeration and delivering advertisements which were misleading by ambiguity or by implication. This was followed by violations of the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act (DMR Act) and the Drugs and Cosmetics (D&C) Rules and advertisements which contravened various ASCI guidelines.

     

    Among the various complaints against advertisements, the CCC observed that a popular smartphone company was found to unethically attract customers by claiming the biggest sale ever in the history of India. Several advertisements used logos of AYUSH or FSSAI in their communication which 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 implication that Ministry of AYUSH or FSSAI has approved the product efficacy / claims made in the advertisement.

     

    Said Shweta Purandare, ASCI Secretary General: “ASCI’s work in monitoring Print and TV advertisements for AYUSH sector has also been recognised by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health & Family Welfare. The committee was of the view that collaborative efforts of the ministry, along with the DoCA, MIB and State Governments, have certainly given results as misleading advertisements with respect to AYUSH drugs which have been unregulated so far have been controlled to an extent. ASCI’s inclusion in the AYUSH’s empowered committee earlier this year is a reflection of regulators’ recognition of ASCI’s consistent efforts to curb misleading advertisements.”

  • A total of 187 advertisements were picked up by ASCI’s suo moto surveillance and objections

    ASCI pulls up 193 erring ads for Feb 2018

    By A Correspondent

     

    In February 2018, the Advertising Standards Council of Indias 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. Of the total 193 advertisements against which complaints were upheld, 154  belonged to healthcare sector, 18 to education sector, eight to the food & beverages category, two to personal care and 11 were 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.

     

    Abanti Sankaranarayanan

    ‘’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

     

     

  • Of the 51 ads against which complaints were upheld, 16 belonged to the Personal and Healthcare category, followed by 19 in the Education category, 5 in Telecommunication and Broadband category and 11 from other categories

    ASCI upholds complaints against 51 of 98 ads in Oct 2015

    By A Correspondent

     

    In October 2015, ASCI’s Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) upheld complaints against 51 out of 98 advertisements. Of the 51 advertisements against which complaints were upheld, 16 belonged to the Personal and Healthcare category, followed by 19 advertisements in the Education category, 5 in Telecommunication and Broadband category and 11 advertisements from other categories.

     

    HEALTH AND PERSONAL CARE

    The CCC found the following claims in health and personal care product or service advertisements of 15 advertisers to be either misleading or false or not adequately / scientifically substantiated and hence violating ASCI’s Code. Some of the health care products or services 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. Procter & Gamble Home Products Ltd. (Pantene Shampoo): The claim of “New” in the advertisement of Pantene Shampoo is not qualified as per the ASCI Guidelines to elaborate that this refers to product upgrade. Thus, it was concluded that the advertisement is misleading by omission of this disclaimer.

     

    2. Colgate-Palmolive (India) Ltd. (Colgate Sensitive Pro-Relief Enamel Repair): It was concluded that the advertisement’s claim in the voice over of “enamel repair” as well as the visual representation which indicate that the tooth enamel is restored to its original condition or is re-built, was not substantiated.

     

    3. Novartis India Limited (Otrivin Nasal Spray): Otrivin is an OTC product containing Xylometazoline which could cause Atrophic Rhinitis if not used as directed. Aggressive advertising without providing information about the caution to be exercised can promote indiscriminate use of the product among the general public. It was noted that the package insert of the product has necessary caution statements; however, reference to any usage indication is absent in the advertisement. It was concluded that in the absence of a disclaimer, the TVC shows an unsafe practice without justifiable reason and encourages negligence.

     

    4. Dabur India Limited (Dabur Odomos Mosquito Repellant): The claim in the advertisement, “It is clinically proven that Odomos offers the most effective outdoor defence against mosquitoes for as long as 12 hours”, that is presented in the context of protection of Dengue mosquitoes was not substantiated adequately.

     

    5. Patanjali Ayurved Ltd (Patanjali Kesh Kanti): The claims in the advertisement, “World’s No.1 Ayurvedic Brand” and “100% charity from Profits” were not substantiated.

     

    6. Patanjali Ayurved Ltd (Patanjali Dant Kanti): The claims “World’s No.1 Ayurvedic Brand”, also the claimed benefits of the ingredients (such as Akarakara, Tumburu, Babool, Vajradanti, Majuphal, Margosa/Neem, Vidang, Turmeric, Clove, Mint, Pippali, Bakul, and Peeloo,) and “100% charity from Profits”, were not substantiated and were misleading.

     

    7.      Apollo Pharmacy (Free home delivery service): It was concluded that the claim, “Free Home delivery service”, is misleading by omission of a disclaimer qualifying the conditions under which the claim is tenable.

     

    8.      Dr. Ved Vyas Mishra (Treatment for Various ailments):  It was concluded that the claims in the advertisement, “Complete safe treatment through Homeopathy medicine”, “guaranteed treatment through Homeopathic medicines for Piles, Skin, Impotency, Infertility, Kidney stone, Migraine, Blood Pressure, Hair falling, Pimples, Gas acidity, weight loss etc”, were not substantiated. Specific to the claims related to guaranteed treatment for impotency, infertility, kidney stone and blood pressure, the advertisement is in breach of the law as it violates The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act.   Also, specific to the claims related to treatment for piles, the advertisement is in breach of the law as it violates Schedule J of The Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940 and Rules, 1945.

     

    9.      Sanjay (Ayurvedic Pvt Ltd – Ghuti +) Baljiwan Pharmacy: The claim in the advertisement, “Continuous service for the last 102 years”, was not substantiated.

     

    10.  Glamour World Ayurvedic Co Pvt Ltd (Rocket Capsules): The claims in the advertisement, “With the magic of Rocket anyone can stand up today”, “One would feel the effect in three days” and “Men and women can enjoy the benefits of this medicine till seventy years of age”, were not substantiated with product efficacy data or approval from the licensing authority. Also, the claims read in conjunction with the visual imply that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure, which is in breach of the law.

     

    11.  MK Agrotech Private Ltd. (Sunpure Refined Sunflower Oil): The claim in the advertisement which states, “India’s first chemical free processed sunflower oil with no harmful additives / preservatives” was considered to be misleading by implication. The advertisement unfairly denigrates oils undergoing regular processing. Also, the claim, “Rich with Natural vitamins”, was not substantiated. In addition no analytical test reports have been submitted to substantiate the claims of “Fresh”; “Healthy”; “all natural”; “natural vitamins”.

     

    12.  Vibes Healthcare Limited (Vibes Weight Loss Assurance): The claim in the advertisement, “Vibes weight loss assurance” was not substantiated.

     

    13.  Dr. Gupta’s Clinic: The claim in the Advertisement, “Dr Guptas Clinic is the country’s No.1 sexual disease treatment center”, was not substantiated.

     

    14.  Raghav Lifestyle Products (Ajay Toothpaste): The claims on the pack of the product which state, “5x clove power vs. non clove toothpaste”, “Superior cavity protection”, “Advanced formulation”, “Complete natural protection”, were not substantiated and were misleading in nature.

     

    15.  The Bodycare: The claim in the advertisement, “Get Services worth Rs.5000 for Rs.49 only”, was found to be false and misleading by omission of a disclaimer qualifying the conditions under which this claim is tenable.

