• ABOUT ASCI
  • COMPLAINTS
  • CONSUMER
  • INDUSTRY
  • ASCI UPDATES
  • CONTACT US
Advertising with a Conscience

Select Month :

 
CCC Recommendations
 

COMPANY:"ARG Outlier Media"
PRODUCT:"Republic TV"

COMPLAINT:

"Complaint 1: With great dismay we are informing you that regarding the false advertising that Republic TV released a few minutes after the tampered BARC rating were released at 11:00 am today. Advertisement released by Republic TV are annexed as Annexure 1a, 1b and 1c. That the as already informed the false TRP has been achieved by Republic TV, in gross violation of the TRAI regulations & guidelines by prescribing to multiple/Dual LCN broadcasting. An extract of the regulations and proof of violation are provided in Annexure 2 and Annexure 3. Republic TV is also in violation of it’s End User License Agreement with BARC India which provides Republic TV with Licensed Data about their channel as collected, collated & analyzed by BARC. And accordingly, BARC India has been notified to take the necessary Disciplinary Action against Republic TV as per their Agreement. Annexure 4. Despite these infractions, BARC India has released fallacious, misrepresented and distorted Viewership data collected on Republic TV’s multiple LCNs with regards to their first week of airing that provides Republic TV with an artificial and illegal advantage against it’s respected industry competitors. For reasons best known to them, Republic TV is utilizing this currently deceptive BARC data to try to substantiate claims of industry leadership in the annexed advertisement currently airing on their network, thus misleading its current and potential subscribers. A clear violation of ASCI’s Code for Self-Regulation of Advertising content in India. As per BARC’s own guidelines, there are specific rules put in place for the commercial use of their data specifically in claims of Industry Leadership. Annexure 5. “Claims of leadership must meet the following standards: i. Clear definition of target audience within BARC India audience taxonomy ii. Clear definition of comparison set iii. Period of comparison to cover at least 4 consecutive weeks iv. Period of compassion to cover at least 4 consecutive clock-hours v. All data must be available directly and without interpolation or extrapolation from the BMW” This would be the first week of data accumulated for Republic TV, thus any claims of industry leadership cannot be substantiated based on these rules. Further, as per BARC’s guidelines, a launch of a new channel can be considered a rare occurrence and cannot be accurately compared to any other broadcaster of the same genre under the same parameters. Thus an industry leadership claim also cannot be substantiated as per BARC’s rules. To publicly disclose BARC audience estimates in terms of Market Share Percentages instead of Impressions ‘000s with no specifications regarding Source Data/Attribution, Single Event Pre-re-quisites including Geography, Demographics, Time Band Duration and Audience Size, etc., and with no Source Footnote is also in violation of BARC India’s Policy Amendment with respect to Permissible Use of BARC India Audience Estimates for Reporting Single Events amended on 2nd March 2017, Annexure 6. Further the intent of a Single Event applies for events such as major news, sports, movie or other significant events and it would be self-serving to Republic TV to treat its own launch as a significant event to advertise it’s viewership data in this regard. BARC India cannot suitably substantiate its own data with regard to Dual LCN Malpractice, as it does not have the appropriate checks & balances in place to account for creating a bias towards channels prescribing to multiple/dual LCNs thus misleading consumers with its data. Republic TV, by using BARC’s misrepresented data to substantiate it’s claims as “52% Viewership”, “Week One Number 1” or “Undisputed Market Leader” does not follow either BARC’s Code of Conduct or ASCI’s Code for Self Regulation. Complaint 2: “Republic TV is being made available on multiple frequencies, fearing the obvious, several media houses raised an alarm, and eventually, thru News Broadcasting Association (NBA) the Broadcast Audience Research Council (BARC) was requested and called-upon not to release Republic TVs one weeks BARC viewership data. BARC didn’t pay heed to the request, and thereby enabled Republic TV to make one of its impugned claims. all impugned claims are based on ONLY 1 WEEK BARC data (Republic TV was launched a week before, on 6th May, 2017). This is direct and blatant infraction of BARC Principles of Fair and Permissible Usage (Regulation), in particular, the foremost and basic test for making comparative claims being: The period of comparison must cover at least four consecutive weeks of data. This foremost and basic violation of BARCs Regulation for making leadership and comparative claims renders all impugned claims nugatory, frivolous, deliberately done with malicious intent to harm our and other competitors legit business interest. The specified BARC source: ALL India 1mn+NCCS Male 22+Week 19 (all time bands) categorically proves that the impugned claims and claims of leadership are based only on 1 week BARC viewership data. This is a case of frivolous, impermissible, misleading and fraudulent communication of claim of leadership. Furthermore, some of the impugned claims as above-mentioned besides being frivolous, misleading, are highly disparaging to our and other competitors channel. Further, Republic TV also conducted, for almost an entire hour (10.50 -11.45 am), an internal congratulatory discussion by 4 (four) anchors, wherein the anchors incessantly bragged about the impugned false and misleading leadership claims, whilst passing invective, disparaging remarks against our channel and other competitors. The impugned claims, invective, disparaging comments and remarks made and telecast on Republic TV are as below: a. 52% viewership in week 1; b. Republic TV creates History in week 1; c. Bigger than all other channels put together; d. 212% greater than Times Now; e. 650% greater than India Today; f. Historic Debut for Republic TV; g. Undisputed Market leader is here; h. BARC ratings out for Republic TVs debut week; i. 112% greater than Times Now; j. 550% greater than India Today; k. Indias No 1. 52% -Source BARC All India 1 mn + NCCS AB Male 22 + Week 19 (all times bands); l. Week One Number One; m. Week 1Number 1, Source BARC All India 1 mn + NCCS AB Male 22 + Week 19 (all times bands); n. First Time in Indian TV History; o. I dont think its ever happened before and I dont think its going to happen in the long-long time to come; p. The nearest rival, the nearest rival is about 25% rating; q. I dont think it has ever happened before in the television in the news television; r. 52% thats Republic TV, the nearest channel is about 25% and No. 3 channel which is being complaining has about 8% ratings, the number 4 channel has 7%, the number 5 channel has 6.6%; s. 60% viewership in super prime time. Complaint 3: Republic TV claims ""Week One. Number 1"" in an emailer. BARC rules on usage of data require any comparison to be based on at least 4 weeks of data. Republic TV has made a 'Number 1' claim based on just ONE week of data. Further, the guidelines do not permit usage of genre shares and specifically disallow claims based on viewership share percentages. I urge ASCI to process this complaint extremely urgently as the English news industry is in turmoil after this data was published."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objections of the complainant and forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response. The advertiser had stated in their response that the complaints referred to in ASCI’s letter could not have been preferred by the complainants under the ASCI Code for Self-Regulation, as the broadcast of BARC data on viewership by Republic TV on May 11, 2017 does not qualify as an advertisement within the meaning of the Code”. They added that the same allegation as in the complaint, was also the subject matter of a writ petition filed by the same complainant in the High Court of Delhi, which was heard by the Court and the complainant had withdrawn the writ. In the said proceedings before the Delhi High Court, the advertiser had given a statement that it had not declared its channel in multiple genres and it was listed only under the genre ""news and current affairs"", which statement was recorded by the Court in its order dated May 25, 2017. The advertiser added that the allegations made in the complaints regarding alleged violation of BARC guidelines are matters that do not fall within the purview or ambit of the ASCI Code and they further stated that in any event, the TRAI is seized of these matter. The CCC carefully viewed the TVC - promos, the complaints, the response of the advertiser, and the opinion of the expert which was obtained in the matter. The CCC observed that the claim of the advertiser in their response that “violation of BARC guidelines/end user license agreement are matters that do not fall within the purview or ambit of the ASCI Code” could not be accepted, in view of the facts that as per the ASCI Code “any communication which in the normal course would be recognized as an advertisement by the general public would be included in the definition of advertisement, even if it is carried free of charge for any reason” The CCC further observed that one of the advertiser’s justifications for their claims that were violative of BARC’s guidelines (claims of leadership made based on less than four weeks’ consecutive data) was that the complainant (their competitor) had also indulged in a similar practice earlier in the past. This clearly is not a satisfactory explanation, as two wrongs do not make a right. The CCC noted that the expert had opined in this regard that the advertiser has used percentage estimates across all the ads referred to by the complainants. As per BARC guidelines, viewership can only be shown in impressions (000s) and coverage in coverage 000s. Use of rating % or coverage % is not allowed, even if it is a single event being reported. Several statements like “First time in Indian TV history” and “I don’t think it has happened before” and “I don’t think it’s going to happen in the long long time to come” are not supported by data at all. Further, the CCC noted that the advertiser had, in the last paragraph of their response, stated: “… we would nevertheless like to clarify that there is no intent to violate any guidelines and in addition, confirm that we will have in place the necessary checks and balance while using BARC data …”. Thus, the CCC noted that by offering to make amends as necessary in the spirit of self-regulation in the closing lines of their response, the advertiser had tacitly admitted that there was a violation of BARC guidelines in their advertisement. The CCC therefore concluded that the explanation given by the advertiser was unacceptable; and that the claims of the advertiser were in violation of the guidelines made by BARC in this regard, and were therefore misleading. The CCC noted that as per “BARC India Ratings – Principles of Fair and Permissible Usage” the period of comparison for any claims of leadership should cover at least four consecutive weeks of data. However, as per the disclaimer put by the advertiser for the claims is based on single week and not four consecutive weeks of data as per BARC. Therefore it is violative of BARC Principles. The subject matter of comparison is chosen in such a way so as to confer an artificial advantage upon the advertiser so as to suggest that a better bargain is offered than is truly the case. The Ad – TV promos contravened Chapters I.1, I.3, I.4 and IV.1(b) of the ASCI Code. The complaints were accordingly UPHELD."

COMPANY:"Cl Educate Ltd (Career Launcher)"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"““Career Launcher institute has given a newspaper advertisement for CLAT 2017/18 & CAT 2017/18 coaching in The Telegraph, Kolkata on 16.6.2017. Career Launcher institute claims in the newspaper advertisement: i) Best Results in CLAT (Law entrance) & CAT (MBA entrance) ii) 75 out of 100 Top All India ranks in CLAT'17 are from LST (Career Launcher) iii) Top 3 ranks in CLAT'17 from Kolkata are LSTians (from Career Launcher) iv) Kolkata's best faculty v) 3000+ IIM Calls in CAT'16 to CL kolkata students vi) Most advanced learning environment vii) Closed to CAT test series.” My objection is that on which all basis, relevant data and parameters Career Launcher institute is claiming these exaggerated claims in its newspaper advertisement. Best results is a very vague and misleading claim. Can they prove that they have the best results? What is the proof of their results claim of - 75 out of top 100 All India ranks in Clat'17 & top 3 ranks in Clat'17 from Kolkata are their students? Can they provide complete details of all these 75 students and prove that these toppers belong to them? As far as I know, CLAT (Law entrance) does not provide any city or state specific ranks. So how can Career launcher institute claim that top 3 rankers from Kolkata in Clat'17 are their student? These statements are totally misleading and are meant to misguide students and parents. Kolkata's best faculty; is again a misleading and fake statement. Please ask them to prove with comparative data of other institutes that their faculty are best in Kolkata. Can they also prove their result claim of 3000+ IIM calls in CAT'16 to CL Kolkata students; by providing the details of all these students and IIM calls and prove that all these are from their Kolkata centre alone. The other claims & most advanced learning environment & Closet to CAT; test series are again exaggerated and completely misleading. How can they say &; most advanced; and; closest to CAT;? Do they have comparative data of other institutes / coaching classes to prove their claims? All these claims made by Career Laucher institute are fake, misleading and exaggerated and are meant to attract innocent students and parents of Kolkata. I request ASCI officials to ask them to substantiate all these claims with proper and relevant data and not to use these claims in their ads till they prove these.”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser had, however, not responded to ASCI’s request. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and upon careful consideration of the complaint, and in the absence of any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claims, “Best Results” in CLAT (Law entrance) & CAT (MBA entrance), “75/All-India Top 100 ranks in CLAT'17 are LSTians”, “Top 3 ranks in CLAT'17 from Kolkata are LSTians”, “3000+ IIM Calls in CAT'16 to CL kolkata students”, “Most advanced learning environment”, and “Closed to CAT test series”, were not substantiated with verifiable supporting data. Claim, “Kolkata's Best Faculty”, was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s institute and other similar institutes, or any third party validation. Also, the claims are misleading by exaggeration. The advertisement was therefore considered as contravening the Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD.

COMPANY:"National School of Business"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"1.""100% placement track record with average salary package of 4.3 LPA for 2016 batch"" 2. ""Ranked amongst top 30 colleges in India and top 10 MBA colleges in South India for placement by Silicon India 2016"""

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"“It is my observation that after ASCI took action against National School of Business, Bangalore, NSB management has posted banner ads in all online channels [Screenshot attached]. On clicking this Banner Ad, it is NOT getting redirected to the Website of National School of Business BUT getting redirected to the www.shiksha.com page of National School of Business where Fake Information about the college is posted. This in spite of already being under the scrutiny of ASCI. This act is a direct defiance and also an act of non-compliance. Dr. Sridhara Murthy has such audacity that in spite of being under the ASCI radar, he is yet again indulging in advertising malpractice???. Please note that National School of Business has 2 accounts at www.shiksha.com . These are the links : 1.) http://www.shiksha.com/mba/course/mba-pgpmnational-school-of-business-j-p-nagar-bangalore-129242 ; 2.) http://www.shiksha.com/college/national-schoolof-business-j-p-nagar-bangalore-26467 Exact Claims in the www.shiksha.com page of National School of Business that I strongly object are the following [Check Respective Screenshots] : 1.) NSB Shiksha Misleading Ads 1: ""100% placement track record with average salary package of 4.3 LPA for 2016 batch"" Please Ask Dr. Sridhara Murthy to provide On-Campus Placement Offer Letter of ALL 150 students and then calculate the average salary. It will never be 4.3 lakh average. For 100% placement record ask Dr. Sridhara Murthy to provide Offer Letters of ALL the batches right since the inception of college to prove 100 % placement record. ""Ranked amongst top 30 colleges in India and top 10 MBA colleges in South India for placement by Silicon India 2016"" Evidence for this claim. ASCI has already found that the Silicon India ranking lacks concrete evidence. 2.) NSB Shiksha Misleading Ads 2: College has just 1 building. It doesn't have any Indoor Sports Facility. This is a Fake Information and fake photograph. 3.) NSB Shiksha Misleading Ads3: College doesn't have any Computer Lab. Another fake information with fake photograph uploaded. 4.) NSB Shiksha Misleading Ads 4: College doesn't have any Computer Lab 5.) NSB Shiksha Misleading Ads 5: Please ask Dr. Sridhara Murthy to provide Offer Letters of ALL the companies mentioned here. Plus offer letters of All 150 Students. 6.) NSB Shiksha Misleading Ads 6: Who are those 32 Alumni, Names??? And how 3.65 lakh per annum. Please ask Dr. Sridhara Murthy to provide their Monthly pay check as evidence. 7.) NSB Shiksha Misleading Ads 7: Who are those 65 Alumni, Names??? Evidence for this claim along with proof whether the respective Alumni works in the respective company at the respective Business Function. Ask Dr. Sridhara Murthy to provide Work Certificate of each of the 65 Alumni.” "

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they however availed twice through a teleconference and submitted their written response. The advertiser stated in their response in respect of their claim, “100% placement track record with average salary package of 4.3 LPA for 2016 batch”, that their advertisement talks about the placement data of 2016 group only. They further stated that placement support was offered to only such students who qualified for the same; and that such qualifications include: (1) securing pass grade in all subjects; (2) completing the prescribed pre-placement module that focuses on training students for corporate placements; (3) must not have been removed from the placement seeker list due to non-compliance; (4) must have placed a formal request for placement and have signed compliance guidelines; (5) good character and behaviour. They further stated that they had “placed all students who met the above criteria and the copies of the offer letters has been attached”; that they had 70 students who qualified in 2016 for the placement support and all of them were given interview opportunities; that capable students cleared the interviews and were placed by respective companies. In respect of offer letters, they added that “offer letters are personal to the candidate and the employer and will not be publicized”. The CCC noted the glaring inconsistencies between the claim of the advertiser and their response. They had stated in their claim in the advertisement: “100% placement track record with average salary package of 4.3 LPA for 2016 batch”, which signifies that every single student who had passed out of their college had obtained a placement; whereas, in their justification, they stated that “capable students cleared the interviews and were placed by respective companies”, which indicates that all the students who had passed out of their college were NOT successful in obtaining placements; and counters their claim of “100% placements”; and further there was no mention whatsoever in the advertiser’s response, about the average salary package claimed in the advertisement. The CCC concluded that the claim, “100% placement track record with average salary package of 4.3 LPA for 2016 batch”, was not substantiated with authentic supporting data such as detailed list of students who have been placed through their Institute, contact details of students for verification, enrolment forms and appointment letters received by the students. The advertiser did not provide evidence to prove that students were offered the claimed salary packages. Also, the claim is misleading by exaggeration. The Website advertisement contravened Clause 4 (a) of Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. This part of the complaint was accordingly UPHELD. In respect of their claim “Ranked amongst top 30 colleges in India and top 10 MBA colleges in South India for placement by Silicon India 2016”, the advertiser stated that many educational institutions across India use this ranking system to advertise their programs. The CCC noted that the Advertiser did not provide the details of the process as to how the selection was done i.e. survey methodology, details of survey data, criteria used for evaluation, questionnaires used, names of other similar colleges that were part of the survey and the outcome of the survey. In the absence of these data, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Ranked amongst top 30 colleges in India and top 10 MBA colleges in South India for placement by Silicon India 2016”, was not substantiated and was misleading by exaggeration. The website advertisement contravened Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. This part of the complaint was accordingly UPHELD. In respect of the complaints that the ""College has just 1 building; It doesn't have any Indoor Sports Facility; This is a Fake Information and fake photograph"", “the college doesn't have any Computer Lab, and that a fake photograph is uploaded” the advertiser stated in their response that it is true that the college has only one building; but that the college has a basic Indoor sports facility in the fifth floor of the institute with provision for playing caroms, chess etc. and that the college has recently set up a computer lab in the learning block, and that the complainant may not be aware of the relocation of the computer lab. They added that the college leases out facilities for periodical use and the related pictures are used; and that every student who comes to take admission is shown the entire institute facility and everything is open to them to aid decision making. The CCC did not agree with the advertiser’s contention for using a picture of not using the real and currently existing infrastructure. The CCC therefore concluded that the claims were not substantiated and were misleading. Hence, the advertisement has contravened the provisions of Chapter I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. This part of the advertisement was accordingly UPHELD. In respect of the two parts of complaint relating to the questions raised by the complainant, “who were the 32 alumni, what were their names, and basis for the claim of compensation of 3.65 lakh per annum, and to provide their monthly pay check as evidence”; and “Who were those 65 Alumni, Names? Evidence for this claim along with proof whether the respective Alumni works in the respective company at the respective Business Function. Ask Dr. Sridhara Murthy to provide Work Certificate of each of the 65 Alumni"", the advertiser stated that the placement statistics put on shiksha.com about alumni is the data compiled by Shiksha.com itself from its sister portal ""Naukri.com"". The source of the data is clearly indicated in the same page. It is not the subject matter of discussion by the NSB as it is not the information posted by NSB. This is the actual data gathered by Shiksha.com as explained above and the methodology followed by Shiksha.com in coming out with the information, as given by shiksha.com, can be read in the attachment. Based on this response and in the absence of claim support data, the CCC concluded that the claims, “average annual salary details of 32 alumni of this course”, “Employment details of 65 alumni of this course”, “3.65 lakh (INR)”, were not substantiated with supporting evidence, and are misleading by exaggeration The Website advertisement contravened Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. This part of the complaint was accordingly UPHELD. "