     

    16.  Ayurwin Pharma Pvt. Ltd. (Nutrislim): The advertisement shows “a man refusing to take his wife to official party because she is fat” and implies that only slim women are considered to be beautiful, derides women and is derogatory especially for women who are overweight.

     

    EDUCATION

    The CCC found that claims in the 19 advertisements were not substantiated and, thus, violated ASCI Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions. Hence complaints against these advertisements were UPHELD.

    1.      Byju Classes (GRE Coaching): The claims in the advertisement, “Why is success guaranteed in GRE with Mumbai’s top GRE coaching classes – BYJU’S classes?”, “60 sec is what you need to crack any verbal question using our Mathematical Approach”, “Best Teacher & comprehensive course content” and “70% of our students cross 320 in GRE with our courses”, were not substantiated.

     

    2.      Byju Classes (CAT Coaching): The claims in the advertisement, “Bell the CAT with India’s No.1 CAT Trainers”, “2000 students attend BYJU’s Classes together in a single batch in single center – making it India’s Biggest Classroom” and “Byju Raveendran serial CAT topper & No. 1 trainer for the CAT”,  were not substantiated.

     

    3.      Byju Classes (GMAT Coaching Classes): The claims in the advertisement, “70% of our students have a score of 700+ in GMAT”, “60 sec is what you need to crack any GMAT verbal question using our Patented Mathematical Approach”, “760 is the minimum GMAT score of our trainers” and “We are exclusive education partner with Samsung, The Times of India, The Hindu”, were not substantiated with evidence.

     

    4.      Byju Classes:  The claims in the advertisement, “Best CAT Coaching Institute in India”, “GMAT Topper”, “Unique CAT Pattern Workshop”, “Can’t Compare with Byju & Santosh”, “Study Material of Most of the Institutes have no value differentiation”, “80% of the students have crossed 90 percentile over the last 5 years”, “Unique Approach to RC”, “Best Team of IAS Trainers”, “India’s No. Aptitude Trainer”, “India’s #1 IAS faculty”, “20,000 test-takers across the country”, “No National Level Tests” and “Best Teachers”, were not substantiated.

    5.      CL Educate Ltd. (Career Launcher): The claims in the advertisement, “CAT Test Series – The No.1 Cat Test Series Program”, “Most recommended test series”, “Rated the best by students”, “True percentile predictor”, were not substantiated adequately.

     

    6.      Rao Edusolutions Pvt Ltd. (Rao IIT Academy): The claims in the advertisement, “India’s most dominating results in JEE Advanced 2015”,  “8 out every 10 RIITians qualify in MH-CET” and  “Number of students selected from Mumbai” (graph showing year of JEE Advanced), were not substantiated with supporting data.

     

    7.      Exam Victor (Online MBA Entrance Coaching): The claims in the advertisement, “India’s Finest Online MBA Entrance Coaching. Period”, “The Best Faculty-Each lecture, every problem and each video is painstakingly hand-crafted by Vivek, an alumnus of IIT Bombay and IIM Ahmedabad. So you can rest assured that your study material is of the highest quality”, “Individual Attention-Making you an Exam Victor is our only priority. We leverage the best technology and cutting-edge analytics to closely follow your progress and provide you timely feedback”, “How is learning online with ExamVictor better?” and “Most classes employ regular graduates of variable quality”, were not substantiated.

     

    8.      Career Institute of Commerce & Accounting: The advertisement claiming rank after 10, was not substantiated.

     

    9.      IMS Learning Resources Pvt. Ltd. (MBA CET): The advertiser argues that the term “Trusted for Success” is their logo and 15000+ students enrolling with their institute signifies their trust in the institute.  The CCC did not consider enrolment of students to be necessarily an indicator of their trust in the institute.

  • In July 2015, ASCI's Consumer Complaints Council upheld complaints against 74 out of 110 advertisements

    Personal & Healthcare dominates list of upheld ASCI complaints in July

    By A Correspondent

     

    In July 2015, ASCI’s Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) upheld complaints against 74 out of 110 advertisements. Out of 110 advertisements against which complaints were upheld, 28 belonged to the Personal and Healthcare category, followed by 25 advertisements in the Education category and 21 advertisements from other categories.

     

    HEALTH AND PERSONAL CARE:

    The CCC found the following claims in health and personal care product or service advertisements of 27 advertisers to be either misleading or false or not adequately / scientifically substantiated and hence violating ASCI’s Code. Some of the health care products or services 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. Beiersdorf (India) Private Limited (Nivea Deodorizer): The advertisement claims “India’s 1st Body Deodorizer”, regardless of the disclaimer “from Nivea”, is misleading by ambiguity as it is not the first deodoriser in India nor the first deodorizer from Nivea in India. Also the claim, “Day Long Odour Control from Just One Use”, was not substantiated with evidence.

     

    2. L’Oreal India Pvt Ltd.: (Garnier Fructis Oil in Cream): The use of the word “nourishment” in the advertisement of Ganier Fructis Oil in Cream is likely to convey to the consumer that their product does something more than just making hair more smooth and manageable. In addition, the claim “2X Nourishment of Hair Oil” was considered misleading by ambiguity and implication.

     

    3. Shiseido India (Za True White Day Cream): The advertisement claims, “SPF 20 PA++”, “94% Improvement in Skin Clarity*, More Glowing & Radiant Skin*”, “100% Improvement in Skin Tone*, Reduction of Spots & Pigmentation*” and “Now see results in just Seven days!*”, were inadequately substantiated.

     

    4. Kent RO Systems Limited (Kent Mineral RO Water Purifier): The advertisement claims “sabse surakshit pani”, “100% protection” and “100% Health”. These claims have not been substantiated and are considered to be misleading.

     

    5. Kent RO System Ltd (Kent Mineral RO Water Purifier): The advertisement claims “100% or total protection” which was misleading by exaggeration. Also, the claim, “100% protection/Total Protection from waterborne diseases”, is an absolute claim which was not substantiated.

     

    6. Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare India Ltd (Harpic toilet cleaner): The disclaimers in the TVC were not legible, and contravened the ASCI Guidelines on Supers.

     

    7. Godrej Consumer Products Ltd (Cinthol Original Soap): The TVC of Cinthol Original Soap, showing an actor (non-medical person) as a real skin specialist doctor by name “Dr Subha Iyer” endorsing the product is misleading.

     

    8. Lotus Herbals Limited (Lotus Herbals Phyto RX): The advertisement claims “100% women discovered firmer, younger skin in Four weeks”, “See the difference in Four weeks: – Firmer skin. – Reduction in fine lines, wrinkles & dark spots”, “SPF 25/ PA+++” and “Active Organic Ingredients – Ginseng, Ginger & Whey Protein”. These claims were not adequately substantiated and were found to be misleading.

     

    9. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (Fair & Lovely Men Charcoal Face Wash): The claim by the brand, “Gives fair look for eight hours” was not substantiated adequately.

     

    10. Emami Limited (Emami7 Oil in One): In the context of statement in the advertisement, “Everyday you lose up to 100 hair strands as regular hair fall but don’t lose heart”, the claim, “With the Magic of Seven Oils Hairfall is reduced from 100 to upto Four”, is misleading by ambiguity as it implies natural hair loss whereas the claim refers to hair fall due to breakage.

     

    11. Netralaya Super Specialty Eye Hospital: The claims “Freedom from Glasses and contact lens”, “First time in Ahmedabad to get all types of eye treatments under one place”, “World’s best and fastest Laser”, “Removal of One number in 1.4 seconds”, were not substantiated with supporting technical and factual data.