 

COMPANY:"Republic TV"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"Leadership Advertisement of 8th of June, 2017. Certain advertisement claimed that BARC Declares India’s new leader and Republic Number 1 again and have also claimed to be no. 1 channel with 43% of viewership. Most of these do not show the source line and certain places where they have shown the source line, they seem to have based their claim as per BARC All India 1mn + wk 22 (27th May- 02 June) AB Male 22+ All time bands. It is a well-established norm and common knowledge that as per BARC India Ratings Principles of Fair and Permissible Usage (Fair Usage Guidelines/BARC Guidelines), the period of comparison for any claim of leadership should cover at least four consecutive weeks of data and/or four consecutive clock hours data measured across four consecutive weeks. However, the leadership claims clearly show that the Channels claim of leadership is based on only one weeks of data which is a willful violation of the Fair Usage Guidelines by using data of only one week. As per the ASCI Guidelines, where advertisement claims are expressly stated to be based on or supported by independent research or assessment, the source and date of this should be indicated in the advertisement. On account of the aforesaid, the prevalent industry practices and the BARC Guidelines, the Source-Line is always required to be shown displaying therein at least four consecutive weeks of data and/or four consecutive clock hours data measured across four consecutive weeks. However, the channel has failed to display the source code in most of their advertisement thus it can only be assumed that the Channel has presented unsubstantiated or invalid claims.” "

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser had, however, not responded to ASCI’s request. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the Ad – TV promos and upon careful consideration of the complaint, and in the absence of any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claims, “BARC Declares India’s new leader”, “Republic No.1 across all segments”, “India’s No. 1 channel with 43% of viewership”, were not substantiated and are misleading by exaggeration. Advertiser has referred to BARC data as a source for these claims. The CCC noted that as per “BARC India Ratings – Principles of Fair and Permissible Usage” the period of comparison for any claim of leadership should cover at least four consecutive weeks of data. However, as per the disclaimer put by the advertiser for the claims is based on single week - wk 22 (27th May- 02 June) and not four consecutive weeks of data as per BARC. Therefore it is violative of BARC Principles. The subject matter of comparison is chosen in such a way so as to confer an artificial advantage upon the advertiser so as to suggest that a better bargain is offered than is truly the case. The Ad – TV promos contravened Chapters I.1, I.3, I.4 and IV.1 (b) of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 
 

COMPANY:"Idea Cellular Ltd."
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"“On 05.06.2017, at around 22.40 hours. In the commercial breaks during the programme ""Dil se Dil Tak"" being aired on Colors channel, I noticed the advertisement of ""Idea"". In that ad, there is some disclaimer / written information / text on the screen but in very small font, illegible and unreadable. This apparently is not in line with the ASCI code and advertiser therefore, does not appear to be entirely honest in their manner of communication. We dont even truly know whether it is a disclaimer or not. Whatever they want to write, should be in readable font size and colour. There are many more advertisements telecasted with such unreadable disclaimers / texts.” "

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objections of the complainant and forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response. The advertiser had stated in their response that their TV commercial is in compliance with the ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers, and that their advertising agency had confirmed to them that they have strictly observed the stipulations contained in Point 4 of the Disclaimer Guidelines in terms of font, color, text height off disclaimers in TVC, illegibility, etc., contrary to what is stated in the complaint. While the advertiser asserted compliance with ASCI Guidelines on Disclaimers, in the preliminary assessment by ASCI Secretariat, it was observed that the disclaimers were not legible. The CCC recommended an independent verification as the disclaimers were not legible when the TVC was reviewed. Accordingly, an independent verification was conducted in the matter, which indicated that the heights of the picture area was 369 in 576 lines for SD and 995 in 1090 for HD. The lowercase elements were measured to be of height of about 7 pixels or less for SD and 16 pixels or less for HD formats. Upon viewing the TVC, examining the complaint and the response given by the advertiser, and based on independent verification, the CCC concluded that the TVC violated Clauses (VII) (i) (1) and (2) of ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD. "

 

COMPANY:"Graphic Era University"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“More than 10000 placements across the globe.”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objections of the complainant and forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response. The advertiser had stated in their response that “11654 placement OFFERS” have already been made across the globe by them from 2005 to 2017. They added that from 2001 till 2017, a total of 22296 candidates HAD PASSED OUT OF THEIR INSTITUTE, of which A LARGE NUMBER ARE GLOBALLY PLACED” (EMPHASIS ADDED). The CCC carefully examined the TVC, the complaint, and the response of the advertiser. The CCC opined that while the claim made by the advertiser in their advertisement was “more than 10000 placements across the globe”; they had variously stated in their response that from 2005 till 2017, 11654 PLACEMENT OFFERS were made across the globe for their alumni. Given the fact that “PLACEMENT” is not the same thing as “PLACEMENT OFFER”, and that the advertiser had further stated in their response that from 2001 till 2017, a total of 22296 candidates HAD PASSED OUT OF THEIR INSTITUTE, of which A LARGE NUMBER ARE GLOBALLY PLACED, the CCC concluded that the advertiser was trying to obfuscate the matter by making efforts at substantiation of their claims in the advertisement, with statements that are irrelevant in the context of the claim of the advertisement. The CCC therefore concluded that the claim made in the advertisement was not adequately substantiated, and was therefore untruthful and misleading through ambiguity. The TVC contravened Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Kolors Health Care India Pvt. Ltd"
PRODUCT:"Kolors Slimming and Beauty"

COMPLAINT:

"1. It is a single session treatment. 2. The permanent fat reduction and hence causes no weight fluctuations, has no side effects and gives 100 percent desired result.Visual shown on screen in the ad are misleading by exaggeration "

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objections of the complainant and forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response. The advertiser had stated in their response that what they are offering is a single session treatment, which is a process of reducing the fat via the cool therapy. The advertiser further stated that their treatment results in permanent fat reduction and hence causes no weight fluctuations and has no side effects and gives 100 percent desired result. The CCC carefully examined the TVC, the complaint, and the response given by the advertiser, and opined that in their response, the advertiser had made only assertions and has not substantiated any of the claims. The CCC further opined that the material given by the advertiser were woefully inadequate to substantiate their claims in the advertisement; and that the advertisement was misleading by ambiguity. The CCC therefore concluded that the claims in the advertisement that “it is a single session treatment; it results in permanent fat reduction and hence causes no weight fluctuations, has no side effects and gives 100 percent desired result” contravened the provisions of Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD. "

 

COMPANY:"SBS Biotech Unit II "
PRODUCT:"Roop Mantra Ayurvedic Cream, Capsules & Herbal Face Wash"

COMPLAINT:

"“Advertisement in Hindi ""Sundarta Se Zindagi Mein Muskan aur utsah Aane De "" Sirf haldi Chandan hi nahi "" Roop Mantra Ayurvedic cream Mein Hai aloe vera Draksha Tulsi aur mulethi jeci 12 Jadi Butiyo ka adwitiya santulit Mishran Jo aapke Chehre ki twacha ka Rang bhitar se nikharne awam chamakdar Banane Mein Aati Sahayak hai ! dark circles evam jhaiyon ko kam Karke Aap Ke Rang ko saaf rakhne me madad karta hai Helpful in protecting from Jhurriya , jhaeyya , kale ghere , wasallam , bejan tvacha Dinank 10 june 2017 ko newspaper Dainik Bhaskar Gwalior main Roop Mantra ka Vigyapan Dekha . Vigyapan mein film Abhinetri Preity Zinta ko Shawale se Gori Hote hue dikhaya gaya hai. Saath Hai Isme sawlapan ko bhi hatane Bapat likha gaya hai jo ki objectionable hai Sath hey Punchline likhi Gayi Hai Ki ""sundarta se Zindagi Mein Muskan aur Utsah Aane De "" Vigyapan Main Yeh dikhaya Gaya Hai Ki sawlapan sundarta ka Pratik Nahi Hai Avam Safed Rang Se hi Zindagi Mein Muskan Aur Utsah Aata Hai Yaha par Vigyapan data dwara Rang Bhed kya jakar Savli Mahilao avam Ladkiyon ko demoralized kiya ja raha hai. Jabki Millions Savli Ladkiyon v mahilao Ki Zindagi Mein Muskan aur utsah dono hi hai Advertisement Mein Preity Zinta ka photo Technology Ka prayog Karke dikhate hue Shawle se Gora hote huye dikhaiye gaya hai , tatha large scale par mahilao or Ladkiyon ko mislead Kiya gya hai , Is Prakar ke advertisement Mein Roop Mantra avam film actress Preity Zinta dwara Rang bhed ko badawa Diya jakar Mahila aur Ladkiyon ko demoralized kiya ja raha hai , mislead Kiya ja raha hai , advertisement ki sampurna Bhasha Shaili objectionable hai , kripya is Prakar ke advertisement Par bina deri Ke Rok le lagaye Jaane Hetu aadeshit kiya jaye” "

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser had, however, not responded to ASCI’s request. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and upon careful consideration of the complaint, and in the absence of any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claims (in Hindi), ""Sundarta Se Zindagi Mein Muskan aur utsah Aane De"", “Sirf haldi Chandan hi nahi ""Roop Mantra Ayurvedic cream"" mein hai aloe vera Draksha Tulsi aur mulethi jeci 12 Jadi Butiyo ka adwitiya santulit Mishran Jo aapke Chehre ki twacha ka Rang bhitar se nikharne awam chamakdar Banane Mein Aati Sahayak hai ! dark circles evam jhaiyon ko kam Karke Aap Ke Rang ko saaf rakhne me madad karta hai”, “Helpful in protecting from Jhurriya , jhaeyya , kale ghere , sawalapan, bejan tvacha”, were not substantiated with product efficacy data, and are misleading by exaggeration. Also, the visual showing the celebrity’s dark complexion becoming fair in 3 weeks is misleading by exaggeration. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Jolly Health Care"
PRODUCT:"Jolly Tulsi 51 Drops"

COMPLAINT:

"1. Natural immunity booster and its consumption along with any kind of medicine for any kind of ailment gives more better results. 2. One medicine for 100 diseases and keeps family away from diseases, gives healthy, disease free and long life."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objections of the complainant and forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response. The advertiser had stated in their response that all their product development & formulations are based on the Ayurvedic books approved by AYUSH ministry, which also approves any formulations on the basis of these books. They further sent the approved formulation of product referring its use and the scanned copies of relevant pages of books approved by AYUSH ministry on the basis of which they made the claims in the advertisements. The claim support data was reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. The CCC carefully examined the advertisement, the complaint, the response of the advertiser, and the opinion of the expert in the matter, and observed that the advertised product is a combination of the items Vishnu Priya, Ram Tulasi, Kala Tulasi, Bisva Tulasi and Basil Sweet. Though the above drugs are used internally and externally for various ailments, and the references are available in Ayurvedic classical texts and pharmacopoeia, the reference submitted by the advertiser are for individual drugs, and there is no supporting evidence for combination of all the above drugs and more specifically as per the combination being sold. The CCC further noted that there was no scientific evidence / clinical data relating to pre and post use of the above combination drug to claim its effectiveness. For the above reasons, the CCC concluded that the data submitted by the advertiser is inadequate to substantiate the claims made in the advertisement, “Natural immunity booster and its consumption along with any kind of medicine for any kind of ailment gives more better results”, and “One medicine for 100 diseases and keeps family away from diseases, gives healthy, disease free and long life”, and that they are misleading by exaggeration. The advertisement has contravened the provisions of Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint is accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Saboo Sodium Chloro Limited "
PRODUCT:"Surya Salt "

COMPLAINT:

““More tasty and healthy than other salts”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"ASCI had forwarded a copy of the complaint to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail. The CCC further noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and upon careful consideration of the complaint, and in the absence of any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim of ‘Surya salt being more tasty and healthy than other salts’, was not substantiated with comparative data of the advertiser’s product with other competitive products, or with any third party validation, and is misleading by exaggeration. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD. "

 

COMPANY:"Nisargalaya Herbals"
PRODUCT:"Phyto X-tra Power "

COMPLAINT:

"1)Controls early and dream ejaculation 2)The visual in the Ad read in conjunction with the claims objected to implies that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure ."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"Premature Ejaculation - Item no- 47- Schedule J Maintenance or improvement of the capacity of the human being for sexual pleasure – Item no. 36 – Schedule J"

 

COMPANY:"Chaturbhuj Pharmaceutical Company "
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"1)The gift of love 2)Claims to be the popular and effective for strength in men. 3)The visual in the Ad read in conjunction with the claims objected to implies that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure ."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"Maintenance or improvement of the capacity of the human being for sexual pleasure – Item no. 36 – Schedule J"

 

COMPANY:"Shree Kalyan Ayurvedashram"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"1)Claims to remove white spots. 2)Also claims to change the colour of your chronic spots and removes it from the roots and mixes into the skin colour."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"Leucoderma Item No.35- Schedule J"

 

COMPANY:"Khodiyar Ayurvedic"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"Claims to cure chronic piles, fissure without operation from the roots through vegetable leaves and ayurvedic medicine and get sure shot result. "

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"Claims to cure chronic piles, fissure without operation from the roots through vegetable leaves and ayurvedic medicine and get sure shot result. "

 

COMPANY:"Hashmi Dawakhana"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"1)Claims to provide successful treatment of thinness, small organ,increasing length of organ. 2)Claims to get desired sex capacity,size and satisfaction 3) The visual in the Ad read in conjunction with the claims objected to implies that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

""Improvement in size and shape of the sexual organ and in duration of sexual performance. Item no. 30- Schedule J Maintenance or improvement of the capacity of the human being for sexual pleasure – Item no. 36 – Schedule J""

 

COMPANY:"Dr. Jonwals Niramay Ayush Panchkarm Health Institute and Research Hospital "
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"Claims to cure without operation the following diseases‐Brain Diseases, Obesity, Stroke Paralysis, Diabetes, High BP, Asthma, Hepatitis , Infertility, Rheumatism‐ Arthritis, Cancer, AIDS,Spondylosis, Heart Blockages, Heart Attack, Heart Fail, Ulcer, Kidney Stone, Piles Fistulae. "

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

""Diseases and Disorders of the brain Item no. 10-DMR Act Paralysis Item no. 39- DMR Schedule Item no. 40- Schedule J Diabetes- Item no. 9- DMR Schedule Item no. 14 – Schedule J High Blood Pressure Item No.27- DMR Schedule Item No.25- Schedule J Bronchial Asthma Item No. 7- Schedule J Liver Disorder, Hepatitis Item No.33- Schedule J Sterility in Women Item No.48- DMR Schedule PCOS-PCOD Disorders of Menstrual Flow Item No.13- DMR Schedule Rheumatism Item No.43- DMR Schedule Cancer Item No. 6- DMR Schedule Cancer And Benign Tumour Item No. 8- Schedule J AIDS Item no. 1-Schedule J Spondylitis Item No. 48- Schedule J Heart Diseases Item No.26- DMR Schedule Ulcers of the gastro-intestinal tract Item no. 53- DMR Schedule Kidney Stone Item No.22- DMR Schedule Item No.50- Schedule J Piles and Fistulae Item no. 42- Schedule J" "

 

COMPANY:"My Vitaa Health Care"
PRODUCT:"Top masti Plus "

COMPLAINT:

"1)Claims to remove Physical weakness and Tiredness. 2)Also claims to rejuvenate your body and mind to energize you 3) The visual in the Ad and packaging read in conjunction with the claims objected to implies that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure ."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

""Maintenance or improvement of the capacity of the human being for sexual pleasure –Item no. 36 – Schedule J""

 
 

COMPANY:"Colgate-Palmolive (India) Ltd"
PRODUCT:"Colgate Active Salt "

COMPLAINT:

"“I would like to bring to your notice an advertisement noticed on television, which apparently violates the ASCI code and does not appear to be entirely honest in their manner of communication. On 13th June 2017 (today), at around 8.43 a.m., in the commercial breaks during the serial ""Kuch Rang Pyar Ke Aise Bhi"" being aired on Sony TV channel, I noticed the advertisement of Colgate Active Salt toothpaste. In that ad, there is some disclaimer / written information / text on the screen but in very small font, illegible and unreadable. Apparently, the small fonts are deliberate and I would presume there is an intent to conceal something. Not sure whether the written text was about the ingredients of the toothpaste or about some testings done by them, etc. Whatever it is, if it is on the screen, the viewer ought to know!! It is a loud and clear message that advertisers are showing disclaimers / other mandatory warning or content only for the sake of complying with some guidelines and just doing lip-service by complying, but they do not really intend to convey the message to consumers. I request you to look into the matter and do the needful. There are just too many advertisements like this!!! I trust you will make the channel declare that they are sending you the correct clipping of the correct advertisement picked up from the correct time-slot I have noted above.”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

""The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded the details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response. The advertiser had in their response stated that they have not aired the said TVC in High Definition and that the disclaimers in the Standard Definition TVC are clear and legible and in accordance with ASCI’s Guidelines for Disclaimers as per a confirmation from their Advertising Agency that the height of the text of the disclaimers is above 12 pixels in a 576 line raster. The CCC viewed the TVC and recommended an independent verification of the advertiser’s assertion as the disclaimers were not legible even when the TVC was viewed on a large screen. The independent verification indicated that the height of the picture area were 434 in 578 lines. The lowercase elements were measured to be of height of about 7 to 8 pixels. Based on independent verification, it was concluded that the font size of the disclaimers in the TVC measures less than 12 pixels, and hence the TVC violated Clause VII.i.1 of ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers (""For standard definition images, the height of the text lower case elements shall be NOT LESS THAN 12 pixels [12 lines] in a 576 line raster.""). The complaint was accordingly UPHELD." "

 

COMPANY:"Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd "
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“The ad is not clear about no1 brand ARTISTRY by Amway. Weather in india or international source euro monitor international Ltd as claimed by amway in the ad.”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: NOT UPHELD

"The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded the details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response. The advertiser had stated in their response that the advertisement clearly indicates the source of the claim as based on global 2015 value RSP as is provided by Euromonitor International Limited. In support of their response, Advertiser provided a website screenshot of Euromonitor.com. Upon viewing the print advertisement, examining the complaint and the response given by the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, ""ARTISTRY™ No. l direct selling premium beauty brand”, is not objectionable as it is qualified to mention the source and date of research and criteria for assessment for the claim made in the advertisement. The complaint was accordingly NOT UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Vadnere Chemical Works"
PRODUCT:"Dr Vadnere Teething Syrup "