     

    12. HB Care 24: The claims in the advertisement, “Gain – reduce weight – No Exercise – No Medicine – No Dieting”, “Reduce 2 inches in just 1 hour sitting” and “Stop hairfall in 5 days”, were not substantiated.

     

    13. Jivo Wellness Pvt Ltd (Jivo Canola Cooking Oil): The advertisement claims, “Effective for healthy Heart and in reducing bad Cholesterol”, “Effective against diabetes, heart diseases”, “Effective against Cancer”, were not substantiated with clinical evidence specific to the product. The claims indicating efficacy against diabetes, heart disease and cancer were considered to be misleading by exaggeration as no specific credible clinical research was submitted to prove claims of efficacy against serious diseases.

     

    14. Vasan Healthcare Private Limited (Vasan Eye Hospital): The claims in the advertisement “World’s largest eye care network”, “Get rid of glasses permanently”, “They give accurate without fail eyesight in just 15 mins”, “One can enjoy vacation without glasses” and “ICL can be implanted in dry eyes and thin cornea”, were not substantiated.

     

    15. Cure Sight Laser Centre: The claims in the advertisement “India’s No. 1 LASIK centre”, “Complete removal of (freedom from) Glasses and contact lens without operation”, “The Most experienced team of doctors for LASIK in Gujarat and whole India” and “World’s best technology and fastest Refractive suit by Alcon”, were not substantiated.

     

    16. Shathayu Ayurveda: The advertisement claims “Redefine your natural curve with detox and fat burning paste massage to enhance metabolism and reduce body fat”, were not substantiated.

     

    17. Mankind Pharma Limited (Heal-O-Kind Nanofine Gel): The advertisement claims “Has strong anti-bacterial action”, “Reduces swelling, doesn’t allow scarring of wound”, “First Aid ka All-Rounder”, “Injury, burns, bruises, cuts and diabetic foot ulcer (these terms shown in the advertisement with a checkmark implying Heal-O-Kind gel is useful for these conditions)” and “The healing power of Nanofine Technology”, were not substantiated with product efficacy data.

     

    18. Keva Ayurveda: The advertisement claims, “Increases Immunity. Improves memory, concentration & learning ability”, “Improves digestion & skin tone”, “Prevents recurrent infections, asthma & other allergic conditions” and “Improves speech, hearing & visual acuity”, were not substantiated.

     

    19. Torque Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd (No scars Cream): The TVC of the product claims “Changing dark skin and scars and resulting in facial skin glowing in one week” were not substantiated. The visuals in the TVC showing the transformation depict the protagonist as unhappy in the pre-use state. This also contravened Clause 2 of the ASCI guidelines for Advertisement of Fairness Improvement Products.

     

    20. Clear Vision Eye Hospital Private Limited: The claims in the advertisement of “quality assurance”, “c-lasik wavefront and topolink treatment available”, were not substantiated with supporting evidence to prove that the hospital possesses equipment for wavefront and topolink treatment. Further the claim of “Extremely safe FDA approved” was considered misleading by exaggeration in view of the procedure not being free from risks or complications.

     

    21. Rich Feel Trichology Centre (Hair and Scalp Clinic- Ana-d-tox treatment): The advertisement claims “Rich Feel Introduces for the 1st time in India, a post hair colour treatment was found factually incorrect and misleading by ambiguity.

     

    22. Stem Cell Society of India: The advertisement claims “Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s vision for Stem Cell Therapy”. The Advertiser has used the photograph of the Prime Minister (PM) in the advertisement without his permission, which is misleading and confers an unjustified advantage on the product advertised and tends to bring the PM’s name into ridicule/disrepute. This violates Chapter I.3 of the ASCI code.

     

    23. Dr Ghanshyam Patel’s Advanced Homeopathetic Hospital & Clinical Research Centre: The claims in the advertisement, “Sureshot, fast and effective treatment by advanced invention and innovative medicines for all diseases (incurable as well)”, “Piles – Warts/ Asthma – breathing/ Cancer/ Aids/ Arthritis, Acidity gets cured from its roots. Shortly get relieved from cold and asthma without steroid or inhaler and relief only by medicines, in case of piles – warts without operation and get permanent treatment”, were not substantiated. Specific to the claims related to treatment/cure for Piles, the advertisement is in breach of the law as it violated The Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940 and Rules, 1945. Also, specific to the claims related to treatment/cure for Cancer, the advertisement is in breach of the law as it violated The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act.

     

    24. Alcos International: The advertisement’s claim “PA+++”, was not substantiated as the data submitted contained some general information about definitions of SPF and UV radiation, but there is no reference how it relates to the ALCOS/IONA product. Also, the visual shown in the advertisement is misleading as it implies complete protection from sun rays.

     

    25. DHI Global Medical Group: The claim in the advertisement which said “Results you can see within an Hour!” was not substantiated. The visuals of before and after the treatment were misleading. Specific to the claims implying baldness prevention is in breach of the law as it violated The Drugs & Cosmetics Rule 106.

     

    26. OPTM Health Care Private Limited (Varco Therapeutic Oil): The advertisement’s claim “Varicose Veins heal with Varco”, was not clinically validated. The advertisement further claims “Varco, the revolutionary organic bio-energetic phyto oil, is an effective solution to varicose veins, without surgery” and “Varco Blue vein remover Therapeutic Phyto Oil” are not adequately substantiated. Specific to the claims related to treatment of varicose veins is in breach of the law as it violated The Drugs & Cosmetics Rule 106.

     

    27. Matsyafed Chitone (Anti Fat Formula): The advertisement’s claim “Chitosan Is your Safest Bet Against Fat. And It’s Proven”, was not substantiated.

     

    28. Shree Renuka Sugars Limited (Madhur Sugar): The claims in the advertisement “Free (Sale) Sugar v/s Madhur sugar”, “Sulphur-free process”, “Best uniform quality, natural sweetness and shinning white crystal”, “Free from hand touch”, were not substantiated and the claims were misleading by implication and exaggeration.

     

    EDUCATION

    The CCC found that claims in the advertisements by 25 advertisers were not substantiated and, thus, violated ASCI Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions. Hence complaints against these advertisements were UPHELD.

     

    1. Southern Academy Maritime Studies: The claim in the TVC, “if anybody who is willing to study in this college, can get a job as a Captain in a Ship and can earn upto 60 Lakhs per Annum”, was not substantiated and is misleading by ambiguity and exaggeration.

     

    2. Aakash Educational Services Pvt. Ltd. (Aakash Institute): The advertisement claims that Twins Rahul Bansal and Sahil Bansal (AIIMS-2015 ranks 23 and 40) and Yuvraj, (AIIMS-2015 rank 11) are from their coaching institute. This was false and was not substantiated.