COMPLAINT:

"“Hastey daat muskurate daat , aasani se aate daat , 93 Varsho ka Bharosa 1 karod Se Jyada baccho ki Hasi Ka Raj Daat nikalne Ki Kathinai ko Badla Ja sakta hai aaSani se Agar Diya Jaye baccho ko """

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"“Hastey daat muskurate daat , aasani se aate daat , 93 Varsho ka Bharosa 1 karod Se Jyada baccho ki Hasi Ka Raj Daat nikalne Ki Kathinai ko Badla Ja sakta hai aaSani se Agar Diya Jaye baccho ko "" Dr. Vadnere's teething syrup ""Uprokt company dwara Apne product ka misleading advertisement Kiya ja raha hai , product Mein Likha Hai Ki ""93 varsh ka Bharosa , 1 karod Se Jyada baccho ki Hasi Ka Raj "" Jab ki Aisa Kuch Bhi Nahi Hai , misleading numbers advertise Kiya ja rahe hai , Saath hi Sabhi mothers Janti Hai Ki children's Ko Jab naye daant aate hai to kafi pareshani hoti hai usse Kisi bhi Dawa ke Madhyam se thik nahi kiya Ja sakta hai , Samay guzarne ke saath saath pareshani apne aap thik Ho Jati Hai , request hai key sambandhit company ko nirdeshit kiya jaye ki is Prakar ke misleading advertisement Na Kare , avam company par jurmane ki karyawahi ki jawe Uprokt Vigyapan naidunia Gwalior ke dinank 12 June 2017 ke Ank mein page number 5 par prakashit hua hai”"

Recommendation: UPHELD

""The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded the details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser had, however, not responded to ASCI’s request. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and upon careful consideration of the complaint, and in the absence of any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claims (in Hindi), “93 Varsho ka Bharosa”, and “1 karod Se Jyada baccho ki Hasi Ka Raj” were not substantiated with supporting evidence or any third party validation. Claim, “Daat nikalne Ki Kathinai ko Badla Ja sakta hai aaSani se Agar Diya Jaye baccho ko Dr. Vadnere's teething syrup”, was not substantiated with product efficacy data. Also, the claims are misleading by exaggeration. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. This complaint was accordingly UPHELD. The claim, “Hastey daat muskurate daat”, was considered to be a generic claim. This complaint was NOT UPHELD." "

 

COMPANY: "Wonder Cement Ltd."
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"“This is about wonder cement, an advertisement shown on star plus, dated 9th June 2017 at 7:18 pm. This advertisement shows a pillion rider without helmet. This is against the central motor vehicle act, and is a punishable offence. It promotes unsafe practices. The advertisement is available on YouTube also. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5PwU93fYyI8"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

""The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded the details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but requested for an extension of one month’s time to submit their response. In response to this request, the advertiser was granted an additional seven days to respond. Advertiser in their response stated that the incidence of pillion rider not wearing helmet is a mistake due to oversight as they were not aware of the legal position of wearing of helmet by Pillion rider. Upon viewing the TVC, examining the complaint and the response given by the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the visual of “a pillion rider on a two wheeler without a helmet” as depicted in the TVC shows violation of traffic rules and also is an unsafe practice. The TVC contravened Chapter III.3 and III.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD." "

 

COMPANY: "Salarpuria Group"
PRODUCT:"Salarpuria Sattva "

COMPLAINT:

"This particular home ad stands tall near the KR puram flyover so obviously offensive and objectifying women. This is what it exactly says ""An evening with me! Choice is yours location is mine!!"" With a picture of an animated girl.And right below it is written: To unveil your evening surprise, walk into our site offices till 9pm . Followed by a small line saying ready to occupy homes. Anyone would first see the quoted words alone. I would like to file a complaint because it offended me as a woman and every women to whom I showed this ad. As the pictures clearly explain what I am talking about.I strongly condemn the ad and the creative mind behind this and everyone involved."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded the details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser had, however, not responded to ASCI’s request. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the Ad – Hoarding and upon careful consideration of the complaint, and in the absence of any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the Ad showing a picture of an animated girl with her spoken words, "An evening with me! Choice is yours location is mine!!", objectifies women which is likely, in the generally prevailing standards of decency to cause grave and widespread offence (especially to women). The Ad – Hoarding contravened Chapter II of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD. "

 

COMPANY:"RACE Institute for Bank & SSC Coaching "
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"a) India's no.1 coaching institute for Bank & SSC b) Best Competitive exam coaching institute with more than 84% success ratio c) Only institute with more than 84% success ratio d) Race is only institute to release registration id and password to differentiate us from fake results of other institutes e) In 2016-17, about 8500 of our students have got placed in various Public sector banks."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"The website advertisement & Outdoor advertisement is for coaching for Bank Exams & SSC exams RACE coaching claims in its web page and bus advertisement: a) India's no.1 coaching institute for Bank & SSC b) Best Competitive exam coaching institute with more than 84% success ratio c) Only institute with more than 84% success ratio d) Race is only institute to release registration id and password to differentiate us from fake results of other institutes e) In 2016-17, about 8500 of our students have got placed in various Public sector banks. All the claims by Race coaching institute on its website as well as in outdoor advertisement appear misleading, exaggerated, fake, and are very vague. On what parameters and data they are claiming to be “India's no.1 coaching institute for Bank & SSC”. The claims : “Best competitive exam coaching institute with more than 84% success ratio” and “only institute with more than 84% success ratio” - are completely exaggerated and used for misleading genuine students and other job aspirants. What is the proof and basis for this claim of success ratio? They have not shown and revealed any data for this claim. The claim of “Race is only institute to release registration id and password to differentiate us from fake results of other institutes” is also very ambiguous, false and are being used to lure the students. Also, they are trying to say that other coaching classes are fake! Race institute has not given details (names, banks in which they got selected, their registration id and password) of their claim of more than 8500 students placed in various public sector banks in 2016-17. This number is highly exaggerated and misleading. No proof given for this. All of the above claims by Race coaching institute appear to be misleading, vauge and fake. This institute should be asked to validate and prove all these claims by relevant data and proof. I request ASCI to please ask this institute to immediately stop using these wrong claims if they fail to prove these so that genuine students do not fall for these claims."

Recommendation: UPHELD

""The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded the details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they availed, and submitted their written response. The advertiser had stated in their response that based on the observations they made regarding the appreciations, the awards and the feedbacks received so far for their organization, they claimed to be No.1 coaching institute for Bank & SSC competitive exams. Among the total population of RACE ward candidates nearly 84% candidates passed various competitive examinations. Claim of `Only institute with more than 84% success ratio’ is based on their observation through the secondary data till now they are not able to get the data beyond their results. Referring to the claim, ‘RACE is only institute to release registration id and password to differentiate us from fake results of others’ they are trying to create awareness about the quality of the institution by providing the way to the students/parents to understand the quality of the service. To be a role model they are publishing their RACE ward candidates results always only with the user name and password. As for the claim, ‘In 2016 -17, about 8500 of our students have got placed in various Public sector banks’ it is a misprint and the same statement was revoked and redrafted as From 2012 – 17, about 8500 of our students have passed in various competitive exams (prelims, mains, etc.,). Upon viewing the website and the outdoor advertisement, examining the complaint and the response given by the advertiser, the CCC noted that the advertiser makes only assertions regarding their claims. The CCC concluded that the claims, “India's no.1 coaching institute for Bank & SSC”, “Best Competitive exam coaching institute with more than 84% success ratio”, “Only institute with more than 84% success ratio”, “Race is only institute to release registration id and password to differentiate us from fake results of other institutes”, and “In 2016-17, about 8500 of our students have got placed in various Public sector banks”, were not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s institute and other similar institutes, or any third party validation; and are misleading by exaggeration. The website and the outdoor advertisement was therefore considered as contravening the Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD." "

 

COMPANY: "Success Ahead Education Services "
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"“Highest Success Rate” “Never before from a single centre'”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"“The advertisement was recently published in a National Daily News paper by a Coaching Institution named, Success Ahead. The institution showed results of CLAT 2017 (Common Law Admission Test). 1. The advertisement title says Selections from classroom Program but the All India Rank 16 (Anahad Narain) shown is NOT a classroom student. He can only be a student from the Distance Learning Course. The advertisement misleads the reader about the false claim. 2. The advertisement also states Highest Success Rate without any comparison data mentioned. The statement used is totally misleading as there is no data to back it up. 3. The advertisement also states ' Never before from a single centre'. This is a misleading statement for the readers as their is no data to back it up. All in all, the advertisement tries to hide their actual data by using subjective statements. It dodges and misleads the reader to believe data which is FALSE.”"

Recommendation: UPHELD

""The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response. In respect of the objection that the photograph of All India Rank 16 (Anahad Narain) shown in the advertisement was not a classroom student, the advertiser stated that Anhad Narain was enrolled in two years program with their institute and they have provided him all the assistance as well as privileges of a classroom student. Thus, his name has been used because of their contribution to his success. In respect of the objections to the claims, “Highest Success Rate”, “Never before from a single centre'”, the advertiser stated that out of a total of 150 students, they have more than 40 selections in the top law colleges in India. They further added that it is a settled law in the field of advertisement and in particular, comparative advertisements in India, that an entity can claim their product to be the 'best' without disparaging the products of its competitors. As claim support data, the advertiser provided list of CLAT Result of Classroom Programme Students for 2015 and 2016 with their respective contact details. Further, in their response they cited 3 High Court Judgements. i.e. (i) Reckitt and Colman of India Ltd. v. M.P. Ramchandran and Anr. 1999 (19) PTC 741; (ii) Dabur India v. Wipro Limited 2006 (32) PTC 677 (Del); and (iii) Colgate Vs. Pepsodent, dated 11.08.2013. Upon viewing the print advertisement, examining the complaint and the response given by the advertiser, the CCC noted that the Advertiser had not provided the full details of the enrollment/registration of the students, receipt of fees paid, etc, to prove that Anahad Narain was indeed a student of Success Ahead Institute as claimed. The CCC concluded that the advertiser’s claim that Anahad Narain is from their institute was not substantiated with authentic evidence, and is misleading. The claims, “Highest Success Rate”, “Never before from a single centre”, were not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s institute and other similar institutes, and are misleading by exaggeration. Regarding the High Court Judgements quoted by the advertiser, the CCC observed that the advertiser had ignored the later judgments of the higher courts on the same matter; particularly the judgment of the Delhi High Court in 2013 in the case of Colgate Palmolive Company & Others vs. Hindustan Unilever Ltd, in which the court specifically dealt with the above cited judgment in Reckitt & Coleman matter, and said: “…..(d) He however, cannot, while saying that his goods are better than his competitors', say that his competitors' goods are bad. If he says so, he really slanders the goods of his competitors. In other words, he defames his competitors and their goods, which is not permissible….. While hyped-up advertising may be permissible, it cannot transgress the grey areas of permissible assertion, and if does so, the advertiser must have some reasonable factual basis for the assertion made. It is not possible, therefore, for anybody to make an off-the-cuff or unsubstantiated claim that his goods are the best in the world or falsely state that his goods are better than that of a rival”. Further, the Supreme Court of India, in the Tata Press vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam (1995) case, had stated inter alia: “… The ""Commercial speech"" which is deceptive, unfair, misleading and untruthful would be hit by Article 19(2) of the Constitution and can be regulated/prohibited by the State”. Thus it is clear from the above that the response of the advertiser that they were entitled to make statements in their advertisements, even if such statements are untrue, is untenable in law, and the judgment they had relied upon has since been overruled. The advertisement contravened Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD." "

 

COMPANY: "Amazon Inc "
PRODUCT:"Lenovo Zuk Z1"

COMPLAINT:

"“Amazon is giving Wrong information about the Product Lenovo Zuk Z1. Amazon says that there is planned for os Upgrading but in the lenovo smartphone official website it say there no planning any Upgradation os for these phone Zuk Z1.So,Look on the Ad Provide by Amazon Misleading Practice against Product And please tell them to Change Cyanogen Os Also because Cynogen is end there subscription n Both Lenovo & Amazon Cheating Zuk Z1 Customers so please Help us as soon as possible. The Complaint is for both Lenovo & Amazon they sell Wrong product in the India market by providing wrong information:- 1. Lenovo take money for cynogenmod & the CyanogenMod Os was Cancelled in the Month of January & Now Lenovo mention that cynogenmod is ended.But Amazon still selling the by same information & cheating us.so please tell them to change everything n provide ture & completely Right Information. According to Lenovo smartphone Company there will not be any upgradation in Android is planned,But On the other Hand Amazon Show in the Feature that Android is planned for Advance feature so please on these point also.”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

""The Advertiser (Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd ) as well as Lenovo India P. Ltd were approached by ASCI for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant. Both were offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser nor the seller representatives sought a personal hearing and Amazon submitted their written response. Amazon in their response stated that the product, the MRP, the Offer Price and the product description are listed by the independent seller directly and Amazon has no direct control over the particulars of the listing. The claim in the advertisement which is being objected to has been made by the independent seller and not by Amazon. Upon enquiry made by Amazon, it was found that the error was due to a dispute and subsequent termination of the relationship between the brand i.e. Lenovo and the Operating System (OS) developer i.e. Cyanogen. The CCC noted that the consumer has seen the product advertisement on the Amazon website. Upon viewing the website advertisement, examining the complaint and the response given by Amazon, and based on the evidence submitted by the Complainant ( screenshot of Lenovo smartphone official website wherein it says that “No upgrade planned” for Lenovo ZUK Z1), the CCC concluded that the Amazon website’s claim regarding the technical details of the product as “Android OS V5.1.1(Lollipop) planned upgrade to V6 O”, is a misrepresentation of facts and is misleading through provision of false information on the features of the product. The Website advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD." "

 

COMPANY: "St. Joseph Polytechnic College"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“100% Placements”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objection raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser had, however, not responded to ASCI’s request. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the TVC and upon careful consideration of the complaint, and in the absence of any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “100% Placement”, was not substantiated with authentic supporting data such as detailed list of students who have been placed through their Institute, contact details of students for verification, enrolment forms and appointment letters received by the students, nor any independent audit or verification certificate. Also, the claim is misleading by exaggeration. The TVC contravened Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Shree Kuberji Builders"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“India s biggest textile market making company.”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objection raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser had, however, not responded to ASCI’s request. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the TVC and upon careful consideration of the complaint, and in the absence of any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Indias biggest textile market making company”, was not substantiated with any data such as market survey, and is misleading by exaggeration. The TVC contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD. "

 

COMPANY:"Arcot Sri Mahalakshmi Women’s College "
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“100% Placement”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objection raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser had, however, not responded to ASCI’s request. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the TVC and upon careful consideration of the complaint, and in the absence of any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “100% Placement”, was not substantiated with authentic supporting data such as detailed list of students who have been placed through their Institute, contact details of students for verification, enrolment forms and appointment letters received by the students, nor any independent audit or verification certificate. Also, the claim is misleading by exaggeration. The TVC contravened Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD. "

 

COMPANY:"Hindustan Unilever Ltd"
PRODUCT:"Citra Korean Pink Pearls and Japan Green Tea "

COMPLAINT:

“Pink pearls from Korea that gives inner fairness and Japanese green tea for pimple clear skin”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objection raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response. The advertiser had stated in their response that Korean Pink pearls contains more than two times the quantity of ‘Conchiolin’ as compared to typical Chinese pearls. They further stated that in a skin lightening efficacy study, results showed the Conchiolin exhibited about 50% inhibition rate against oxidation of tyrosine into L-DOPA, thus showing comparable Tyrosinase inhibition efficacy similar to that of Arbutin giving fairness from inside. For the claim, “Japanese Green tea for Pimple clear skin”, they stated that green tea is a strong anti-oxidant that neutralizes free radicals; and can reduce sebum production, inflammation and bacterial growth in acne-prone skin. The Advertiser further stated that the report arising out of the study had proven green tea’s efficacy in reducing sebum production by reducing size of sebaceous glands. This study was also carried out on human subjects where EGCG was found to be a viable and safe treatment for dealing with the three primary causes of acne. The advertiser added that an eight-weeks’ Half Face Clinical Study conducted to evaluate the Skin Lightening and Spots Lightening Benefit by Visual Dermatologist Assessments of the Korean Pearl Fair Fairness cream showed a significant lightening effect on skin after week 4 and 8. Similarly, a clinical study conducted to prove the efficacy of the product in reducing pimples showed that consumers had a significant reduction in inflammatory acne and total acne lesion at Day 3, Week 1, Week 2, Week 4, versus baseline. As claim support data, the advertiser provided Literature references shared by the supplier, a Study report titled “Comparison of hydration, tyrosinase resistance and antioxidant activation in three kinds of pearl powders”, Green Tea Acne reduction literature, Skin Lightening Clinical report, and Clinical Study Report Acne study. The claim support data was reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. The CCC viewed the TVC and considered the Advertiser’s response as well as the opinion of the Technical expert presented at the meeting. The CCC observed that the TVC is set in the context of “natural solutions being the best for glow” and implies that the advertised products would deliver the nature’s best. Emphasis is made on the special natural ingredients. The report submitted is on the effectiveness of ingredients i.e. Conchiolin (present in Korean Pink pearls) and Epigallocatechin-3-Gallate (present in Japanese Green tea). The data of clinical study submitted shows skin lightening and acne reduction by the use of coded products, however, the benefit is not attributable to the two ingredients. The amount of actives (claimed natural ingredients) present in the formulations have not been mentioned in the report. The data submitted is not adequate to co-relate the claimed benefit (inner fairness and pimple clear skin) to the two ingredients in the product as their causal pathway is not established for the specific product format and specific product composition. The CCC concluded that in the context set out in the TVC, the claim, “Pink pearls from Korea that gives inner fairness and Japanese green tea for pimple clear skin”, was inadequately substantiated and is misleading by ambiguity and implication that the benefits being provided by the product is due to these two natural ingredients. The TVC contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Nandini Herbal Care Pvt. Ltd"
PRODUCT:"Nandini Kesar Almond Goti "

COMPLAINT:

"“Make skin fair in just 5 days”, Visuals in the ad appears to be misleading"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objection of the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser had, however, not responded to ASCI’s request. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the TVC and upon careful consideration of the complaint, and in the absence of any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Make skin fair in just 5 days”, was not substantiated with any evidence of product efficacy and is misleading by exaggeration. Also, the visual showing the model’s dark complexion becoming fair is misleading by exaggeration. The TVC contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD. "

 

COMPANY:"Jai Bharath Educational Foundation "
PRODUCT:"Jai Bharath College of Management and Engineering Technology "

COMPLAINT:

“100% Placement”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objection raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser had, however, not responded to ASCI’s request. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the TVC and upon careful consideration of the complaint, and in the absence of any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “100% Placement”, was not substantiated with authentic supporting data such as detailed list of students who have been placed through their Institute, contact details of students for verification, enrolment forms and appointment letters received by the students, nor any independent audit or verification certificate. Also, the claim is misleading by exaggeration. The TVC contravened Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD. "

 

COMPANY:"Jyothi Chemical Industries"
PRODUCT:"Texma Toilet Cleaner "

COMPLAINT:

"“Texma - Best product of 2016” No disclaimer to indicate the source of this claim"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objection raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response. The advertiser had stated in their response that they had received an Award for the best product of the year 2016 from Malayalam news channel ‘Reporter TV’. In support of their response, the advertiser provided a copy of the video of the award function. They further stated that they re-edited the advertisement without momento. Upon viewing the TVC, examining the complaint and the response given by the advertiser as well as copy of the award function, the CCC noted that the award is in reference to “Business Reliability Award” as “Texma - Best product of 2016” and the advertiser has voluntarily withdrawn its mention from the TVC post receiving the complaint. The CCC concluded the claim, “Texma - Best product of 2016”, was not adequately substantiated and was misleading by ambiguity and omission of mention of source and date of research. The TVC contravened Chapters I.1, I.2 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD. "

 

COMPANY:"The Himalaya Drug Company"
PRODUCT:"Himalaya Anti Hair Fall shampoo "

COMPLAINT:

"“The above product as the name suggests purports to reduce hair fall, breakage,and promises to solve all these problems. it further claims that the remedy is more effective than provided by the parlors or other shampoos. it further claims that it is a complete natural remedy for hair fall The above product as the name suggests purports and creates a false impression of reducing hair fall, breakage,and promises to solve all these problems. It further claims that the remedy is more effective than provided by the parlors or other shampoos, which is not substantiated by any evidence. it further claims that it is a complete natural remedy whereas from the contents of the product it is very clear that it contains number of chemicals. Thus the advertisements regarding the above product are completely misleading and is a fraud upon all the wide spread innocent consumers who purchase these products on the basis of false claims.”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

""The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded the details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response . The advertiser had stated in their response that Himalaya's Anti—Hair Fall Shampoo is a unique, poly-herbal formulation which reduces hair fall and strengthens hair follicles. It is a proprietary formulation that contains active herbs like Bhringaraja (Ecliptaprostrata), Polasha (Butea frondosa] ond Chanaka [Chick pea) which are known to nourish fair from the roots, to help reduce hair fall, to improve hair growth, and to strengthen hair. They further argue that the TVC does not evaluate the effectiveness of various products/services in the market but has only showed that the product has been successful in addressing the hair fall issue. As claim support data, the advertiser provided References to Ayurvedic texts, Clinical study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Anti hair fall shampoo in Management of Diffuse Hair Loss, and Consumer Research study regarding product feedback. The claim support data was reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. The CCC examined the complaint, the TVC and the advertiser’s response as well as the opinion of Technical expert presented at the meeting. The CCC did not agree with the advertiser’s contention that the TVC does not compare their product with others in the market. The Voice over “…phir neeta aunty ke nuskhe aazmaye, aur parlor wale treatment bhi try ki tarah tarah ke shampoos badal ke bhi koi fayeda nahi hua….”, seen in conjunction with the TVC visuals, implies that the advertised product is superior to all other products and parlour treatments. The CCC observed that the clinical study was regarding efficacy of the advertiser’s own product. In the absence of comparative technical data for the product efficacy, the claim in the voice over mentioned above was not substantiated and is misleading by implication that the product is superior than the remedy provided by the parlours or other shampoos. The TVC contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. This complaint was UPHELD. The CCC did not find the product name category ‘Anti-Hair fall Shampoo’ to be objectionable. The TVC does not promise to solve all hair related problems nor does it claim complete natural remedy for the same. The complaint against these objections were NOT UPHELD." "

 

COMPANY: "Wonder Herbals Pvt Ltd"
PRODUCT:"Wonder Slim "

COMPLAINT:

“My weight was 100 kg but when I fell in love with a girl my weight reduced to 50 kgs. Same thing does not happen with others so use Wonder slim. Use it and reduce.”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

""The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objections raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response. The advertiser had stated in their response that the claims objected to which appear in the first 7 sec of the TVC were deleted and the whole advertisement was reduced to 13 sec. only. Advertiser provided copies of Telecast Certificate, Sample of the Product, and license copy. The CCC viewed the TVC, examined the complaint and the response given by the advertiser. In the absence of claim support data, the CCC concluded that the testimonial claims, “My weight was 100 kg but when I fell in love with a girl my weight reduced to 50 kgs. Same thing does not happen with others so use Wonder slim. Use it and reduce”, made in the TVC were not substantiated with evidence of product efficacy for weight reduction, and are misleading by implication and exaggeration. The TVC contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD." "

 

COMPANY:"Gautam Clinic Pvt. Ltd "
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"1. Gautam Clinic is famous and one of the best sexologist in Asia. 2. Dr Gautam has achieved many rewards and recognition for his services for multi-specialty treatments through all possible methods like allopathic, homeopathy and ayurvedic."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objections raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response . The advertiser had stated in their response that the Clinic is equipped with the multi-specialty and experienced doctors, and that the said recognition is awarded to the Clinic, not to the individual doctor. They added that the award (Best Sexologist in Asia) was granted by “APS Research & Media” (apsresearchnmedia.com); and that the Clinic is equipped with multi-specialist doctors who are rendering treatments through allopathic, homeopathy and ayurvedic systems of medicine. As claim support data, the advertiser provided details of doctors employed in their hospital with their registration numbers and the Clinic Registration details. Upon carefully viewing the TVC, examining the complaint and the response given by the advertiser, the CCC noted that the TVC makes an individual specific claim for one Dr Gautam. The CCC did not agree with the advertiser’s contention that the award is for the Clinic as the TVC further states about achievements of Dr Gautam as an individual. Credentials of Dr Gautam were also questionable as these were not submitted unlike that for other staff members and as per the advertiser’s web-site it was “BEMS”. The concluded that the claims, “Gautam Clinic is famous and one of the best sexologist in Asia”, “Dr Gautam has achieved many rewards and recognition for his services for multi-specialty treatments through all possible methods like allopathic, homeopathy and Ayurvedic”, were not substantiated with copy of the qualifications of Inderjit Singh Gautam, details, references of the awards received such as the year, source and award certificates, and the authenticity of the body issuing the awards (APS ResearchnMedia). The CCC further concluded that the claims were misleading by gross exaggeration. The TVC contravened Chapters I.1, I.2 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Sudarshan Tv Channel Ltd"
PRODUCT:"Sudarshan Nasha Muktam "

COMPLAINT:

“Helps 100 percent in de addiction of addictive substances.”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objection raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser had, however, not responded to ASCI’s request. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the TVC and upon careful consideration of the complaint, and in the absence of any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Helps 100 percent in de addiction of addictive substances”, was not substantiated with product efficacy data, and is misleading by exaggeration. The TVC contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD. "

 

COMPANY: "Dr P K Jain Clinic Pvt. Ltd"
PRODUCT:"Dr. P. K. Jain Clinics "

COMPLAINT:

"1. World’s No 1 top ranking sexologist. 2. One and only experienced and highly qualified doctor and has been awarded with national and international awards."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objections raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser had, however, not responded to ASCI’s request. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the TVC and upon careful consideration of the complaint, and in the absence of any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “World’s No 1 top ranking sexologist”, was not substantiated with comparative survey data. The source for this claim was not indicated in the TVC. Claim, “One and only experienced and highly qualified doctor and has been awarded with national and international awards”, was not substantiated with copy of the award certificates, details, references of the awards received such as the year and source. The details of the authenticity of the body issuing the awards was not submitted. Also, the claims are misleading by gross exaggerations. The TVC contravened Chapters I.1, I.2 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Shree Maruti Herbal "
PRODUCT:"Stay On Power Capsules"

COMPLAINT:

"By page3 june 7th Hindustan times ad is looking like misleading ad that TRY 28 days, there is no technically report what after 28 days. Infact STAYon has given the wrong and MISLEAD advertisements in the news paper. That try for 28 days and you will enjoy SEX. This is totally MISLEAD , the news paper is read by the young and family of the every home. This type of products can be recommended by a doctor or any certified medical practitionar. If something werong happens in cosuming the products who is responsible. No any technicals have been written in the advertrisements.This means company forces to taste for 28 days and what after 28 days has not been clarified Please look in to the matter."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser had, however, not responded to ASCI’s request. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and upon careful consideration of the complaint, and in the absence of any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claims, “The ‘twenty eight day’ stay on course is all you need to revive vigour, vitality, stamina and energy”, was not substantiated with product efficacy data and was misleading by exaggeration. The CCC noted that the advertisement provides a link to the web-site www.stayonpowercapsule.com which contains product claims in violation of the Drugs & Magic Remedies Act. The claims made in the web-site (few excerpts – “ A simple 30-60 days course will now help you prolong bedtime activity…. …Unlike other Herbal product manufacturers, the makers of Stay-On products focus only on sexual wellness and delivering results. The formulations include hi-quality Ashwagandha extract which is proven to correct Erectile Dysfunction and rekindle desire for intimacy! … …Stay-On Capsules are a miracle of Ayurveda, and while these are very effective for ensuring sexual well being and letting you get over sexual dysfunctions…) The Ad headline, “Twenty eight days is all it takes to be `the man’ you always wanted to be”, when read in conjunction with the advertisement visual, the pack visual and reference to the product web-site implies that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure, which is in Breach of the law as it violated The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1, I.4 and III.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Dainik Bhaskar Group "
PRODUCT:"Divya Bhaskar newspaper"

COMPLAINT:

"1. Will open anywhere in 5 seconds 2. World’s fastest opening news website 3. Know more than news 4. World’s No 1 Gujarati Website."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"1. Are claims 1, 2 and 4 substantiated with independent research data? 2. The source and date of the research based on which these claims are made should be mentioned in the advt According to us, the advertisement contravenes Chapter 1.1, 1.2 and 1.5 of ASCI code”"

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded the details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser had, however, not responded to ASCI’s request. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint, despite ASCI reminder. During the deliberation of the complaint, the CCC members present verified the website link (m.divyabhaskar.co.in) mentioned in the advertisement and observed that this link did not open in 5 seconds and also showed that the webpage is down. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and upon careful consideration of the complaint, and in the absence of any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claims, “Will open anywhere in 5 seconds”, “World’s fastest opening news website”, were false, unsubstantiated and are misleading by gross exaggeration. Claim, “World’s No 1 Gujarati Website”, was not substantiated with any comparative / market survey data and is misleading. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. This complaint was accordingly UPHELD. The CCC did not consider the claim, “Know more than News”, to be objectionable. This complaint was NOT UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Frijoles India"
PRODUCT:"Frijoles Green Coffee "

COMPLAINT:

"“Green coffee powder is for weight loss” Uses fssai logo for advertisement. Visual in the print advertisement is misleading"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objections raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser had, however, not responded to ASCI’s request. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the print advertisement, the TVC and upon careful consideration of the complaint, and in the absence of any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Green coffee powder for weight loss”, was not substantiated with clinical evidence for product efficacy, and was misleading by exaggeration. Also, the visual in the print advertisement was misleading by implication that the product is beneficial for weight loss. The CCC also noted the use of FSSAI logo in the print and TV advertisement which is not permitted by the FSSAI for product promotion. The print advertisement and the TVC contravened Chapters I.1, I.3 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD. "

 

COMPANY:"Dr. Kudos Laboratories India Limited- "
PRODUCT:"IME-9 Tablets"

COMPLAINT:

"1.Now control and monitor your diabetes with IME-9 2.The testimonials in the advertisement indicate action in 15 days with sugar level coming to normal."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"Diabetes Item No.9- DMR Schedule Item No.14- Schedule J"

 

COMPANY:"Positive Homeopathy "
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"Get freedom from piles, fissure and fistula pain."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"Piles and Fistulae Item no. 42- Schedule J"

 

COMPANY:"Positive Homeopathy"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"1.Kidney stones can be cured completely. 2.Free from Piles, Fissure & Fistula without surgery."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

""Kidney Stones- Item no. 22- DMR Schedule Item no. 50- Schedule J Piles and Fistulae Item no. 42- Schedule J"

 

COMPANY:"Shahi Pharmaceuticals"
PRODUCT:"Shahi Unani Tila "

COMPLAINT:

"1.For the moments when you need some extra energy. 2.The visual in the Ad read in conjunction with the claim objected to implies that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"Maintenance or improvement of the capacity of the human being for sexual pleasure – Item no. 36 – Schedule J"

 

COMPANY:"Shahi Pharmaceuticals"
PRODUCT:"Shahi Gold Capsule "

COMPLAINT:

"1. Energy, strength and stamina. 2. For Stay Long Power. 3.The visual in the Ad read in conjunction with the claims objected to implies that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"Maintenance or improvement of the capacity of the human being for sexual pleasure – Item no. 36 – Schedule J"

 

COMPANY:"Meeta Ayurveda"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"1.Increase sex time up to 35 minutes more. 2.Increase organ length / increase thickness, prevent sugar, discharge, thinness, loose, treatment to sloppy organ and removes night fall from roots. 3.The visual in the Ad read in conjunction with the claims objected to implies that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

""Maintenance or improvement of the capacity of the human being for sexual pleasure – Item no. 36 – Schedule J Improvement in size and shape of the sexual organ and in duration of sexual performance. Item no. 30 – Schedule J" "

 

COMPANY:"Lord Dhanwantri Ayurvedic Hospital "
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"1.Get rid of arthritis from the roots and cures without operation. 2.Claims to provide 100 ayurvedic treatment to cervical spondylosis without operation and cures from roots."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"Rheumatism Item No.43- DMR Schedule Spondylitis Item No. 48- Schedule J"

 

COMPANY:"Dr Madhu Varanasi Super Speciality Homeopathy Clinic "
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"Get rid of sexual diseases with homeo treatment."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"Sexual Impotence- Item No. 45- DMR Schedule Item no. 47-Schedule J Premature Ejaculation - Item no- 47- Schedule J"

 

COMPANY:"Rajnish Hot Deals Pvt. Ltd"
PRODUCT: "Playwin Capsule and Oil "

COMPLAINT:

"1.Increase vigour, strength and power. 2.Make loose organ strong, powerful and hard. 3. increase extra timing and pep 4.The visual in the Ad read in conjunction with the claims objected to implies that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure "

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

""Maintenance or improvement of the capacity of the human being for sexual pleasure – Item no. 36 – Schedule J Sexual Impotence- Item No. 45- DMR Schedule Item no. 47-Schedule J" "

 

COMPANY: "Rajnish Hot Deals Pvt. Ltd"
PRODUCT:"Playwin Plus Capsule "

COMPLAINT:

"1.Growth of power, extra timing, strength and warmness. 2.Get powerful strength in every moment. 3.Massage in weak nerves with few drops of Play Win Oil , it will strengthen the vital organs of the body. 4.The visual in the Ad read in conjunction with the claims objected to implies that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure "

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

""Maintenance or improvement of the capacity of the human being for sexual pleasure – Item no. 36 – Schedule J""

 

COMPANY:"Noor Davakhana"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"Cure cancer clot in head, cancer clot of mouth, jaw,neck, lungs, liver, stomach, uterus, chest through medicines, without operation "

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"Cancer Item No.6- DMR Schedule Item No.8- Schedule J"

 

COMPANY: "Sun Laboratories P Limited"
PRODUCT: "Titanic K2 Plus Capsule "

COMPLAINT:

"1.It is the first choice of men, which gives the pleasure of masculinity for longer duration. 2. The visual on the product packaging read in conjunction with the claims objected to implies that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure "

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

""Maintenance or improvement of the capacity of the human being for sexual pleasure – Item no. 36 – Schedule J""

 

COMPANY: "Homeocare International Pvt. Ltd"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"Will make you free from infertility and obesity."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"Sterility in Women Item No.48- DMR Schedule Obesity Item No.39- Schedule J Item No.38- DMR Schedule"

 

COMPANY:"Aena Healo Ayurveda Protectology Clinic"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"Piles and Fistula completely cured with treatment."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

""Piles and Fistulae Item no. 42- Schedule J""

 

COMPANY:"Nila Pharmaceuticals"
PRODUCT:"Arsamukthi "

COMPLAINT:

"Enjoy piles free life."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

""Piles and Fistulae Item no. 42- Schedule J""

 

COMPANY:"Shree Maruti Herbal"
PRODUCT:"Stay-On Power Oil "

COMPLAINT:

"1. The realization of youthful passion. 2.Only for Men 4.The visual in the Advertisement and product packaging read in conjunction with the claims in the advertisement implies that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure. 5. The advertisement provides link to website which refers to “A very important advantage of using the Stay-On Power Oil for men is that this works very effectively towards increasing the sex drive, and also sexual desire in males. By going for the recommended dosage of the Stay-On Power Oil for Men, males would find that intimate activity becomes more pleasurable, and the size of the male organ increases as well.”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

""Maintenance or improvement of the capacity of the human being for sexual pleasure – Item no. 36 – Schedule J Improvement in size and shape of the sexual organ and in duration of sexual performance. Item no. 30 – Schedule J" "

 

COMPANY: "Ratan Ayurvedic Sansthan Pvt. Ltd."
PRODUCT:"Sudol Body Toner Capsule "

COMPLAINT:

"1. Enhances the beauty of women. 2.The visual in the ad and product packaging , read in conjunction with the claim objected to implies that the product is meant for breast enhancement "

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

""Form and structure of the breast Item no. 19- Schedule J Form and structure of the female bust. Item no. 21-DMR Schedule" "

 

COMPANY:"Medipulse Hospital"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"Now get freedom from diabetes due to obesity and other diseases."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"Diabetes Item No.9- DMR Schedule Item No.14- Schedule J"

 

COMPANY: "Bharti Airtel Ltd"
PRODUCT:"Airtel - The Smartphone Network "

COMPLAINT:

"I would like to bring to your notice an advertisement noticed on television, which apparently violates the ASCI code and does not appear to be entirely honest in their manner of communication. On 16.05.2017, at around 5.46 p.m., in the commercial breaks during the movie ""ABCD"" being aired on UTV movies channel , I noticed the advertisement of Airtel. In that ad, there is some disclaimer / written information / text on the screen but in very small font, illegible and unreadable. Apparently, the small fonts are deliberate and I would presume there is an intent to conceal something. It is a loud and clear message that advertisers are showing disclaimers / other mandatory warning or content only for the sake of complying with some guidelines, but they are not really complying in the real sense and spirit. I request you to look into the matter and do the needful."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