     

    3. Hansa Medcell: The claim in the advertisement, “Gain specialist skills without sacrificing daily clinical practice”, is misleading since “Distance Education” cannot allow one to gain specialist skills in gastroenterology, cardiology etc., since all these specialities involve very special procedures like OGD Scopy and Colonoscopy (Crastroenthrology) and Angiography, Angioplasty (Cardiology) etc. As per clause 7.20 of MCI Act (Amendment 2002) one can’t call oneself a specialist unless one has acquired specialist qualifications. The Medical Council does not offer recognition to distance education programmes. In addition the claim, “provide One year distance education of post-graduation programs from prestigious American college of gastroenterology John Hopkins University School of medicine”, was false and misleading by ambiguity. and

     

    4. Shri Maharana Pratap Private ITI: The advertisement claims, “no university or institutions are valid to provide any certifications in fire and safety except Shri Maharana Pratap ITI” and “only 4 institutions in India are valid to provide fire and safety courses”, were not substantiated and were considered to be misleading by ambiguity.

     

    5. BSE Institute Limited: The claim in the advertisement, “Become a Professional Banker in Just Two Months”, is misleading by ambiguity, as it is offering a “Professional banking program” conducted internally and the jobs being offered were inclusive of basic functions such as Welcome Desk.

     

    6. National Board of Computer Education: The claims in the advertisement, “Affiliation from International Accreditation Organization (IAO), Houston, U.S.A.”, and “Affiliation from Copy Right Division under Ministry of Human Resource Development, Govt. of India”, were not substantiated with supporting proof.

     

    7. AAFT School of Fashion & Design: The claim in the advertisement, “The only Fashion School associated with Film Industry”, was not substantiated.

     

    8. Padmashri K. K. Shastri Educational Campus: The use of Padmashree prefix before a name as used in the advertisement confers an unjustified advantage on the advertised product (Educational Campus) as such reference. This violates Chapter I.3 of the ASCI code.

     

    9. CL Educate Ltd: The claim in the advertisement, “61/100 toppers in CLAT ’15 are LSTians”, was not substantiated.

     

    10. Global Inc Training Centre: The claims in the advertisement, “Assured C.T.C. Rs.14K to Rs.22K per Month” and “100% Guaranteed Placement under Money Bank (OR MONEY BACK) Scheme”, were not substantiated adequately with supporting data.

     

    11. Rabiya Industrial Training Institute: The claims in the advertisement, “100% Job” and “The One and Only One Accredited Learning Center in State of Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal & Jharkhand”, were not substantiated.

     

    12. The English Square: The claim in the advertisement, “Learn to speak fluent English in just 100 hours with 100% Guarantee”, was not substantiated.

     

    Complaints against advertisements of all educational institutes listed below mostly are UPHELD because of unsubstantiated claims that they ‘provide 100% placement/AND/OR they claim to be the No.1 in their respective fields’:

    Endeavor, Indus Early Learning Centre, Thangavelu College Engineering, Indian Institute of Medical Representative Private Limited, GCS Institute of Computer Technology, Rama Naidu Film School, Patel Computers, Red & Multimedia Education White, Shree Venkateshwara Hi-Tech Engineering College, Shri Guru Ram Rai Institute of Technology & Science, Career Master, Capital Infosys Institute of Hotel Management & Tourism and Brilliant Tutorial.

     

    OTHERS

    1. BMW: The mention of “price” in the advertisement in place of “down payment” was found to be misleading.

     

    2. HDFC Bank Ltd: The advertisement claim “Avail of your preapproved paperless Personal loan of up to Rs 7.50 lac in just 12 hours” was not substantiated and is misleading by ambiguity.

     

    3. Max Bupa Health Insurance Company Limited (Max Bupa Health Insurance): The claim in the advertisement, “Cashless approval in 30 minutes”, was not substantiated.

     

    4. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Healthcare Ltd (Boost): The TVC is misleading by showing adult players demonstrating an increase in stamina. The visual depicted in the TVC read in conjunction with the disclaimer, is misleading, as the disclaimer in the TVC is about the scientific study published in a peer reviewed scientific journal and are proven for the age group of 7-11 years.

     

    5. Britannia Industries Limited (Nutrichoice Heavens Cookies): The claim in the advertisement which stated“….yet healthy”, was not substantiated, and the claim, “loaded with ripe Bananas and crackling almonds”, is misleading by exaggeration.

     

    6. LG Electronics India Ltd (LG Inverter V Air Conditioners): The advertisement’s claim “India’s only* AC that keeps mosquitoes away” was not adequately substantiated. Also the claim, “Mosquito protection” was not substantiated with evidence.

     

    7. Bloomberg TV India: The advertisement claims “The market opens with Bloomberg TV India. The No.1 market opening show 9 a.m. – Street Smart Dealing Room. Factual. First. Fastest. Final. Future”, “When it comes to business and markets programming, Bloomberg TV India is the channel of choice” and “The most preferred destination for business and markets content. No. 1. Bloomberg TV India leads with 43% market share in the English Business News genre”. All the three advertisements violate the BARC Principles which state inter alia that “The period of comparison must cover at least four consecutive weeks of data”. The audience definition chosen by the advertiser violates the principle that subject matter of comparison is not chosen in such a way as to confer an artificial advantage upon the advertiser or so as to suggest that a better bargain is offered than is truly the case. The baseline claim in the Ad, “First. Fastest”, was also found misleading as the Advertiser has not provided any evidence to substantiate this claim.

     

    8. Ebay Inc (Ebay): The advertisement claims, “EBay Guarantee – Don’t Worry, Buy Happy”, “EBay guarantee” and “100% Satisfaction or refund/replacement”, were false, not substantiated and were misleading.

     

    9. Imperial Vehicles Pvt. Ltd (Ashok Leyland ‘DOST’): The claim offer in the advertisement of “cash discount + free android phone + exchange facility” is false and is misleading. Also, it is a lapse in the fulfilment of an advertised claim offer.

     

    10. Amazon.Inc (Amazon Kindle): The TVC of Amazon Kindle is misleading by omission of a disclaimer qualifying the price of the actual product being promoted.

     

    11. Gujarat Tea Processors & Packers Ltd (Wagh Bakri Good Morning Premium Tea): The claim in the advertisement, “The Best Blend of Tea in the world”, was not substantiated.

     

    12. Epson India Pvt. Ltd (Epson): The advertisement’s claims “Maximise your savings with Epson 143 ink cartridges that yield up to 945 black and 755 colour A4 pages. With a very low cost per page of US$0.016# for black and US$0.048# for colour, running costs are reduced by up to 50% compared to laser printers. The WF-7511 utilises only 20W in printing or standalone copying mode, helping to cut energy consumption by up to 70% versus laser printers”, were not substantiated with detailed supporting data. Also, the claim was misleading by omission of applicable specific conditions.

     

    13. CP Plus India Private Limited (CP Plus): The brand’s claim “India’s no.1 CCTV Brand” was not supported with the source and date of research and criteria for assessment for the claim made in the advertisement.

     

    14. Asianet Communications Ltd (Sell me the answer): The scene in the advertisement showing “the school teacher hitting the student on his palm with a stick”, of Corporal Punishment in Schools and Institutions was considered likely to result in the physical, mental or moral harm to children.

     

    15. Spencer’s Retail Pvt Ltd: The offer in the advertisement of “Zyada ka Fayda” claiming additional Rs.100 cash back is misleading by omission of a disclaimer qualifying that the offer is only for credit card holders.

     

    16. Radico Khaitan Limited (Magic Moment): The advertisement was a surrogate advertisement for a promotion of a liquor product – Magic Moment Vodka which contravenes the ASCI Code and the Guidelines for Brand Extensions.

     

    17. Odisha Television Limited: The TAM data for weeks 11 to 14 shows that OTV stands at #4 by average reach across weeks and at #5 by TVTs. Sarthak, Star Plus and Tarang have been consistently ahead of OTV. The claim, “OTV repeat history again. Ahead of not only News but also entertainment channel”, was thus found false. The advertisement runs against Rule 5 of TAM guidelines regarding use of averages as only one week’s data has been shown. Any estimate of channel ranking whether based on reach or TV ratings must be based on at least 4-8 weeks to be conclusive. Rule 7 also not observed as the estimate is in fine print at the bottom of the ad and not clearly stated. This confers an artificial advantage upon the advertiser so as to suggest that a better bargain is offered than is truly the case.

     

    18. Jewelsouk Marketplace Limited (Jewelsouk.com): The claim, “The World’s largest Jewellery Marketplace”, was not substantiated.

     

    19. Michael & Michael Pipes Pvt. Ltd. (Michael & Michael): The advertisement misrepresents and attempts to deceive the viewers with reference to IS standards, without BIS certification. Thus the claim of IS 458/1988 was not substantiated and is misleading by ambiguity.

     

    20. Iota International: The packaging claims, “Iota Power Saver Intelligent Electricity Saver Certified ISO 9001:2000 Company JAS-ANZ’’ and “Tested & approved by Electronic Regional Test Laboratory (Govt. of India)”, were false, misleading and were not substantiated.

     

    21. Panki Detergent Private Limited (Panki Detergent Powder): The claim in the TVC, “No. 1 quality”- Quality ki kausati par aaj bhi bhi No. 1”, was not substantiated.

     

  • The advertisement of Idea Cellular shows the practice in Haryana of girls not being allowed to step out of homes to study, is defaming Haryana and tends to bring this State into disrepute, notes an Advertising Standards Council of India communique

    ASCI frowns at Ullu-Banoing, finds Idea ad defaming Haryana

    By A Correspondent

     

    In February 2015, the Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) of the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) upheld complaints against 125 out of 167 advertisements. Of the 125 ads against which complaints were upheld, 73 belonged to Personal and Healthcare category, followed by the Education category with 29 advertisements, followed by others.

     

    Says a communiqué on the Idea ad: “The advertisement of Idea Cellular shows the practice in Haryana of girls not being allowed to step out of homes to study, is defaming Haryana and tends to bring this State into disrepute.  Also, the TVC is misleading by implication as the product/service promoted (Idea Internet Network) is shown as a substitute to and equating to college education.”

     

     

  • Out of 113 advertisements against which complaints were upheld, 61 belonged to Personal and Healthcare category

    ASCI hauls up brands with misleading claims

    By A Correspondent [updated]

     

    ASCI’s Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) upheld complaints against 113 out of 144 advertisements in November 2014. Out of 113 advertisements against which complaints were upheld, 61 belonged to Personal and Healthcare category, followed by the Education category with 33 advertisements.

     

    In the Healthcare category, the CCC found the following claims in health and personal care product or service advertisements of 58 advertisers to be either misleading or false or not adequately/scientifically substantiated and hence violating ASCI’s Code. Some of the health care products or services advertisements also contravened provisions of the Drug. Some of the complaints that were upheld include:

    – Hindustan Unilever Ltd (Lifebuoy): The advertisement of Lifebuoy claims to provide “10 x more germ protection” and “10 x more skin care” than any other soap which was not substantiated.

     

    – Richfeel Health & Beauty Pvt Ltd (RichFeel Trichology Centre): The advertisement of RichFeel Trichology Centre claims to be the best hair transplant from the best hair care brand at the best price of Rs.55, 000.

     

    – Godrej Consumer Products Ltd (Goodknight): The advertisement of Goodknight shows “a child standing near the mosquito vaporizer”, whereas the product’s leaflet includes a precaution that the electrical liquid vapourizing machine should be kept away from the reach of children. The advertisement features a dangerous practice, manifests a disregard for safety and encourages negligence.

     

    – Dr. Batra’s Homeopathy Clinic: The advertisement of Dr Batra’s Clinic claims to offer “Consultation with the Doctor and computerized hair test worth Rs. 2,000 now at just Rs. 250.”, “Limited period offer”, “Avail easy EMI options”, and the Website claims, “Confirm your appointment online @ Dr. Batra’s clinic, Pay just Rs. 99/- and get products worth Rs. 175/- free.” “It also offers 10% off on treatment in its animation slides”, were not substantiated. The Website shows Dr. Batra promoting the clinic which is in violation of the Code of Medical Ethics for Homeopathy practitioners.

     

    – Richfeel Health & Beauty Pvt Ltd (RichFeel Trichology Centre): The advertisement of Richfeel Trichology Centre is in breach of code of medical ethics as the advertisement is soliciting patients and also mentions the names of Dr. Apoorva Shah and Dr. Ferrari, promoting the Clinic, which is in violation of the Central Council of Homeopathy Code of Ethics Regulations Clause II 6.1.

     

    – Dr. Batra’s Health Clinic: The advertisement of Dr. Batra’s Health Clinic claims to offer revolutionary hair growth treatment from France which is a painless and non – surgical treatment. They further state that 77% have seen hair growth results in just eight weeks.

     

    – CordLife Sciences India Pvt. Ltd:  The advertisement of Cordlife claims to be Asia’s largest stem cell bank. The advertiser did not provide the market size in each country and the total market size in Asia to arrive at total market share data to establish that Cordlife is the market leader in Asia.   The CCC concluded that the claim, “CordLife is Asia’s Largest stem cell bank”, was not substantiated.

     

    – AyurMana Centre for Advanced Healing: The advertisement of AyurMana Centre claims to help weight loss of up to 30 pounds in 4 weeks without starvation diet or strenuous exercise.

     

    – Lifespan Diabetes & Cardio metabolic Clinic: The advertisement of Lifespan claims “Diabetics are 50% more likely to have a heart attack”. This claim was not substantiated with data specific to the Indian population.  Also, the claim was misleading by exaggeration.

     

    In the Education category, the CCC found following claims in the advertisements by 33 different advertisers were not substantiated and, thus, violated ASCI Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions. A few complaints that were upheld include:

    – Arcot Sri Mahalakshmi Women’s Institute of Management:  The advertisement claims 100 per cent employment in India and foreign countries. The claim was not qualified with the appropriate disclaimer.

     

    – Mahanadi Education Society (Raipur Institute Technology – RITEE): The advertisement of RITEE claims job guarantee or money back; super *conditions apply* which was not substantiated with supporting data.

     

    – Bright Career Academy: The advertisement of Bright Career Academy states “Job Assured on pursuing 3 month’s course” and “7+ Bands assured on undergoing IETLS 7 hours classes daily”, were not substantiated with supporting data.

     

    Other categories that were pulled up include:

    – Godrej Consumer Products Ltd (Cinthol Deodorants): The advertisement shows alcohol-based deodorants being sprayed on ball pen art (art done by a ball point pen) resulting in the art getting dissolved. The advertiser seeks to instill fear in the mind of the consumers as if alcohol based deodorants can melt the human skin. Thus, the advertisement denigrates alcohol based deodorants.

     

    – Mahindra Retail Pvt. Ltd (Mom & Me): The advertisement of Mom & Me claims “Interest free EMI” which is misleading by omission, as the EMI scheme was not free since interest was to be paid after six months, which was not mentioned in the advertisement.