""The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response. The advertiser had stated in their response that their TV commercial is in compliance with the ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers. By way of abundant caution and to ensure readability of the disclaimers, they have used larger than the prescribed fonts by ASCI. However, while the advertiser asserted compliance with ASCI Guidelines on Disclaimers, it was observed that the disclaimers were not legible. Therefore the CCC recommended an independent verification of the disclaimers. Accordingly, an independent verification was conducted in the matter, which indicated that the height of the picture area was 320 in 576 lines for SD and 860 in 1088 for HD. The lowercase letters in the disclaimer were measured and found to be of a height of about 7 to 8 pixels for SD and 18 pixels for HD formats. Thus, the SD disclaimers did not comply with the ASCI Guidelines for size whereas the HD disclaimers did comply. Upon viewing the TVC, examining the complaint and the response given by the advertiser, and based on independent verification, the CCC concluded that the TVC violated Clauses (VII) (i) (1) of ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers (“For standard definition images, the height of the text lower case elements shall be not less than 12 pixels (12 pixels lines) in a 576 line raster.”) for SD version of the advertisement. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD." "

 

COMPANY:"IMS Learning Resources P. Ltd"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"I came across this advertisement. I personally feel that this is too much of a claim to make and it is being advertised in this manner to lure in students in the name of quality. How different are they when they say they are SUPERIOR. Other institutes are also offering the same. I would have joined this institute and lost valuable time by seeing this advertisement. It would be good if you could regulate these kind of ads so that all institutes dont start a MONEY BACK GUARANTEE scheme just to lure in students. Request you to please ask them to remove these ads and put up normal ads. Please consider this request."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: NOT UPHELD

"The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded the details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response as stated above. The advertiser had stated in their response that the offer of 100% money Back Guarantee is subject to several terms and conditions which are appropriately mentioned in the Guarantee card provided to their students at the time of enrolment at the centre. As claim support data, the Advertiser in their response provided details of 5 students who have been refunded 100% Money in Chennai region enrolled for CAT Course under “IMS-Money Back Guarantee” Program in last years. Advertiser in their response further affirmed that since no other player in the market is giving this 100% Money back Guarantee, their training program with such a unique feature undeniably becomes superior in the market. Upon viewing the Ad – promotional material, examining the complaint and the response given by the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “100% money back”, was substantiated. The CCC did not consider the word “superior” to be objectionable. The complaint was accordingly NOT UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"IBT Institute Pvt. Ltd "
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“India’s No.1 Institute”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"The Ad claims that the Institute is number 1 in India. Ad is claiming to be number 1 institute in India wheras there is no proof for it and it is wrong to make such claims. it is not an honest representation and being number 1 is not backed by any fact and data "

Recommendation: UPHELD

""The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded the details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response as stated above. The advertiser had stated in their response that they are the only Institute across India with 100+ branches which provides coaching for different Govt job recruitment examinations, IBT study material to their students, computer lab for giving online mock tests in the institute premises, and that it empowers the students to get regular online study material through android and iOS App, as well as more than 250 online tests on their own portal. The CCC observed that the advertiser has only made assertions about their institute but did not provide any official ranking published by a Government authority or independent body; and that the advertiser had not submitted any authentic and verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s institute and other similar institutes, nor had they provided any third-party validation of their claims. Also, the criteria given is not for “No.1” being claimed. Upon viewing the Ad – promotional material, examining the complaint, the response given by the advertiser, and in the absence of any credible claim support data, the CCC concluded that the claim, “India’s No.1 Institute”, was not substantiated and is misleading by exaggeration. The Ad – promotional material was therefore considered as contravening the Clauses 4(a) and 4(b) of the Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD." "

 

COMPANY:"Eureka Forbes Ltd "
PRODUCT:"Dr. Aquaguard"

COMPLAINT:

"Complaint 1:” My objections are as follows: 1) AD shows a class of students with some pots on benches. Teacher is asking all students if they have watered their plants. Then she asks Rohan Your plant looks different. What have you done? Rohan replies, I have used healthy water for my plant, the water from Aquaguard Paani ka Doctor. Then a photograph of Aquaguard water purifier is shown and viewers are informed that it was Biotron technology which helps retain important minerals. 2) This is misinformation. Plants have capacity to use necessary nutrients from soil/water medium. Healthy water, as the company calls the treated water, does not make any difference to plants and cannot be responsible for a different look of Rohans plant. 3) Paani ka Doctor is a wrong nomenclature. Aquaguard company cannot call themselves Paani ka Doctor, because the word Doctor is a special qualification either a MBBS or Ayurveda/ Homeopath graduate or a Ph.D. in any discipline can be called a Doctor. It has its advantages and privileges attached to it. Paani ka Doctor is a misleading term. 4) Earlier in one of my complaints my contention was accepted and my complaint was upheld against Aquaguard Company.” Complaint 2: “Purified water ads. While promotoing the thier product, The content of add misleading by quoting one student used purified water to grow his tree and that observed extra growth due to using purified water from Dr. Aquagaurd. This is misleading and no base. Kindly look in to it.”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

""The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainants and forwarded the details of the complaints, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response as stated above. The advertiser had stated in their response that their claim is not about filtration, but bio-availability; that the root cells can absorb the Biotron treated water much faster than normal water; and that the scientific claim is about faster growth of plants when the water is made more bio-available at the cellular level, which has been proven in several research papers and that they have added necessary disclaimers in the TVC. Regarding the term “Pani ka doctor”, the advertiser states that the CCC for an earlier complaint did not find the reference of "" Dr Aquaguard"" objectionable provided it is qualified with 'TM' or 'R' as the case may be. The claim support data was reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. The CCC viewed the TVC and considered the Advertiser’s response as well as the opinion of the Technical expert presented at the meeting. The CCC noted that the advertiser’s claims are based on studies in plants and that their related website link https://www.eurekaforbes.com/skin/frontend/default/MAG090167/images/downloadfiles/biotron/Biotron-certificate.pdf has certifications from various plant-test agencies claiming better growth of plants. The CCC observed that tests were done for water from their Biotron-equipped unit vs. tap water. The test reports show comparison only with tap water and not with the purifier without the Biotron technology; the latter is necessary to establish that the effect is due to Biotron technology alone and not due to negative impact of other elements in untreated tap water. The plant data is seed germination test and water absorption in seed test and these are not in any way a plant growth test after the seeds take root in the soil. Furthermore, it was seen that the number of published reports in the peer-reviewed literature are only two, one published from Idgah Hills, Bhopal M.P., the other not using the Company device. No test reports on animals or humans have been provided for extrapolation of the benefits to humans. Based on the above data, the CCC concluded that the claim showing growth of plant in the protagonist’s beaker to be significantly more than the rest of the class was not adequately substantiated. Furthermore, the reference made in the TVC – mother saying to the son “achha boy nahin man ... Aquaguard ho toh farak dikhta hai”, was misleading as it implies that the Biotron treated water has some special properties resulting in better growth and development in children, which was not substantiated. The CCC also noted that the claim, “Paani Ka Doctor Aquaguard” was not accompanied by TM / R qualification and hence was misleading by implication in the context of the advertisement. The disclaimers in the TVC are not in the same language as the audio of the TVC (Hindi), and the hold duration of the disclaimers are not in compliance with the ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers. The TVC contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code and Clauses 4(I), and 4(X) of ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers. These complaints were accordingly UPHELD." "

 

COMPANY:"Hindustan Unilever Ltd "
PRODUCT:"Vaseline Healthy White Lightening"

COMPLAINT:

“Visibly fairer in 2 weeks”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

“Vaseline healthy white lotion. The advertisement claims skin whitening in two weeks which is not possible.”

Recommendation: NOT UPHELD

"The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded the details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they availed, and submitted their written response as stated above. The advertiser had stated in their response that the claim ‘visibly fairer in 2 weeks’ is a clear monadic statement of the product’s benefits on regular usage for two weeks, and that the same is supported through product technology and strong clinical data that has proven the skin lightening ability of the product over long-term usage. Vaseline Healthy White Lightening Lotion has active levels of Niacinamide to provide skin fairness on regular application and the combination of sunscreens helps protect skin from further darkening. As claim-support data, the advertiser provided Journal reference on Niacinamide’s efficacy in skin lightening and skin renewal, Result of Clinical Evaluation of product technology. The claim support data submitted by the advertiser was reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. The CCC examined the complaint, the YouTube Ad and the detailed response sent by the advertiser as well as the opinion of Technical expert presented at the meeting. The CCC concluded that the claim regarding fairness improvement in two weeks was substantiated. The complaint was accordingly NOT UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Hindustan Unilever Ltd"
PRODUCT: "Fair and Lovely advanced multivitamin cream"

COMPLAINT:

"“The Advertisement features Indian actress Yami Gautam for the product Fair&Lovely Advanced Multi vitamin Cream. The Advertisement features the product and promises laser like treatment for the skin which keeps the skin glowing Under the tag line 'Paaiye laser light treatment jaisa nikhar. This product and company tends to overpromise its customers with the laser like treatment which would give their skin glowing ness and fairness, firstly the brand misleads consumers to believe that fairness is the 'Idea of beauty and Glowing skin' As the product is sold as a glowing and fairness product It is misleading consumers of darker skin and leading them to live under confidence and under complex. Also through digitisation and over enhancement the product over commits and does not give desired and promised results.”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: NOT UPHELD

"The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded the details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they availed, and submitted their written response as stated above. The advertiser had stated in their response that the objections raised against the efficacy claims of the advertised product is a subject matter of a consumer case filed before Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – Maharashtra at Mumbai. As this matter is sub-judice, this part of the complaint would not be addressed by them. The advertiser in their response against the complainant’s 2nd objection that the “TVC is misleading consumers of darker skin and leading them to live under confidence and under complex”, stated that they have never misled consumers to believe that fairness is the idea of beauty and glowing skin. The YouTube Ad is also in compliance with Fairness Guidelines, as the protagonist has not been shown unattractive, unhappy, depressed or concerned. The YouTube Ad has been modified where this creative visual has been created using the same photograph multiple times. The CCC examined the complaint, the YouTube Ad and the advertiser’s response and concluded that the advertisement does not portray darker skin, in a way which is widely seen as, at a disadvantage of any kind or inferior. The advertisement was not considered to be in contravention with the ASCI’s Guidelines for Fairness Improvement products. This complaint was accordingly NOT UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Aikon Academy"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“North India’s No. 1 coaching institute”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"The Academy claims to be Number 1 in North India region wheras there is no data for this claim. It is also against ASCI codes to write that the Institute is number 1. The Institute is claiming to be number 1 in north india. such claims are against ASCI codes."

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded the details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the Ad – Hoarding and upon careful consideration of the complaint, and in the absence of any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “North India’s No. 1 coaching institute”, was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s institute and other similar institutes, or any third party validation. Also, the claim is misleading by exaggeration. The Ad – Hoarding was therefore considered as contravening the Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Adi Shankara Institute of Engineering and Technology"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"1. Ranked no 1 among the top prominent engineering colleges in India and no 1 in Kerala 2. No. 5 among the top private engineering colleges in Kerala, ranked no. 10 in India for excellent industry exposure among top private colleges and no 1 in Kerala. "

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

""The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objections raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response as stated above. The advertiser had stated in their response that the ‘Competition Success Review’ and the ‘Week’ magazines had conducted a survey of self-financing Engineering Colleges and ranked the advertiser’s institute as No. 1 among the top prominent Engineering Colleges in India and No. 1 in Kerala. The ‘Higher Education Review’ magazine had ranked the advertiser’s institute as No. 5 among the top private Engineering colleges in Kerala, and as No. 10 in India for excellent industry exposure among top private colleges and number one in Kerala. As this response was inadequate without the submission of the quoted claim support data, ASCI requested the advertiser to provide details of survey methodology for the rankings claimed in the TVC. The advertiser did not provide this information in time for the CCC meeting. Upon viewing the TVC, examining the complaint and the response given by the advertiser, the CCC observed that the advertiser’s response has only assertions about their institute, and that the advertiser had not provided any supporting data for the claims made by them nor a copy of the certificate. Furthermore the CCC noted that the ranking as claimed was only among “self-financing” Engineering colleges. In the absence of this data, the CCC concluded that the claims, “Ranked No. 1 among the top prominent engineering colleges in India and No. 1 in Kerala” and “No. 5 among the top private engineering colleges in Kerala, ranked No. 10 in India for excellent industry exposure among top private colleges and No. 1 in Kerala”, were not substantiated. The CCC further concluded that the claims were misleading by ambiguity and omission. The TVC was therefore held to have contravened the Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD." "

 

COMPANY: "LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd."
PRODUCT:"LG Water Purifier "

COMPLAINT:

"1. It’s safer than plastic that decays with time. 2. India's true water purifier."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objections raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser had, however, not responded to ASCI’s request. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and upon careful consideration of the complaint, and in the absence of any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the comparison claim made against plastic, “It’s safer than plastic that decays with time”, was not substantiated with supporting evidence. The CCC further opined that the claim was likely to mislead consumers to believe, without any justifiable basis, that stainless steel tank is superior to plastic, thereby denigrating the entire category of plastic storage tanks. The claim, “India's true water purifier”, was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s product and other competitor products. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1, I.4 and IV.1 (d) and (e) of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD. "

 

COMPANY:"Lotus Herbals Limited"
PRODUCT:"Lotus Herbals Safe Sun UV Screen Matte Gel "

COMPLAINT:

"1. Safe Sun 2. The sunscreen your skin will love 3. Its finger snap tested 4. Easily absorbed 5. Non-oily 6. Matte look 7. India’s 1st matte gel sunscreen"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"Our Objection: 1. Claims 2-7 need to be substantiated with independent scientific reports. 2. How does the product claim to be India’s 1st matte gel sunscreen? Is there an independent report to support the claim? 3. The term “Safe Sun? needs to be substantiated with independent studies. According to us, the advertisement contravenes Chapter 1.1 and 1.4 of ASCI code Action to be taken: We propose that the advertisement should be immediately withdrawn."

Recommendation: UPHELD

""The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser had, however, not responded to ASCI’s request. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and upon careful consideration of the complaint, and in the absence of any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claims, “Safe Sun”, “Its finger snap tested”, “Easily absorbed”, “Non-oily”, and “Matte look”, were not substantiated with product efficacy data. Claim, “India’s 1st matte gel sunscreen”, was not substantiated with comparative market survey data with other sunscreen products. Also, the claims were misleading by exaggeration. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD. The CCC did not consider the claim “The sunscreen your skin will love”, to be objectionable. This complaint was NOT UPHELD." "

 

COMPANY: "Krishna International School "
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"1. Rajkot’s most reputed CBSE school 2. 100% result every year 3. Best Food 4. Best Education"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"Our objections: 1. Claims 1-4 need to be substantiated with independent reports 2. The source and date of the research based on which these claims are made should be mentioned in the advt According to us, the advertisement contravenes Chapter 1.1 and 1.5 of ASCI code. Action to be taken: We propose that the advertisement should be immediately withdrawn. Action we propose ? This advt should be immediately withdrawn"

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser had, however, not responded to ASCI’s request. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and upon careful consideration of the complaint, and in the absence of any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claims, “Rajkot’s most reputed CBSE school”, “100% result every year”, and “Best Education”, were not substantiated with verifiable supporting data, and were misleading by exaggeration. The advertisement was therefore found contravening the Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. This complaint was accordingly UPHELD. In the context of an advertisement for a school, the CC did not find the claim, “Best Food”, to be objectionable. This complaint was NOT UPHELD. "

 

COMPANY: "Raha Oils Pvt. Ltd"
PRODUCT:"Raha Rice Bran Oil "

COMPLAINT:

"1. World health organization recommends rice bran oil. 2. Health benefits of Rice Bran Oil - - Prevents premature ageing - Controls cholesterol - Menopausal issues - Prevent cancer - Aids weight loss - Boosts immunity - Heart friendly - Less oily."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

""The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objections raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, and submitted their written response as stated above. The advertiser had stated in their response that all the health benefits of rice bran oil were extracted from various abstracts, reports, and studies from different journals. As claim support data, the advertiser provided reference links for benefits of Rice Bran Oil, copy of product packaging, and product approval license. The claim support data submitted by the advertiser was reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. Upon carefully examining the complaint, the print advertisement and the detailed response sent by the advertiser as well as the opinion of Technical expert presented at the meeting, the CCC observed that the claims in the advertisement are shown as medicinal claims for a food product. The advertiser had submitted published links to substantiate the benefits of rice bran oil. The CCC concluded that the claims, “Health benefits of Rice Bran Oil - Prevents premature ageing - Controls cholesterol - Menopausal issues - Prevent cancer - Aids weight loss - Boosts immunity - Heart friendly - Less oily”, were not substantiated with any clinical evidence and that the claims were misleading by exaggeration. The CCC further noted that recommendations by the World Health Organisation (WHO) were general in nature recognising Rice bran oil as a healthy oil for cooking, based on published clinical research data. Although the claim, “World Health Organization recommends rice bran oil” was a general statement, when read in conjunction with the other health- related claims as described above, was misleading by ambiguity and implication of other health benefits. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD." "

 

COMPANY: "Tata Chemicals Ltd."
PRODUCT:"Tata Nx Zero Sugar "

COMPLAINT:

“Zero Sugar”, “lactose is a low calorie sweetener.”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"Tata Nx ""Zero Sugar"" has Sugar named Lactose inside. While Lactose has same calorific value as Sucrose there website claims 'lactose as low intensity sweetener'. 1st claim of ""Zero Sugar"" is misleading as it has ""Lactose"" which itself is a type of sugar. (mentioned on doc name 2017-20-06) 2nd claim of ""Lactose is Low calorie Sweetener"" is misleading as Lactose has calorific value 4 Kcal/gm (mentioned below it) while normal Sucrose has same value 4 Kcal/gm. (mentioned on doc name 2017-20-06 (1))"

Recommendation: UPHELD

""The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they availed, and submitted their written response. The advertiser had stated in their response that in their Product, none of its ingredients are obtained from or contain sugarcane or sugar beet, thereby having “zero sugar” in it; that Zero Sugar is being used as a descriptor for their brand and therefore being called “Tata Nx Zero Sugar”; that Tata Nx Zero Sugar is a low calorie sweetener, 1g of Tata Nx Zero Sugar is equal in sweetness to 5g of regular sugar; and that Tata Nx Zero Sugar has three ingredients of which Lactose is one of them and is used as a bulking agent. As claim support data, the advertiser provided copy of NABL laboratory report on sweetness comparison done between Tata Nx Zero Sugar and Cane sugar, sample of the product, and product approval license. The claim support data submitted by the advertiser was reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. Upon carefully examining the complaint, the website advertisement, the detailed response sent by the advertiser as well as the opinion of Technical expert presented at the meeting, the CCC observed that the advertiser had explained the difference between sugar and lactose by giving reference to Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and Rules. As per this annexure, the term sugar is said to refer to only sucrose which is obtained from sugar cane or beetroot. The advertiser’s contention is that Lactose is not derived from Cane or Beet and that in the advertisement the term “Zero Sugar” is used to convey to customers that it does not contain any cane sugar or beet sugar. The CCC observed that while the advertiser relies on this rationale to claim “zero sugar”, the advertiser’s own communication on their web-site etc. presents their product as a “low-calorie sugar”. The CCC opined that the term “Zero Sugar”, when read in conjunction with the claim “Beneficial sugar for people with Diabetes”, is contradictory and misleading by ambiguity and implication. The CCC noted that the advertiser has provided a Lab report which shows 1 g of Tata Nx Zero Sugar replaces 5 g of cane sugar and gives the same sweetness as 5 g sugar. The report never mentions anything about Lactose as a low calorie sweetener and the Advertiser has also confirmed that they are using Lactose as a bulking agent only (although contrary to the declaration on the website “Its key ingredient, lactose is a natural low calorie sweetener”). The CCC concluded that while the claim “low calorie sweetener” may hold true for the product, the claim, “lactose is a low calorie sweetener”, was misleading by ambiguity as by the advertiser’s own submission, lactose is only an excipient in the product and the main active being Stevia. The CCC concluded that the website advertisement contravened Chapter I.4 of the ASCI Code. This complaint was accordingly UPHELD." "