     

    – JK Cements Ltd (JK Wall Putty):  The advertisement of JK Wall Putty claims “seelan mein bhi papdee ka koi chance nahin” was not substantiated with technical evidence.

     

    – Videocon Industries Ltd (Videocon Split A/C): The advertisement claims to offer zero percent interest and zero process fee by Bajaj Finance – just pay Rs. 2014 and the balance in equal EMIs. This is misleading as the processing fee is not zero as the complainant had to pay the extra processing charges during the purchase of the product.


    – Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd (Bajaj Allianz): The advertisement claims to provide value added services such as 24×7 spot assistance, key and lock replacement cover along with the policy, fastest claims servicing through their 24 x7 call centre. The advertisement claims “3400+ numbers of garages across the country”. It also claims to offer battery, fuel, spare keys assistance flat tyres, minor repairs and towing. They further claim to provide “Legal Advice and Medical Coordination”, “Message Service and Taxi Benefits Accommodation Benefits” and “Additional savings of upto 30% on medicines, eye care, dental care and many more outlets.” These claims were not substantiated.

     

  • Ministry of I&B issues an Advisory to TV channels to stop broadcast of teleshopping advertisements which ASCI have ruled to be in violation of its Code of Conduct

    I&B intervention gives ASCI more teeth to curb ads that violate guidelines

    By A Correspondent

     

    In a recent development, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) has ordered broadcasters not to air advertisements that have been found in violation of the Advertising Standards Council of India’s (ASCI) code and not complying with the decision of its Consumer Complaints Council (CCC). While deliberating on the complaints received in ASCI, the CCC observed that many of the teleshopping advertisements made unsubstantiated claims & violated the provision of code for self-regulation as well as provisions under Drug & Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954. MIB has in its Advisory compiled a list of these ads and asked broadcasters not to carry them in their respective channels and to ensure strict compliance of the advertising code in the Cable Television Networks Act (CTN).

     

    The CTN code and rules state that ‘no advertisement which violates the code of self-regulation in advertising, as adopted by ASCI for public exhibition in India, from time to time, shall be carried in the cable service’. Therefore, the ASCI decisions are not just bound for compliance by advertisers but also by TV channels.

     

    Partha Rakshit

    Partha Rakshit, Chairman, ASCI shared, “This is another feather in the cap of ASCI, in its efforts to make advertising more responsible. We were finding that some advertisers on TV channels, especially Tele Shopping Networks, were not complying with the ASCI decisions. We submitted the list to the Inter Ministerial Committee (IMC) of the MIB for their consideration. Based on that, IMC observed that any violation of ASCI code also violates the Advertising Code enshrined in the CTN Act and its rules. In short, IMC has directed that advertisements found to violate the ASCI code cannot be carried on TV channels.”

     

  • The CCC found the claims released in the print media / TVC to be either misleading or false or not adequately / scientifically substantiated

    ASCI uphelds misleading ads across sectors

    By A Correspondent

     

    In May 2014, ASCI’s Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) upheld complaints against121 out of 140 advertisements. Health & Personal Care category continued to lead with the highest number of complaints received in May 2014.

     

    The CCC found the following claims in health and personal care product or service ads of 66 advertisers, released in the print media / TVC to be either misleading or false or not adequately / scientifically substantiated and hence violating ASCI’s Code. Some of the health care products or services ads also contravened provisions of the Drug & Magic Remedies Act. Complaints against the following ads were upheld.

     

    1. Diabacure: The advertisement of the product Diabacure claims that use of the said product curesdiabetes

     

    2. Mukherjee Ayurved Ashram:The advertisement claims that it is ‘World No. 1 & can cure smallness of penis, thinness, crookedness and make penis long, thick and shapely and cure premature ejaculation, nightfall, impotency, nil sperm count and increase desired sex time’. Also it claims that it has ‘no side effect’ and is’100% Ayurvedicmedicine’.

     

    3. VaidbanAyurvedic Products: The advertisement claims successful treatment of kidney stones without operation and successful treatment of STDs and impotence.

     

    4. Sun Pharmaceutical: The advertisement of Rid-Tobacclaims to be’100% herbal’. It ‘helps get rid of cigarette, bidi, gutka, masala, tobacco addiction knowingly or without the knowledge of the addicted person.’

     

    5. Dabur India Limited’s Odomos Naturals: The advertisement claim that Odomos provides all day protection from mosquitoes to children was misleading by omission as it does not provide clear instruction of the level of application and period for reapplication.

     

    6. Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare India Ltd: The Dettol Soap advertisement’s claim that ‘Only Dettol gives 10x more protection against germs’was misleading as the advertiser’s product with germicidal actives was compared against products without germicidal actives. Dettol being the “only” effective product was not substantiated by comparison with other products in the market with germicidal actives.

     

    7. Rana Clinic: The advertisement claims ‘successful treatment for having child. Those couples who are upset because of not having their own child and feel defeated after consulting everywhere are now happily living their life with a child after coming to us. Get successful treatment at any age for any mistakes made in childhood, weakness due to any reason, premature ejaculation, childlessness, small size problem.’

     

    8. HumiHerboceuticals: The advertisement of Immuno Booster Plus claims toincrease immunity, rejuvenate body tissues etc.in human beings.

     

    9. Marico Ltd: The advertisement of Nihar Naturals Shanti Amla Hair Oil claiming that it is enriched with 500% vitamin Ewas misleading as the comparison was being made with a product marketed in 2010Hindustan Unilever Ltd: The TVC of  Fair& Lovely suggests that fairness is essential for a girl to match a boy in status or essential when a girl is to get married or grow up in hierarchy at work place.

     

    The CCC found following claims in print ads by 39 different advertisers were not substantiated and thus, violated ASCI Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and hence the complaints against these ads were upheld –

     

    1. IIT Kalrashukla:The advertisement claims that ‘with Karlashukla youget into IIT or get your fees back. If you don’t make it, we return the fees, no questions asked’.

     

    2. SinhalClasses: The advertisement claims to give ‘scholarships worth Rs.5 crores, minimum scholarship of Rs.10, 000 for every qualified student. Also claims that ‘Sinhal IIT is Mumbai’s No.1. ITfacility’. ‘For the first time ever, the all-star top guns from other IIT coaching institutes under one roof.

     

    3. Ideal 21st Century: The advertisement claims ‘Scholarships worth Rs. 5 Crore, ‘highest selection rate in JEE advanced.

     

    4. Ideal 21st Century: The advertisement claims ‘How ideal 21stcentury scores over other institutes

     

    5. Career Launcher India PvtLtd’s’Career Launcher’claims that it is an ‘All India Leader in CLAT & IPM’, ‘India’s No.1 Institute for Law Entrance Exam’, ‘confirm your seat in your dream institute in just 45 days’.

     

    6. Kautilya Academy: The advertisement claims to have maximum selections for civil services and to be the best academy in Madhya Pradesh.

     

    7. Institute of Rural Management: The advertisement claims that it is ‘Ranked A++ among the Top Business Schools in India’, ‘3rd among Top Sectoral B-Schools of India- Competition Success Review’, ‘rated at level A2- Business Standard ”7th among Best Sectoral B-Schools- The Outlook’, ‘ranked A+ among Best B-Schools- Dalal Street Journal’, ‘exceptional 100% Placement with renowned corporates’.

     

    8. Tapasya Educational Institutions: The advertisement masqueraded in ‘breaking news’ format, thereby misleading audiences.

     

    9. PCMS Trust: The advertisement of PCMS claims that drop out students get a degree with In 6 Months (One Sitting).

     

    10. Research Information Technology and Management claims to give degree within 6 Months.

     

  • ASCI will now deliver its Consumer Complaints Council’s (CCC) decision on a complaint against an objectionable advertisement within a span of an average just 12 days

    ASCI betters processing time; wins accolades

    By a correspondent

     

    In a move that would encourage more participation from aggrieved parties, the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) now delivers its Consumer Complaints Council’s (CCC) decision on a complaint against an objectionable advertisement within a span of on an average just 12 days from the date complaint is received. With the consumers and regulators demanding that ads which are a) misleading or make false claims, b) indecent, c) showing hazardous activities and d) unfair to competition should be promptly removed or modified, ASCI has taken effective action to reduce  the complaint processing turnaround time from 45 days two years ago to just 12 days on an average currently.

     

    Some of the actions taken by ASCI to achieve this unparalleled turnaround time include:

    1) From monthly meetings two years ago, the CCC now meets weekly by having two CCCs instead of one earlier and total number of CCC members moving up from 21 to 28.

     

    2) The turnaround time taken at ASCI to process the complaint and time provided to the Advertiser to respond to the complaint has been significantly reduced with the use of email and technology.

     

    3) Intra Industry complaints among ASCI members are being resolved in just seven days via Fast Track Complaint (FTC) process which was introduced in 2012. FTC, which handled 30 complaints in 2013/14 has been very popular among ASCI members who are seeing real time and cost savings by not taking the matter to the courts on intra industry ad content disputes.

     

    4) In the recent past ASCI also introduced ‘Suspension Pending Investigation’ (SPI) by which ASCI can order an extremely objectionable ad to be removed immediately pending investigation and decision of the CCC.

     

    Under its National Advertising Monitoring Service (NAMS), ASCI has also started tracking in print and on TV of all ads against which complaints have been upheld. And results show that over 90 per cent of such “upheld complaints” ads do not reappear or are appropriately modified. ASCI has now started reporting non compliant upheld ads to regulatory authorities such as the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting (MIB), the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI), the Medical Council of India (MCI), the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, and the Food Safety & Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) for taking action as per the law of the land.

     

    The faster complaint turnaround time and improved compliance upheld complaint decisions by ASCI has taken place at the same time when number of complained ads processed by ASCI has increased more than 10 times. In 2011/12 number ads processed by ASCI were 176 which post the NAMS initiative in 2012/13 increased to 784 and for April 2013 to Feb 2014 period (11 months), ASCI has handled complaints against 1833 ads.

     

    Partha Rakshit

    Commenting on these developments, ASCI’s Chairman, Mr Partha Rakshit said, “ASCI’s effectiveness and credibility as an advertising self-regulatory organisation has increased several fold with speedier redressal of complaints and high compliance of its CCC’s decisions by Advertisers. Regulatory bodies like MIB, DCA, FSSAI, FDA now recognise and support our self-regulation work with the inclusion of the ASCI in the Inter- Ministerial Monitoring Committee formed to review misleading ad content.”

     

  • In 2013, the CCC decided on 1842 complaints out of which 1477 were upheld

    ASCI cracks whip on misleading ads; Education, Personal Care products major defaulters

    By a correspondent

     

    In December 2013, ASCI’s Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) upheld complaints against 87 ads which was dominated by Health & Personal Care category that continued to lead with the highest number of complaints received.

     

    In 2013, the CCC decided on 1842 complaints out of which 1477 were upheld. Out of these misleading advertisements, approximately 40 per cent were the education sector advertisements and 36 per cent from the personal and healthcare category.

     

    In the year 2013, Advertising Standards Council of India introduced various initiatives ensuring quicker and stronger actions against all advertisements violating its code.  The National Advertising Monitoring Service (NAMS) helped the self-regulatory body to cast its net wide on the defaulting advertisers, and Online Complaint and Monitoring Service (OCMS) made it convenient and faster for consumers to file complaints against misleading advertisements.

     

    In addition, ASCI also launched online monitoring of ads to track advertisements in the online space and also introduced Suspension Pending Investigation for taking quick action against those advertisements whose continuation may be against public interest. These initiatives resulted in a five-fold increase in the number of complaints.

  • The Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) of ASCI upheld complaints made against 9 advertisements from various sectors

    ASCI’s upholds complaints against 9 ads

    By A Correspondent

     

    During the month of May 2012, the Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) upheld complaints against 9 out of 14 advertisements. At the same time, the CCC found that complaints against five TV advertisements were not substantiated.

     

    According to the complainant, the advertisement for Brooke Bond Red Label Natural Care Tea claimed that the product “has a scientifically proven combination of five ayurvedic ingredients like tulsi, ashwagandha, mulethi, ginger and cardamom to strengthen your body’s defence” and that “It helps to protect you and your family from cold, cough and flu”. The ad also said: “It is clinically shown that drinking three cups of Brooke Bond Red Label Natural Care daily helps enhance one’s immunity”. The CCC concluded that the claims that Brooke Bond Red Label Natural Care “helps to protect you and your family from cold, cough and flu”, and “drinking three cups daily helps enhance one’s immunity”, were not substantiated adequately.  The advertisement contravened Chapter I.1 of the Code.  The complaint was Upheld.

     

    IMS – Score more at BBA / BBS advertisement that appeared on IMS website claimed that “143 IMS students got selected into SSCBS in 2011”. The  advertisement showed a “bar chart showing selection of IMS students into SSCBS over the years 2008 to 2011”.The CCC concluded that, in the absence of validation by an independent agency, the claims mentioned in the  advertisement and cited in the complaint, were not substantiated.  The advertisement contravened Chapter I.1 of the Code. The complaint was Upheld.

     

    A complaint was filed against Tata Sky’s print advertisement which appeared in The Hindu, Chennai edition dated March 30. As per the complaint, the advertisement states that “Cable is just a Dabba” meaning non standard or poor quality box, which is not the fact.  The CCC concluded that “by referring the Cable Set up Boxes as dabba”, the advertisement unfairly denigrated other products.  The advertisement contravened Chapter IV.1 (e) of the Code.  The complaint was Upheld.

     

    The ad which declared Lokmat – No. 1 Newspaper claimed that “Lokmat has added 65,000 readers in SEC A segment in Pune”. The ad did not mention the period over which this growth has been attained, which in itself is misleading. As per IRS 2011 Q4, in the last quarter Lokmat has added only 5,000 SEC A readers in Pune city. The CCC concluded that the claim, “Lokmat has added 65,000 readers in SEC A segment in Pune”, was misleading, as the advertisement did not mention the reference period pertaining to the source data. The advertisement contravened Chapter I.4. of the ASCI Code.  The complaint was Upheld.

     

    A complaint was filed against Glenmorangie’s print advertisement which appeared in Conde Nast India in the February issue. The advertisement states: “Why is it so important that we only use our casks twice?  Taste Glenmorangie and the question becomes rhetorical”.  The visual depiction of the brand name is suggestive of a well-known brand of liquor – Glenmorangie. In the absence of specific information, the advertisement appears to be a surrogate advertisement for Glenmorangie. The CCC concluded that the advertisement was a surrogate advertisement for a brand of alcohol – Glenmorangie.  The advertisement contravened Chapter III.6 of the Code.  The complaint was Upheld.