 

COMPANY: "Trophic Wellness Pvt Ltd"
PRODUCT:"Nutricharge Woman"

COMPLAINT:

"1. It is a supplement designed for pre-diabetes to prevent the onset of diabetes 2. The chewable tablet contains 12 botanicals 3. It contains high quality soy protein isolate from DuPont USA, dietary fibre, garcinia cambogia and enzymes. 4. 25 sachets of Nutricharge Sweetener ?free with ?Nutricharge Glycem ProDiet ? 5. Add one scoop of Nutricharge Glycem ProDiet powder and Nutricharge Sweetener sachet in a glass of low fat milk to make a delicious protein shake. 6. Client review shows a 29 year old girl saying her random blood sugar was 180 mg/dl and her parents were diabetic so she consulted her nutritionist. The nutritionist suggested making lifestyle and dietary changes and also starting taking Nutricharge Glychem Prodiet. After taking this for 3 months the random blood sugar came to 138 mg/dl. 7. Who can consume: Pre-diabetics (people with random blood sugar levels of 140 to 200 mg/dl) 8. Dosage: Chew 1 tablet of Nutricharge Glycem Tablet every day in the morning and take 1 glass of Nutricharge Glycem ProDiet shake with it. Continue till the blood sugar levels become normal. 9. The product is endorsed by Amitabh Bachchan and Sania Mirza"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"(https://www.nutricharge.in/products/nutricharge-glycemprodiet-and-tablet/ ) Our objections: 1. How does Nutricharge Glycem Prodiet prevent the onset of diabetes among persons with pre-diabetes? Please substantiate with independent studies which have proven the safety and efficacy of the product. 2. Is the product approved by the regulatory authority? 3.Does one need to consult a doctor before consuming the product? Are there any adverse effects of long term use of this product? 4. How long does one need to consume the product before blood sugar levels become normal as claimed? 5. Artificial sweeteners are known to have adverse side effects. Why are they being promoted in this advt? 6. What happens when one stops using this product? 7. Claims 2 and 3 needs to be substantiated with independent reports. 8. Regarding claim 6, is it a promotional paid video or a genuine client review. Was the result due to consuming the product or due to the lifestyle and dietary changes? Please support with independent scientific data. 9. As per the ASCI Guidelines for Celebrities in Advertising, a Celebrity should do due diligence to ensure that all description, claims and comparisons made in the advertisements they appear in or endorse are capable of being objectively ascertained and capable of substantiation and should not mislead or appear deceptive. The claims made by the celebrity (Amitabh Bachchan and Sania Mirza) in this advt violate this clause of the ASCI guidelines. According to us, the claims contravene Chapter 1.1 and 1.4 of the ASCI code, the provisions of Guidelines for Celebrity endorsement and the provisions of Drugs & Magic Remedies Act. Action to be taken: We propose that the content should be immediately withdrawn"

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, and submitted their written response. The advertiser had stated in their response that Nutricharge Glycem Tablet and ProDiet are registered with FSSAI. The video shown in the website advertisement is not a promotional video and that the results were due to everything. As claim support data, the advertiser provided herbal formulation for Glycemic formulation and stated that one can prevent Pre-diabetes with the use of Nutricharge Glycem Tablet and ProDiet. Regarding celebrity endorsement, the advertiser stated that brand endorsers have been furnished with all product information before they talk about the product. The CCC examined the complaint, the website advertisement and the response sent by the advertiser. The CCC observed that while the Advertiser asserted about the product being effective in preventing the onset of diabetes and its’ FSSAI approval, they did not provide any evidence in support of the approved product formulation and clinical evidence of it’s effect among pre-diabetics. In the absence of claim support data, the CCC concluded that the claims, “It is a supplement designed for pre-diabetes to prevent the onset of diabetes”, “The chewable tablet contains 12 botanicals”, “It contains high quality soy protein isolate from DuPont USA, dietary fibre, garcinia cambogia and enzymes”, “Who can consume: Pre-diabetics (people with random blood sugar levels of 140 to 200 mg/dl)”, “Dosage: …….Continue till the blood sugar levels become normal”, were not substantiated and were misleading by exaggeration. Further, testimonial claims of a 29 year old girl saying “her random blood sugar was 180 mg/dl and her parents were diabetic so she consulted her nutritionist. The nutritionist suggested making lifestyle and dietary changes and also starting taking Nutricharge Glychem Prodiet. After taking this for 3 months the random blood sugar came to 138 mg/dl.”, as well as testimonial were not substantiated with supporting evidence and were misleading by gross exaggeration. The advertiser did not substantiate that the video testimonial (Feny Patil) was genuine and unpaid by providing evidence from the model appearing in the same. The website advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. These complaints were accordingly UPHELD. The complaint regarding endorsement by the Celebrity was examined by the CCC. It was seen that while there are no endorsement statements by the celebrities themselves, the website contains images of the celebrities (Amitabh Bachchan and Sania Mirza) and when seen in conjunction with the unsubstantiated claims, these “tacit” endorsements are likely to mislead consumers regarding product efficacy. This contravenes Clause (d) of the Guidelines for Celebrities in Advertising. This complaint was accordingly UPHELD. The complaint raised against objections of the advertiser’s offer of “25 sachets of Nutricharge Sweetener free with Nutricharge Glycem ProDiet”, and Usage instructions “Add one scoop of Nutricharge Glycem ProDiet powder and Nutricharge Sweetener sachet in a glass of low fat milk to make a delicious protein shake”, “Chew 1 tablet of Nutricharge Glycem Tablet every day in the morning and take 1 glass of Nutricharge Glycem ProDiet shake with it.” were not considered to be “advertising claims”. Furthermore, since artificial sweeteners are not prohibited from advertising, these complaints were NOT UPHELD. "

 

COMPANY: "Kent RO System Ltd "
PRODUCT:"Kent RO Water Purifier"

COMPLAINT:

““No Water Wastage", “Save Water Technology RO Recovery >50%””

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"1. ""No Water Wastage"" for Kent Range The Advertiser makes the above claim in the Print advertisements for the entire range of ""Kent"" which is evident from the different variants under their portfolio showcased in the Print advertisements. The three variants showcased are Kent Supreme, Kent Grand+ and Kent Pearl RO purifiers. The above claim is made by the Advertiser based on an incorporation of a separate tank as part of the water allowing waste/reject water to be stored. The above claim made by the Advertiser in the Print ad for its brand Kent and range thereunder, is unsubstantiated and a blatant attempt is to mislead the consumers. We have herein attached the user manuals of the above three variants of Kent RO shown in the advertisements as Annexure C. Most importantly, we would like to draw the attention to the water flow diagram of the three devices in their user manual. Except Kent Supreme. Kent Grand+ and Kent Pearl do not have a separate tank to store the reject water. The water purifier variants drain the waste/reject water through the outlet pipe like any other RO water purifier. Without accepting the rationale, the user manual itself evinces that devices shown in the Print advertisements do not qualify for the claim of ""no water wastage"" even as per the above rationale 'of the Advertiser. The Advertiser is therefore attempting to mislead the public at large to believe that all the devices in their portfolio provide the following benefits and features, which is false and incorrect. https://www.nirfindia.org/overallRanking.html The Advertiser on its website content as attached as Annexure D, claims that Kent Grand+ and Kent Pearl to also feature save water technology with better water recovery rate and no water wastage indicating a separate storage tank, which are completely false, unsubstantiated and misleading. 2. Save Water Technology (RO Recovery >50%) claim made for the products and any advertising thereof We would also like to put the Advertiser to strict proof to substantiate the claim of the water recovery rate in excess of the 50% of the input raw water for the variants advertised, particularly Kent Grand+, Kent Pearl and Kent Supreme. The Advertiser claims the same in the Advertisements for the three variants and is put to strict proof to establish such recovery rate for the specific devices. 3. ""No Water Wastage"" Claim Reverse Osmosis, commonly referred to as ""RO"" is a superior filtration technology wherein the water passed through a semi permeable membrane with minute pores under pressure, allowing water to pass but not larger contaminants such as viruses, bacteria, dissolved salts, heavy metals, etc. However a major drawback of the technology is the resulting waste or reject water which does not pass through the membrane and is flushed out with the contaminant concentrate. A Point of Use RO water purifier on an average has recovery rate of 20- 30%. In other words, the water purifier purifies 2-3 litres out of every 10 litres of input water while the rest 7-8 litres is reject/waste water which is not potable drinking water. I have herein attached technology literature collectively as Annexure E. which explains the reverse osmosis technology as well as its recovery rate, resulting in waste water. Without accepting, even as per the claims of the Advertiser in the Advertisements of a superior water recovery rate of >50% under its save water technology, the water purifier would still be rejecting up to 50% of input water. Therefore the claim of ""No Water Wastage"" is false and incorrect, misleading the consumers. The purpose of reverse osmosis is to purify the raw water and provide potable drinking water. The waste/reject water is worse off than the input water as it has more concentration of contaminants. The Advertiser is supporting the claim of ""No Water Wastage"" by providing a separate storage tank for the waste/reject water instead of letting it out by the outlet pipe. The above is rationale is apparent from the user manual of Kent Supreme, attached as Annexure C. Therefore the only benefit provided by the Advertiser's product is of collection of waste/reject water within the purifier and not eliminating the problem of waste water from the reverse osmosis problem. The consumers will be misled into believing that all input water can be used as potable drinking water. As the purpose of the product is to purify and provide potable water, the waste/reject water collected is still a wasted for the purpose of drinking, As pointed out earlier, the reject/waste water is more contaminated as it is more concentrated with contaminants than the input water. The Advertiser by claiming it as a new technology is hoodwinking the consumer to believe it to be a revolutionary game changer which it is not as already established. The TVC of the Advertiser claims No Water Wastage through Kent's patented technology without any such explanation on the rationale. Further it is pertinent to note that only Kent Supreme has a separate tank whereas the claim is being made for the brand ""Kent"" with a variety of other purifiers in its portfolio.”"

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded the details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but requested for additional two weeks’ time to submit their response. The advertiser was granted an extension of seven days to submit their reply in response to their request for extension. The advertiser had stated in their response that unlike the conventional RO Water Purifiers which have a pure water recovery rate of 20%, Kent Mineral RO Water Purifiers equipped with Save Water Technology, have a recovery rate of more than 50% and the reject water percentage is reduced to less than 50%. In Kent's Save Water Technology RO Purifiers, there is a specially designed tank which stores the reject water from RO Purifier for alternate household purposes like cleaning utensils & mopping floor, eliminating the wastage of water. As claim-support data, the advertiser provided test reports from an independent and accredited laboratory for Study on Kent Supreme, Kent Grand Plus, and Kent Pearl. Advertiser further clarified that nowhere do they claim that Kent RO Water Purifiers recover 100% water as pure water. Rather in both the Print ad as well as TVC, they have used the “Save Water technology” pneumonic. In the TVC, only Kent Supreme RO Water Purifier is being advertised along with the claim of No Water Wastage. Moreover no statement or visual depicts that these benefits of “No Water wastage” extend to the entire range of Kent. The claim support data submitted by the advertiser was reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. The CCC examined the complaint, the print advertisement, the TVC, the Website advertisement, and the detailed response sent by the advertiser as well as the opinion of Technical expert presented at the meeting. The CCC observed that while the test report submitted by the advertiser substantiates the claim of 50% reject for advertised product, it gives no data for other brands of machines in the same sector to substantiate the assertion that others have >50% reject. The web-site claim - “Only KENT RO Water Purifiers recover 50% pure water and store rejected water in a separate tank, whereas other RO purifiers can recover only 20% of water” was not substantiated. The utilization of reject water is dependent on action taken by the consumer and could be wasted if the consumer does not store it. This is especially relevant in case of Kent Grand+ and Kent Pearl model that do not have inbuilt storage and buying such a tank is optional. Moreover, the reject water is not potable. The Print advertisement showing a range of products is silent on these aspects and instead states “helps you save water with 100% purity”. The CCC concluded that the claims made in the print advertisements, headline claim - “100% purity with No Water Wastage"", as well as claim in body copy “Kent is the first RO purifier in the world…that helps you save water with 100% purity”, “Save Water Technology ”, were misleading by ambiguity, exaggeraton and omission of key information regarding only 50% of the water output being potable and optional purchase of storage tank for Kent Grand+ and Kent Pearl models. The TVC claim, “Paani hota hai 100% pure who bhi Bina wastage ke”, was not true as only 50% water is potable and the claim was misleading by ambiguity, implication and omission of key information. The Print, TVC and the website advertisements contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"I.T.C Limited"
PRODUCT:"Classmate Note Books "

COMPLAINT:

"This is advertisement about classmate note books in which a girl explains on that book to a small kid. Here ,the advertisement misleads that the people who use classmate note book will get more marks..many children will get misleaded by this sensitively"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they availed, and submitted their written response. The advertiser had stated in their response that through their research they have found that when one writes on a whiter and brighter paper, the handwriting appears to be neat as compared to writing on a paper, which is less white and less bright. If the paper quality is not good then the writing will appear on the reverse side of the paper prominently thereby impacting overall neatness. Classmate Notebooks use good quality pages which also makes the handwriting look neat and good. In support of their response, the advertiser provided a copy of the ""Remodelled Assessment Structure” of a School, Copy of an internal report from the Central Pulp 85 Paper Research Institute; Handwriting samples on Classmate Notebook vis-à-vis handwriting samples on other notebooks; and TVCs for similar products. The CCC examined the complaint, the TVC and the detailed response sent by the advertiser. The CCC concluded that the claim “Classmate notebook par likhoge Toh teacher neatness Ke 2 extra marks degee”, was misleading, since neatness is not connected to writing on a white paper and one can be neat even on an ordinary notebook paper. Further, it was observed that the TVC is targeted at children and it exploits their vulnerability. The TVC was therefore held to have contravened Chapters I.4 and III.2 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"G.L. Bajaj Institute of Management and Research "
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"GL Bajaj college adv claiming itself to be no1 private engineering college in UP"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded the details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser had, however, not responded to ASCI’s request. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and upon careful consideration of the complaint, and in the absence of any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “No.1 Private Engineering College in U.P.”, was not substantiated with verifiable supporting data, and was misleading by exaggeration. The advertisement was therefore considered as contravening the Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD. "

 

COMPANY: "Haptik India"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"Ad by haptik. They claim 100% cashback first. However its rs 500 only. They claim to give 100% cashback however in very fine print it is mentioned they intend to give only 500/- Rs back"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded the details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser had, however, not responded to ASCI’s request. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the website advertisement and upon careful consideration of the complaint, and in the absence of any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Get 100% Cashback”, was misleading by ambiguity as it is subject to terms and conditions that 100% cashback is limited to only Rs.500/-. The website advertisement contravened Chapter I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD. "

 

COMPANY: "Galgotias University"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“No.1 engineering college in U.P.”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"Adv by Galgotias university claim itself to be no1 private engineering college in up."

Recommendation: UPHELD

""The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded the details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, and submitted their written response. The advertiser had stated in their response that the claim made is based on the research conducted by ‘Jagran Josh’ in association with ‘TNS Global’, one of the largest global research agencies in the world and provided a link (https://ranking.jagranjosh.com/upload/Engineeting-MBA-Rankings-Jagran-Josh.pdf). As this response was inadequate without the relevant claim support data, ASCI requested the advertiser to provide details of survey methodology for the rankings claimed in the advertisement. The advertiser did not provide this information in time for the CCC meeting. The CCC viewed the print advertisement, examined the complaint and the response given by the advertiser. The CCC verified the website link referred to in the advertiser’s response (https://ranking.jagranjosh.com/upload/Engineeting-MBA-Rankings-Jagran-Josh.pdf) and observed that there is no private category mentioned in the quoted survey and advertiser’s institute features in the list of “Most Promising Engineering Institutes in India”. Based on this verification, the CCC concluded that the presentation of ranking claimed for being “No.1 Engineering Institute in UP”, in private category was false, distorting the survey findings and misleading by ambiguity. The advertisement contravened Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD" "

 

COMPANY: "Lotus Slimming Centre Private Limited"
PRODUCT:"Figure first"

COMPLAINT:

"“They are claiming ""6 kg in a month"" weight loss.” There are many weight loss centre running in Ahmedabad. They are giving misleading advt. in newspaper and local news. I am going to send you some of them advt. This weight loss centre has no doctor or qualified person though they are running and giving advertisement. please do some action against them.”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

""The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, and submitted their written response. The advertiser had stated in their response that they never claim “6 kg in a month” as all their clients do not get the same 6 kg results. So, they have claimed “up to 6 kg which can be from zero to 6 kg”. Upon examining the complaint, the print advertisement, and the response sent by the advertiser, the CCC observed that the advertiser did not provide any clinical evidence of the benefit of their slimming treatment and only made assertions that they do give results which could be from zero weight-loss to six kg in a month. In the absence of claim support data, the CCC concluded that the claim (in Gujarati) as translated in English, “Reduce up to 6kg in a month”, was not substantiated with treatment efficacy data among statistically significant sample size, and is misleading by gross exaggeration. Also, the visual in the advertisement is misleading by implication. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "IPSA Labs Pvt. Ltd"
PRODUCT:"Eraser Plus Cream "

COMPLAINT:

“Makes one fair”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objection raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, and replied that they have stopped the airing of the said commercial from May 2017. Advertiser did not provide any supporting data for the claim made in the TVC. Upon examining the complaint, the TVC and in the absence of claim support data, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Makes one fair” (“Gora banaye”) was not substantiated with evidence of product efficacy, and was misleading by gross exaggeration. The TVC contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Elation Hair and Skin Clinic "
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“Over 4500 successful cases”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objection raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser had, however, not responded to ASCI’s request. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and upon careful consideration of the complaint, and in the absence of any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that claim, “Over 4500 successful cases”, was not substantiated with supporting evidence or with third party validation of the patients being treated “successfully”, and was misleading by exaggeration. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD. "

 

COMPANY: "Bengal Speech and Hearing Pvt. Ltd"
PRODUCT:"Hearing Plus "

COMPLAINT:

“Award Winning Company”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

""The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objection raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response. The advertiser had stated in their response that the claim made in the advertisement is on the basis of several awards won by them in the last few years in the field of Hearing Aid and Speech Therapy. As claim support data, the advertiser provided copy of various awards / certificates received by them. Upon carefully viewing the print advertisement, examining the complaint and the response given by the advertiser, the CCC noted that the awards being referred to by the advertiser quite varied such as HR excellence or highest job creator etc. The CCC concluded that the claim, “Award Winning Company”, was misleading by ambiguity and omission of mention of the specific award and the source and date. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.2 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD." "

 

COMPANY: "Rootz Hair Studio "
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“"1. Global leader in latest and trendiest hair treatments. 2. Stem cell therapy 3. Customer Service Excellence Award"”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objections raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser had, however, not responded to ASCI’s request. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and upon careful consideration of the complaint, and in the absence of any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that claims, “Global leader in latest and trendiest hair treatments”, and “Stem cell therapy”, were not substantiated with supporting data. The claim, “Customer Service Excellence Award” was not substantiated with details, references of the award. Furthermore, the claims were misleading by exaggeration. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD. "

 

COMPANY: "KD Rockland Industries"
PRODUCT:"Puncture Killer "

COMPLAINT:

"1. Now tyre will never get puncture because Puncture Killer will protect tyre everytime. 2. Puncture Killer is a Korean Formula, Which contains liquid, after inserting this liquid in tyre, tyre never get punctured till the life of tyre. 3. 100% money back guaranteed."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

""The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objections raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response. As claim support data, the advertiser provided material safety report for the product and copy of ISO certificate. They further sought for Informal Resolution of the complaint, however, they did not complete the formalities prior to the due date for the same. Therefore, the complaint was processed for CCC deliberations. Upon carefully viewing the print advertisement, examining the complaint and the response given by the advertiser, the CCC concluded that while the advertiser had made assertions about their product, no technical data or third-party test reports had been provided to prove performance of the product. Further, the advertiser had not provided any proof of their money back guarantee. The CCC thus concluded that the claims, “Now tyre will never get puncture because Puncture Killer will protect tyre every time”, “Puncture Killer is a Korean Formula, which contains liquid, after inserting this liquid in tyre, tyre never get punctured till the life of tyre”, and “100% money back guaranteed”, were inadequately substantiated, and are misleading by exaggeration. The advertisement was therefore held to have contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD." "

 

COMPANY:"Body Line Inspiring Fitness"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“No.1 Fitness Company, chain of showrooms, chain of health clubs”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

""The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objection raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response. Further on the advertiser’s request, they were also offered an opportunity for a telecon with the ASCI Secretariat, which they did not avail. The advertiser had stated in their response that they are a leading, premium and a well-known brand in India having over 1000 hi tech gym installations and a variety of products with a huge fleet of over 120 Staff and team and a warehousing space of over 25,000 Sq. metres. Advertiser further argued that it is a settled position of law by various judgments that a tradesman is entitled to declare his goods and services to be the best in the world. Upon carefully viewing the print advertisement, examining the complaint and the response given by the advertiser, the CCC observed that the advertiser had only made assertions about their company, and therefore CCC concluded that the claim, “No.1 Fitness Company, chain of showrooms, chain of health clubs”, was not substantiated with any comparative / market research data with other similar companies and was misleading by exaggeration. The CCC relied on a case of Reckitt & Coleman of India v Kiwi TTK Ltd (63(1996)DLT 29) citing the judgement “The settled law on the subject appears to be that a manufacturer is entitled to make a statement that his goods are the best and also make statements for puffing of his goods and the same will not give a cause of action to other traders or manufacturers of similar goods to institute proceedings as there is no disparagement or defamation to the goods of the manufacturer so doing” . The CCC referred to another recent judgement of the Delhi High Court in the matter of Colgate V/s HUL in 2013, that while hyped up advertising may be permissible, it cannot transgress the grey areas of permissible assertion, and if it does so the advertiser must have some reasonable factual basis for the assertion made. It is not possible therefore for anybody to make an off the cuff or unsubstantiated claim that his goods are the best in the world or falsely state that his goods are better than that of a rival. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD.”" "

 

COMPANY: "Wox Coolers (P) Ltd"
PRODUCT:"Wox"

COMPLAINT:

“India's first cooler”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objection raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser had, however, not responded to ASCI’s request. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and upon careful consideration of the complaint, and in the absence of any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “India's first cooler”, was not substantiated with any proof that the advertiser’s product is indeed the “first” cooler in the market. The claim was misleading by exaggeration. The advertisement was therefore considered as contravening Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD. "

 

COMPANY: "Angels Advanced Clinic "
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"“Reduce hair falling and dandruff with hair care therapy in women and men”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

""The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objection raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser had, however, not responded to ASCI’s request. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. The CCC observed that the advertiser did not provide any details of the clinical evidence of the benefit of their treatment. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and upon careful consideration of the complaint, and in the absence of any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Reduce hair falling and dandruff with hair care therapy in women and men”, was not substantiated with treatment efficacy data, and is misleading. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD." "

 

COMPANY: "ASET College of fire and safety Engineering "
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"“100% job opportunity”."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

""The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objection raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response. The advertiser had stated in their response that the phrase ""100%"" job opportunity is not misleading. The Advertiser did not provide any supporting data for the claim made. Upon carefully viewing the print advertisement, examining the complaint, and the response given by the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “100% Job Opportunity” was not substantiated with data to show the job offers/opportunity provided to their students. Furthermore, the CCC considered the use of “100%” to be misleading by ambiguity and implication. The advertisement contravened Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD." "

 

COMPANY:"Appin Technology Lab "
PRODUCT:"“India's No.1 cyber security institute”"

COMPLAINT:

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objection raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser had, however, not responded to ASCI’s request. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and upon careful consideration of the complaint, and in the absence of any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “India's No.1 cyber security institute”, was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s institute and other similar institutes in the same category, or through a third party validation. The claim was misleading by exaggeration. The advertisement was therefore considered as contravening the Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD. "

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant. ASCI had forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser had, however, not responded to ASCI’s request. The CCC viewed the TV advertisement and upon careful consideration of the complaint, and in the absence of any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the advertiser’s claim in respect of the public being able to watch the show "Karle tu bhi mohabbat" for free, was untruthful, and misleading, too, to the consumers in the absence of any mention of the terms and conditions (that one would have to pay a nominal subscription fees after a given number of free episodes) to which the claim was subject to. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Birsa Inst Of Tech (Trust) - BITT Group Of Inst"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"“Provides upto 100% Scholarship”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objection raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser had, however, not responded to ASCI’s request. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and upon careful consideration of the complaint, and in the absence of any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Provides upto 100% Scholarship”, was not substantiated with supporting evidence of 100% scholarships availed by any of their students, and was misleading by implication and ambiguity regarding the amount of scholarship and the total number of scholarships being offered. The advertisement was therefore considered as contravening the Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD. "

 

COMPANY:"Prince Education Hub"
PRODUCT: "Prince Defence Academy "

COMPLAINT:

“No.1 Defence Academy in Rajasthan”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objection raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser had, however, not responded to ASCI’s request. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and upon careful consideration of the complaint, and in the absence of any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “No.1 Defence Academy in Rajasthan”, was not substantiated with verifiable comparative data of the advertiser and other similar institutes in the same category, or through a third party validation; and that the claim was misleading by exaggeration. The advertisement was therefore considered as contravening the Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD. "

 

COMPANY:"Kongu Vellalar Institute of Technology Trust"
PRODUCT:"Kongu Polytechnic College "

COMPLAINT:

“100% Job Assurance”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objection raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser had, however, not responded to ASCI’s request. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and upon careful consideration of the complaint, and in the absence of any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim in the Ad, “100% Job Assurance”, was not substantiated. The use of “100%” numerical claim is not relevant for “job assurance” claim and this descriptor in the claim is misleading by implication. The advertisement contravened Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapter I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD. "

 

COMPANY:"Arcot Sri Mahalakshmi Women’s College "
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

""“No.1 College” “Provides immediate placement”""

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objections raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser had, however, not responded to ASCI’s request. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and upon careful consideration of the complaint, and in the absence of any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “No.1 College”, was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s institute and other similar institutes, or any third party validation to prove this claim. The claim, “Provides immediate placement”, was not substantiated with verifiable supporting data, and the claims were misleading by exaggeration. The advertisement was therefore considered as contravening the Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD. "

 

COMPANY:"National School Of Hotel Management "
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"“Provide 100% job”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objection raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response post the due date. The advertiser had stated in their response that the management persons from various Hotels and Resorts are approaching the advertiser in search of academically illuminated candidates for their establishments. As part of their selection they conduct interviews and other selection methods and either recruit or book candidates of their choice. After the completion of the course the selected or offered students get employment with such establishments. Upon viewing the print advertisement, examining the complaint and the response given by the advertiser, the CCC observed that the advertiser’s response has only assertions about their institute. The CCC concluded that the claim, “Provide 100% job”, was not substantiated with any evidence such as detailed list of students who have been placed through their Institute, their enrolment forms and appointment letters received by the students, nor any independent audit or verification certificate, and the claim is misleading by exaggeration. The advertisement contravened Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD. "

 

COMPANY:"Amrita University"
PRODUCT:"Mata Amritanandamayi Math "

COMPLAINT:

"Nirf ranked No.1 private University”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

""The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objection raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser had, however, not responded to ASCI’s request. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the print advertisement, verified the NIRF web-site and noted that the NIRF ranking is strictly in the order of merit without showing any category like private University. In the absence of any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Nirf ranked No.1 private University”, was not substantiated, the NIRF ranking data was incorrectly quoted and is misleading by ambiguity and implication. The advertisement contravened the Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD." "

 

COMPANY:"Om Harihar Edu Services P Ltd Innovation"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

““Upto 100% scholarship”, “20% extra scholarship for girls””

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

""The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objections raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response. The advertiser had stated in their response that the scholarship will be awarded as per scholarship test and as they want to promote girls education they have offered 20% extra scholarship to girls students, but this 20% extra scholarship will be only upto 100% of fees as no institute can provide more than 100% of scholarship. Upon carefully viewing the print advertisement, examining the complaint and the response given by the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the advertiser has only made assertions about the scholarships being offered. The claims, “Upto 100% Scholarship”, and “20% extra scholarship for girls”, were not substantiated with supporting evidence of scholarships availed by any of their students. The claims are misleading by ambiguity regarding the amount of scholarship and the total number of scholarships being offered. The advertisement was therefore considered as contravening the Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD." "

 

COMPANY:"Hindustan Soft Education Ltd."
PRODUCT:"Oxford Software Institute "

COMPLAINT:

“100% placement assistance”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objection raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser had, however, not responded to ASCI’s request. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and upon careful consideration of the complaint, and in the absence of any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the use of 100% numerical is not relevant for “placement assistance” claim. The use of “100%” as a descriptor in the claim is misleading by implication. The advertisement contravened Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapter I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD. "

 

COMPANY:"Goyal Educational & Welfare Society. "
PRODUCT:"Rawal Institute"

COMPLAINT:

“Provide 100% placement.”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objection raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser had, however, not responded to ASCI’s request. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and upon careful consideration of the complaint, and in the absence of any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “provides 100% Placement”, was not substantiated with authentic supporting data such as detailed list of students who have been placed through their Institute, contact details of students for verification, enrolment forms and appointment letters received by the students, nor any independent audit or verification certificate. Also, the claim is misleading by exaggeration. The print advertisement contravened Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD. "

 

COMPANY:"Anandaloke Hospital & Neurosciences Centre "
PRODUCT:"Anandaloke Sch Of Nursing "

COMPLAINT:

“100% placement.”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objection raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser had, however, not responded to ASCI’s request. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and upon careful consideration of the complaint, and in the absence of any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “100% Placement”, was not substantiated with authentic supporting data such as detailed list of students who have been placed through their Institute, contact details of students for verification, enrolment forms and appointment letters received by the students, nor any independent audit or verification certificate. Also, the claim is misleading by exaggeration. The print advertisement contravened Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD. "

 

COMPANY:"San Institutions"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“No.1 in Placement”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objection raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser had, however, not responded to ASCI’s request. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and upon careful consideration of the complaint, and in the absence of any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “No.1 in Placement”, was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s institute and other similar institutes, or any third party validation to prove this claim. The claim is misleading by exaggeration. The advertisement contravened the Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD. "

 

COMPANY:"Sri Ramakrishna Polytechnic College "
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"“100% job opportunity”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objection raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser had, however, not responded to ASCI’s request. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and upon careful consideration of the complaint, and in the absence of any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “100% job opportunity”, was not substantiated with data to show the job offers/opportunity provided to their students. Furthermore, the CCC considered the use of “100%” to be misleading by ambiguity and implication. The advertisement contravened Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD. "

 

COMPANY:"Tamilnadu Aim Technical Training Centre "
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“100% Placement Asst.”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objection raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response through their advocates, post the due date. The advocate on behalf of the advertiser argued that ASCI is only a voluntary organization registered as a not for profit company under the Companies Act and ASCI’s code and guidelines will not bind his client (advertiser) in any manner under law. The advocate further argued that the advertiser has not given any guarantee or assurance for the Job or placement. Upon carefully viewing the print advertisement, examining the complaint and the response given by the advocate, the CCC concluded that the use of 100% numerical is not relevant for “placement assistance” claim. The use of“100%” as a descriptor in the claim is misleading by implication. The advertisement contravened Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapter I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Srinivasa Educational Society - Pace Institute Of Technology & Sciences "
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"1. No.1 in placements. 2. 100% Job assistance”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objections raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser had, however, not responded to ASCI’s request. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and upon careful consideration of the complaint, and in the absence of any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “No.1 in Placements”, was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s institute and other similar institutes, or any third party validation to prove this claim. The claim is misleading by exaggeration. The use of 100% numerical is not relevant for “job assistance” claim. The use of “100%” as a descriptor in the claim is misleading by implication. The advertisement contravened Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD. "

 

COMPANY:"Jainee Group of Institutions Campus - Jainee College of Nursing "
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“100% Placement”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objection raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser had, however, not responded to ASCI’s request. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and upon careful consideration of the complaint, and in the absence of any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “100% Placement”, was not substantiated with authentic supporting data such as detailed list of students who have been placed through their Institute, contact details of students for verification, enrolment forms and appointment letters received by the students, nor any independent audit or verification certificate. The claim is misleading by exaggeration. The print advertisement contravened Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD. "

 

COMPANY:"Jainee Group of Institutions Campus - Jainee College of Engineering and Technology "
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“100% placement assurance”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objection raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser had, however, not responded to ASCI’s request. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and upon careful consideration of the complaint, and in the absence of any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “100% Placement assurance”, was not substantiated with authentic supporting data such as detailed list of students who have been placed through their Institute, their enrolment forms and appointment letters received by the students, nor any independent audit or verification certificate. The claim is misleading by exaggeration. The advertisement contravened Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapter I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD. "

 

COMPANY:"Evapoler Eco Cooling Solutions "
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“"1. World's Most Energy Efficient Natural Cooling System. 2. Save upto 90% on your Electricity Bills."”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

""The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objections raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response. The advertiser had stated in their response that their cooling system is based on Evaporative Air Cooling Technology and their smallest modular unit of 10,000 CFM cools an area of upto 1500 sq.ft at the cost of consuming just 1.1kw of electrical energy, which makes it the most energy efficient natural cooling system. As for the claim made of saving upto 90% on Electricity bills, the advertiser’s in their response provided a comparison table of Electric Power Saving Evapolar Vs Refrigerated Air Conditioning. The claim support data submitted by the advertiser was reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. The CCC examined the complaint, the print advertisement and the response sent by the advertiser as well as the opinion of Technical expert presented at the meeting. The CCC concluded that the claim, ""World's most energy efficient natural cooling system"" was not substantiated with technical comparative data of the advertiser’s product and other competitive Indian or International products, or any third party validation. The claim was misleading by exaggeration. The CCC observed that the submitted calculations for saving 90% on electricity bills involves a comparison with five two-ton air conditioners. The basis of this equivalence (1 Evapoler=5 ACs) was itself not clear. Further, this does not translate to 90% savings on ""your bill"". This savings calculation assumes that the industrial unit has no other electricity expense. The claim, “Save upto 90% on your Electricity Bills”, was inadequately substantiated and was misleading by ambiguity and exaggeration. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD." "

 

COMPANY: "Universal Srushti Test Tube Baby Centre "
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“Up to 99% success”, “PGS 85% success”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objections raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser had, however, not responded to ASCI’s request. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and upon careful consideration of the complaint, and in the absence of any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that claims for the Test Tube Baby Centre of , “Up to 99% success”, and “PGS 85% success”, were not substantiated with supporting evidence, and are misleading by exaggeration. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD. "

 

COMPANY:"Regency Healthcare "
PRODUCT:"Renal Sciences Centre"

COMPLAINT:

“The only* kidney transplant center in Uttar Pradesh”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

""The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objection raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail. On the advertiser’s request, they were provided with an opportunity to discuss their submission via telecon, at which time the advertiser informed that as per UP Government Website their hospital and one more hospital has licence for kidney transplants but they are not conducting any surgeries. Advertiser further agreed to withdraw the said claim. However, they did not submit their written response in time for the meeting. Upon carefully viewing the print advertisement, examining the complaint and in the absence of claim support data, the CCC concluded that the claim, “The only* kidney transplant center in Uttar Pradesh”, was not substantiated with verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s institute and other similar institutes. The disclaimer indicates that the comparison is among Private sector only and the claim is misleading by ambiguity and exaggeration. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code as well as ASCI’s guidelines on Disclaimers. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD." "

 

COMPANY:"Dr. Prabha’s Glow Aesthetic Clinic "
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"“Get permanent riddance from unwanted fat through Cryolypilisis”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objection raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser had, however, not responded to ASCI’s request. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the advertisement and in the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Get permanent riddance from unwanted fat through Cryolypilisis”, was not substantiated with treatment efficacy data, and is misleading by gross exaggeration. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD. "

 

COMPANY:"Hindustan Unilever Limited "
PRODUCT:"Clinic Plus Ayurveda Care Shampoo"

COMPLAINT:

“Contains Triphala made from 3 ayurvedic herbs like amla, bibhitaki and haritaki which gives the strength of ayurveda to hair.”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

""The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objections raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they availed, and submitted their written response. The advertiser had stated in their response that the product is an Ayurvedic Proprietary Medicine which contains Triphala along with other known ayurvedic ingredients. Triphala comprises of three other ayurvedic ingredients being amla, bibhitaki and haritaki, which are known to provide nourishment and strength to body tissues, including hair. To establish the benefits of Triphala for providing hair strength, the advertiser conducted in-silico and in-vitro testing of Triphala on human hair specimens. Results of this study shows that Triphala helps in strengthening the hair fibre and supports long healthy life of hair. As claim support data, the advertiser provided extracts of relevant ayurvedic texts which have reference to Triphala and its benefits, a copy of the Product approval license, details of the in-vitro study, and the study for hair strength measurement to demonostrate less hair breakage. The claim support data submitted by the advertiser was reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. The CCC carefully viewed the TVC, examined the complaint, and the detailed response sent by the advertiser as well as the opinion of technical expert presented at the meeting. The CCC observed that the data presented by the advertiser regarding efficacy of Triphala was in silico / in vitro data. Extrapolation of the same for a shampoo formulation in a rinse off format was not established. Advertiser submitted an internal test report comparing Clinic plus Ayurveda Care Shampoo to non-conditioning shampoo to demonstrate lesser hair breakage. There was no “system” usage as indicated in the disclaimer. The CCC also noted that the test was not against a placebo (without Triphala) nor against any other conditioning shampoos and that the report did not define or explain the term ""strength of ayurveda"". Triphala, an active ingredient contributing to the performance of the product as conveyed in the TVC was not substantiated. The CCC concluded that the claim, “Naya Clinic Plus Ayurveda Care Shampoo issme hai Amla, Bhibitaki aur Haritakise bana Triphala Jo Baalon ko de mazbooti Ayurved ki”, was not substantiated. The improvement of strength has not been shown to arise from the ingredients claimed, namely the three ayurvedic herbs. Connecting Triphala to the strength of the hair is misleading by ambiguity and implication. The TVC contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD." "

 

COMPANY:"Emami Ltd "
PRODUCT:"Navratna Almond Cool Oil"

COMPLAINT:

“Claims to have nutrition of almond.”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

""The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objection raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, and submitted their written response. The advertiser had stated in their response that they had inadvertently missed out on providing a claim super* in the advertisement that “Baadam ka Poshan” refers to “enriched with almond oil”. They further stated that the product is enriched with almond oil which provides the necessary nutrition to the users of the said product. Almond Oil has nutritive values as can be seen from the various literatures in Authoritative Text Books of Ayurveda where the benefits of Almond/Almond oils are listed. As claim support data, the advertiser provided explanation and documents related to Classical and botanical references on Almond, Ayurvedic book references on benefits of almond oil, and copy of product approval license. The claim support data submitted by the advertiser was reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. The CCC viewed the TVC, examined the complaint, and the detailed response sent by the advertiser as well as the opinion of technical expert presented at the meeting. The CCC observed that the advertiser did not provide product composition details to indicate the quantity of almond oil in the product. While Almonds are known to have variety of nutritional properties mainly for its oral use and for skin nourishing, the Advertiser did not provide data to show the quantity of almonds present in the product and the quantity of almond oil present to provide nourishment. The claims of benefit of almonds specific to hair care in the ‘Navratna Almond Cool Oil’ product, with Almond as an important ingredient as claimed in the TVC, was not substantiated. The CCC did not agree with the advertiser’s contention that “Baadam ka poshan” should be read as “enriched with almond oil” …..”. The CCC concluded that the claim, “Badaam ke poshan ke saath”, was not substantiated and is misleading by ambiguity and implication. The TVC contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code . The complaint was accordingly UPHELD." "

 

COMPANY:"Emami Ltd "
PRODUCT:"Zandu Gel"

COMPLAINT:

“Zandu Gel’s ayurvedic formulation is 2.5 times more effective in giving relief from body ache (2.5 times better relief).”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

""The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objection raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, and submitted their written response. The advertiser had stated in their response that the said claim has been made on the basis of an extensive Clinical Study conducted by an independent Clinical Research Organisation. The study demonstrates that the patients having backache showed a significant reduction in pain in Zandu Gel and Volini Gel groups as compared to the baseline score. It was observed that at Day 7, the percentage of Back Pain score assessed on Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) in Zandu Gel group was 33.83% and that in Volini group was 12.12%. The data from the clinical study signifies efficacy of Zandu Gel performing 2.7X better when compared with Volini Gel. As claim support data, the advertiser provided a copy of product approval licence and a copy of clinical study report. The claim support data submitted by the advertiser was reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. The CCC carefully viewed the TVC, examined the complaint, and the detailed response sent by the advertiser as well as opinion of the technical expert presented at the meeting. The CCC noted that the claim objected to should have read as 2.5 times more effective in giving relief from waist pain / back ache. Nevertheless, the claim objected to of “2.5 times better relief” was assessed. The CCC observed that in the clinical study, the title suggests study on three different topical formulations, but the observations of study are on comparison of two products AY 94 and VO 96 only. The CCC noted that the time point chosen for making a numerical claim of 2.5 times better efficacy was at day seven only and the effect of the product did not show the same result at later time points. A significant percentage of volunteers were also seen to have used “rescue medicine”. Given the small sample size for a VAS evaluation, this support data was not considered to be robust enough to make a numerical claim of “2.5 time better relief”. This result was only for VAS evaluation and was not corroborated though other tests such as WOMAC and BQ to show 2.5 better relief and similar relief at all time points. The CCC concluded that the claims, “Zandu Gel’s ayurvedic formulation is 2.5 times more effective in giving relief from back pain”, “ 2.5 times better relief”, were inadequately substantiated. The CCC also noted that the claim is misleading by ambiguity and implication since the voice over says “kamar (waist pain)” whereas the visuals shown are that shoulder and knee pain in addition to back) when 2.5 times better relief is claimed, and the pack visual claims, “Upto 1.7x better relief from knee stiffness”. The TVC contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD." "

 

COMPANY:"Dr. Richa’s Unique Clinic "
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“Best laser skin & hair clinic in Maharashtra.”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objection raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail. On the advertiser’s request, they were provided with an opportunity to discuss their submission via telecom. Subsequently, the advertiser submitted their written response. As claim support data, the advertiser provided copies of various certificates / awards received by the proprietor. However, the CCC did not consider them to be relevant as a claim support for claiming to be the “best clinic in Maharashtra”. Upon viewing the print advertisement, examining the complaint and the response received from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Best laser skin & hair clinic in Maharashtra”, was not substantiated, and is misleading by exaggeration. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Olivet Pharma Pvt. Ltd "
PRODUCT:"Ayusya Superspeciality Treatment Centre"

COMPLAINT:

“Over 3 lacs satisfied patients”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objection raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser had, however, not responded to ASCI’s request. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and upon careful consideration of the complaint, and in the absence of any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Over 3 lacs satisfied patients”, was not substantiated with supporting evidence or validation by an independent third party, and is misleading by exaggeration. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD. "

 

COMPANY: "Arogyam Ayurvedic Hospital "
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"Get freedom from knee and joint pain. (Consumer testimonial claims require substantiation.)"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

""The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objection raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail. On the advertiser’s request, they were provided with an opportunity to discuss their submission via telecon. Subsequently, the advertiser replied stating that they would be modifying the advertisement. The CCC observed that the advertiser did not provide any details of treatment procedure for knee and joint pain. Upon carefully viewing the print advertisement, examining the complaint and the reply received from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the testimonial claim, “Got freedom from knee and joint pain”, was not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence, and is misleading by exaggeration. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD." "

 

COMPANY:"RJR Hospitals "
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“"1. Complete cure through herbal treatment. 2. Increase the immunity and gives strength to the body and prevents other diseases to enter."”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"TThe ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objections raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser had, however, not responded to ASCI’s request. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and upon careful consideration of the complaint, and in the absence of any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claims, “Complete cure through herbal treatment”, and “Increase the immunity and gives strength to the body and prevents other diseases to enter”, were not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence and are misleading by exaggeration. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD. "

 

COMPANY:"Naturoveda Health World "
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"Awarded as "the safest healthcare destination for treating lakhs of patients successfully through fundamentals of ayurveda, unani and therapeutic yoga". "

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

""The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objection raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response. The advertiser had stated in their response that the claim is made on the basis of an award received by them at a Gala event in Delhi from the awarding organization Hakim Ajmal Khan Memorial Society in February 2017. The selection criteria for such an award usually includes the efficacy of the treatment, doctor-patient relationship, patient satisfaction, testimonials from past patients, clinic atmosphere, staff responsiveness, promptness of service and so on. As claim support data, the Advertiser provided a copy of the award certificate. However, the CCC observed that the advertiser did not provide the details of the process how the selection for award was done i.e. survey methodology, questionnaires used, names of other similar institutes that were part of the survey and the outcome. No data was submitted regarding the authenticity and credibility of the awarding organization. The advertiser did not provide any data regarding their claim of having “successfully treated lakhs of patients through fundamentals of ayurveda, unani and therapeutic yoga” Upon carefully viewing the print advertisement, examining the complaint and the response given by the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, Awarded as ""the safest healthcare destination for treating lakhs of patients successfully through fundamentals of ayurveda, unani and therapeutic yoga"", was not substantiated, and is misleading by exaggeration. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD." "

 

COMPANY:"Arogyam Ayurvedic Hospital "
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“Got freedom from 15 years of knee and joint pain”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

""The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objection raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail. On the advertiser’s request, they were provided with an opportunity to discuss their submission via telecon. Subsequently, the advertiser replied stating that they would be modifying the advertisement. The CCC observed that the advertiser did not provide any details of treatment procedure for knee and joint pain. Upon carefully viewing the print advertisement, examining the complaint and the reply received from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the testimonial claim, “Got freedom from 15 years of knee and joint pain”, was not substantiated with evidence of treatment efficacy, and the claim is misleading by exaggeration. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD." "

 

COMPANY: "Jolly Healthcare"
PRODUCT:"Jolly Fat Go Slimming Capsules "

COMPLAINT:

"1. MOST easy, effective and ayurvedic way to stay fit. 2. Trusted brand of India since 12 years to control weight."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objections raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser had, however, not responded to ASCI’s request. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and upon careful consideration of the complaint, and in the absence of any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claims, “Most easy, effective and ayurvedic way to stay fit”, and “Trusted brand of India since 12 years to control weight”, were not substantiated with product efficacy data, and the claims are misleading by exaggeration. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD. "

 

COMPANY:"Asian Consumer Care "
PRODUCT:"Svag basics gental rose face wash"

COMPLAINT:

""1. Svag basics gentle face wash has pure rose hip oil 2. It gently cleans your skin and moisturizes it 3. Enriched with Almond protein and vitamin E for the nourishment of the skin 4. Does not have chemicals like SLS, SLES, Paraben 5. Rose extracts contains vitamin A, B3, C, D and E" "

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"Our objections: 1. Claim 1 and 5 need to be substantiated by independent studies and research data. 2. Does it have Almond protein and Vitamin E in enough quantities to have the claimed effect? 3. Has the product been approved by any National/International Regulatory Authority? 4. Have the results been confirmed by an Independent Agency? According to us, the advertisement contravenes Chapter 1.1 and 1.5 of ASCI code. Action to be taken: We propose that the advertisement should be immediately withdrawn"

Recommendation: NOT UPHELD

"The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded the f details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they availed, and submitted their written response. The advertiser had stated in their response that the product is formulated product containing Rose Hip oil, which is a source of Vitamin A, B3, C, D and E. As claim support data, the advertiser provided product approval details, and technical literature references for the claimed effect. The claim support data submitted by the advertiser was reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. The CCC examined the complaint, the print advertisement, and the detailed response sent by the advertiser as well as the opinion of Technical expert presented at the meeting, and concluded that the claims, “Svag basics gentle face wash has pure rose hip oil”, “It gently cleans your skin and moisturizes it”, “Enriched with Almond protein and vitamin E for the nourishment of the skin”, “Does not have chemicals like SLS, SLES, Paraben”, and “Rose extracts contains vitamin A, B3, C, D and E”, were substantiated. Moreover, the claims were considered to be generic and not objectionable. The complaint was accordingly NOT UPHELD. "

 

COMPANY: "Asian Consumer Care "
PRODUCT:"Varso Aloe vera"

COMPLAINT:

"1. Varso non-sticky aloe vera hair oil is enriched with almond oil and vitamin E to nourish your long and strong hair 2. This special creation protects your hair from sun and gives your hair shiny, soft feel 3. Non-sticky 4. Enriched with almond oil and vitamin E 5. Sun protection"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"1. Claim 1 and 5 need to be substantiated by independent studies and research data. 2. Does it have enough almond oil and Vitamin E to have the claimed effect? 3. Has the product been approved by any National/International Regulatory Authority? 4. Have the results been confirmed by an Independent Agency? According to us,the advertisement contravenes Chapter 1.1 and 1.5 of ASCI code. Action to be taken: We propose that the advertisement should be immediately withdrawn"

Recommendation: UPHELD

""The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they availed, and submitted their written response. The advertiser had stated in their response that there is no specific claimed result or effect attributable to either Almond oil or Vitamin E. The brand Varso Hair Oil, enriched with these ingredients, provides nourishment to scalp and hair. Nourishment is a generic category benefit for all hair oil and it is common knowledge and perception through various Ayurvedic and other literatures. All the hair oil products are promoted by stating that they nourish the hair. The ingredients contained in the hair oil along with Almond oil & Vitamin E are absorbed and thereby nourish the hair and scalp. One of the ingredients in the formulation is Cyclopentasiloxane which is a silicone known for its ability to lubricate, waterproof and provide shine. It gives the shiny soft feel to hair. The product formulation contains added Benzophenone-3 which is an oil soluble sunscreen agent. Regarding Non-sticky claim, this is a segment definition within the hair oil category used by most brands to describe the sensorial experience of the product. As claim support data, the advertiser provided copy of FDA certificate and research data from published sources to support the use and benefits of key ingredients. The claim support data submitted by the advertiser was reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. The CCC examined the complaint, the print advertisement, and the detailed response sent by the advertiser as well as the opinion of Technical expert presented at the meeting. The CCC observed that while generic “nourishment’ claims are made by hair oils, the advertiser claims that Varso non-sticky aloe vera hair oil is enriched with almond oil and vitamin E to nourish your long and strong hair. The advertiser has not provided data to show that almond oil and vitamin E in their oil nourishes either by experimental tests or by relying on scientific literature. The documents (from literature) only indicate that in general vitamin E and almond oil are used in cosmetics. All the references provided either refer to benefits to the skin (not hair) from vitamin E/almond oil or a reference article merely shows that such ingredients are known to be used in hair formulations. Annexure C refers to use of vitamin E/tocopherols in hair grooming products in a certain concentrations, it does not give any information what these ingredients do in terms of function or efficiency. Annexure D refers to skin/scalp, not hair, some recommended dosage for almond oil is given for formulations but no specific purpose or effect is discussed. Furthermore, the CCC observed that key ingredients viz, almond oil, Vit E and Oxybenzone were indicated to be in the range starting as low as 0.001 % in product formulation. Regarding the claim pertaining to protection of hair from sun, the website links provided (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decamethylcyclopentasiloxane) and (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxybenzone); only mentions the use of the chemical in sunscreen agents and there is nothing in it about effective concentrations. The Advertiser has not provided data or technical rationale for supporting the claim that the product is non-sticky. The CCC concluded that the claims, “Varso non-sticky aloe vera hair oil is enriched with almond oil and vitamin E to nourish your long and strong hair”, “This special creation protects your hair from sun and gives your hair shiny, soft feel”, “Non-sticky”, “Enriched with almond oil and vitamin E”, “Sun protection”, were inadequately substantiated, and are misleading. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD." "

 

COMPANY: "Godrej Consumer Products Ltd "
PRODUCT:"Godrej Acs"

COMPLAINT:

"1. India’s most power saving green inverter AC 2. 5.8 ISEER rating"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"in room so body heat is less. Voice over says “We think a lot about the power consumption of AC that is why Godrej NXW, India’s most power saving green inverter AC with 5.8 ISEER rating Complaint 2: When the kids enter home, the mother tells them to close the door as the AC is on. When kids ask why should the door be closed, the mother says open door would lead to flow of air from outside to inside which would lead to increase in electricity bill. Voice over says “We think a lot about the power consumption of AC that is why Godrej NXW, India’s most power saving green inverter AC with 5.8 ISEER rating Our Objections 1. Claims 1‐2 need substantiation with independent research data. 2. What is meant by Green inverter AC? Need to substantiate ‘Green’ which implies environment friendly. Which independent agency has certified the inverter to be ‘Green’? According to us, the advertisement contravenes Chapter 1.1, 1.2 and 1.5 of ASCI code"

Recommendation: UPHELD

""The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they availed, and submitted their written response. Advertiser had stated in their response that the cooling capacity test of Godrej NXW AC was conducted at NABL accredited lab. The testing report of two AC units which mention the ISEER (Indian Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio) of Godrej NXW air conditioner as 5.80. While creating the commercial (on 15th Feb 2017) and at the time of broadcasting the advertisement on TV starting 10th March 2017, there was no AC listed on this BEE website and the BEE energy label mobile app which had ISEER of 5.80 or more. Hence Godrej NXW Inverter AC was India’s most power saving AC. Godrej NXW Inverter AC is green because they are using R290 as the refrigerant which is a hydrocarbon(HC) and hence is environment friendly. R290 has a 0 ODP (Ozone Depleting Potential) and minimum GWP (Global Warming Potential) of 3 units which is negligible as compared to other refrigerants which are being used in Industry. As claim support data, the advertiser provided Cooling Capacity Test Reports for Split Type (Inverter) Air Conditioners, and Council of Energy Environment and Water -a-profile-of-air-conditioner. The claim support data submitted by the advertiser was reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. The CCC viewed the TVCs, carefully examined the complaint, and the detailed response sent by the advertiser as well as the opinion of Technical expert presented at the meeting. The CCC observed that for the claim, “India’s most power saving green inverter AC"", the advertiser states that Godrej NXW Inverter AC is green because it uses R290 as the refrigerant which is a hydrocarbon(HC) and hence is environment friendly. R290 has a 0 ODP (Ozone Depleting Potential) and minimum GWP (Global Warming Potential) of 3 units which is negligible as compared to other refrigerants which are being used in industry. Therefore this claim appears to be valid. The advertiser refers to a GOI website, and further states that at the time of broadcasting the advertisement on TV starting 10th March 2017, there was no AC listed on this BEE website and the BEE energy label mobile app which had ISEER of 5.80 or more. Hence Godrej NXW Inverter AC was India’s most power saving AC. However, the advertiser did not provide a snapshot of the website on the day the URL was retrieved, as evidence and in absence of such evidence and current status, the CCC concluded that the claim, “India’s most power saving” green inverter AC, was false and was misleading by ambiguity. The TVCs contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the Code. This complaint was UPHELD. The cooling capacity test reports shows the ISEER rating of Godrej AC to be 5.8. The claim, “5.8 ISEER rating”, was substantiated. This complaint was NOT UPHELD." "

 

COMPANY: "S Narendra Kumar and Company "
PRODUCT:"Everest Super Sambhar Masala"

COMPLAINT:

“Only Everest Super Sambhar masala has 14 ingredients in the right composition /mixture.”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

“Only Everest Super Sambhar masala has 14 ingredients in the right composition /mixture.” the complaint, and in the absence of any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Only Everest Super Sambhar masala has 14 ingredients in the right composition /mixture”, was not substantiated with the details of the unique recipe and is misleading by exaggeration. The TVC contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 
 

 

DID YOU KNOW?