     

    Alchemist’s claim of “India’s most successful MBA prep” was pulled up too. It has not been backed up and substantiated and there is no validation by any independent agency that confirms this claim. In the absence of any proof, supporting information, from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “India’s Most Successful MBA Prep” was not substantiated.  The advertisement contravened Chapter I.1 of the Code.  The complaint was Upheld.

     

    Shree Maruti Herbal’s print advertisement on “Maruti Stay -On Capsules & Oil” claimed that it “helps improve vitality, stamina and energy”.  The website also claimed “Stay-On guarantees – “Sexual performance of adults in all age groups”,  “Rectifying temporary / partial / occasional or permanent  erectile dysfunction”,  “Increasing the extent of orgasm”,  “Augmenting libido”,  “Increasing the length & size of penis”,  “Mending premature (early & sudden) ejaculation”,  “Enhancing vitality, vigor and stamina”,  “Stay-On is 100% natural with no side effects.  It is a totally secure tested product”. The claims in the print advertisement and on the website were not substantiated. The advertisement and the website do not provide any scientific data related to the safety and efficacy of the product. The CCC concluded that the claim, “helps improve vitality, stamina and energy” was not substantiated.  The advertisement contravened The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act.  Also, the advertisement tends to create, by implication, a perceived inadequacy of physical attributes, in this case the impotence and infertility, which could be objectionable to both men and women.  The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1, III.4 and I.5 (d) of the ASCI Code. The complaint was Upheld.

     

    Jake’s Beauty-Spa-Salon & Academy received a complaint related to its design and copy. It is similar to the Complainant’s advertisement of “Schnell Hans Salon Spa & Academy”. The CCC noted the contents of the Complainant’s and the Advertiser’s advertisements and concluded that the headline, “Your Passport to Success”, was similar to the Complainant’s advertisement and thus suggested plagiarism.  The advertisement contravened Chapter IV.3 of the Code.  The complaint was Upheld.

     

    According to the complainant, the TV commercial for Nikon camera required permission from the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) for the use of birds in advertisement or films.  In the application by Nikon, permission was asked for four sparrows to be shown in their natural habitat with a girl playing and passing through. In reality, the birds turned out to be cockatiels which are being used as toys by the girl. The CCC concluded that as the requisite permission was not received from the AWBI to shoot cockatiels in the TVC, it was in violation of The Performing Animals Registration Rules 2001.  The advertisement contravened Chapter III.4 of the Code.  The complaint was Upheld.

     

    During the month of May, the CCC also received complaints against five television commercials. The complaints were received against the advertisement of Midas Care’s Clean & Dry cream, Sprite Cold drink, Emami’s Fair & Handsome for Men, Gillette Mach 3 and Extra Strong Axe. However, as these advertisements did not contravene ASCI’s codes or guidelines, the complaints were Not Upheld.

     

  • A weekly column by Paritosh Joshi, until recently CEO, Star CJ. Given his varied experience in the media and industry bodies, Mr Joshi will analyse issues concerning the business of media, measurement and research

    Paritosh Joshi: Who will cast the first stone?

    By Paritosh Joshi

     

    You’ve got to give it to Aamir Khan. Any theme he raises through his cinema, and now his television show, instantly becomes the issue du jour. Dyslexia (Taare Zameen Par), rigid education practices (Three Idiots), anguish at the political establishment (Rang de basanti), morality of terrorism (Fanaa) and now in rapid fire succession the weekly episodes of Satyameva Jayate (everything from female foeticide to medical malpractice). If the worlds of the social media are anything to go by, people in the Media & Communications industry are particularly engaged in Aamir’s weekly broadsides. Minutes after the week’s episode goes on air at 11am on Sunday, Twitter is deluged with views and opinions agreeing, and less often disagreeing, with Mr. Khan.

     

    You would imagine, looking at the stridency of tone that characterizes a lot of the chatter, that we belong to an industry that has solid claim on the high moral ground. Does it?

     

    I became involved with the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) about 6 years back. As a communication professional, I was conscious of the close and incessant scrutiny that our industry attracted and of the permanent Damocles’ Sword of statutory regulation that hung over it. The ASCI charter’s commitment to self-regulate resonated strongly with me and joining the Consumer Complaints Council, which gives force to the Self Regulatory Code of the ASCI, was a natural next step.

     

    If Awards Functions like the Abbys and Cannes are the Halls of Fame of the industry, CCC must qualify as its identification parade for the Rogues’ Gallery. Education institutions that claim their superiority, not based upon quality of education facilities they offer, but the acreage of their campus. Cooking oils that assure you of defence against cancer. Fairness potions promising enhanced employability. Malted beverages that deliver anything from height gain to better grades in the exams. A whole spectrum of beers and spirits veiled very thinly under guises of ‘Music CDs’, ‘Unique Events’, ‘Golf Equipment’ or ‘Soda’. Apparatuses that promise the benefits of a cardio workout by merely placing your feet in a harness and allowing them to shake about for a few minutes. Perfumes and deodorants that will instantly cause the user to become a sexual dynamo around whom people of the other gender experience spontaneous orgasms. Plastic beads and metal baubles that will ‘guard against the evil eye’, pacify irate planetary deities and result in a shower of wealth. Or in a particularly horrifying instance, a hospital that advertised radical hysterectomies as a permanent solution against pre-menstrual syndrome. We’ve seen them all.

     

    While some offenders are no-name businesses, the largest majority are big and prominent businesses that we all hold in high esteem. Indeed, we must look well beyond the brand owners to understand the circle of culpable accessories that enable the offending communication to reach the consumer. The creative work originates in an advertising agency. A marketing team approves it for release. A media agency sets up a media schedule. Multiple media outlets finally convey it to the consumer. In many cases, all the organisations that are involved through this value chain are members of the Advertising Standards Council by virtue of which they are presumably committed to the ASCI Code. While the complaint is made and upheld against the brand owner, the actual burden of guilt correctly lies with all the accessories that participated in the process.

     

    Interestingly, whenever the issue of legally dodgy, false, misleading or vulgar advertising crop in professional discourse, the ASCI is indicted forthwith, for its abject failure in bringing the perpetrators to book. Of recent days, the Ministry of Consumer Affairs has joined the chorus, promising a ‘National Consumer Protection Agency’ aka the other NCPA, to become the consumer’s paladin against advertising mischief. Apparently the phrase ‘Self-regulation’ is indecipherable to the average communication industry professional.

     

    Self-regulation begins by a body representing all stakeholders in a particular context agreeing to a code of ethical practice. This code is then widely shared with all stakeholders so that they may understand and assimilate its letter and spirit. Once this has been done, self-regulation transfers the burden of compliance upon the practitioner. The overseeing authority is not a policeman. It is a conscience keeper.

     

     

    This is an exhortation. A humble request. How clean is our own escutcheon before we pronounce moral judgment on all and sundry? Or as Aamir might say, “Apne ghirebaan mein jhaank kar dekha hai kabhi?”

    Paritosh Joshi was until recently CEO, Star CJ. He has been a marketer, a mediaperson and been a key officebearer on industry bodies. He can reached via his Twitter handle @paritoshZero