ITV

Tag: CCC

  • Hathway rebrands in-house channels

    Hathway rebrands in-house channels

    MUMBAI: Hathway Cable and Datacom Limited has given a new dimension to some of its key channels through a rebranding move that includes new packaging and graphics of the five new channels launched earlier this year.

    Hathway CCC is now ‘CCC’, Hathway Movies & Hathway Entertainment is now H-Flicks 1 and H-Flicks 2, respectively, and Hathway Shoppee is now ‘H-Mart’ while H-Tube retains its identity with a new, trendy feel.

    Earlier this year, in April, Hathway launched four channels — DJAY, Lamhe, Home Theatre and Marathi Talkies followed by Divine during the Ganapati festival, thus, strengthening its portfolio of in-house channels. With this rebranding exercise, the platform now has a line-up of movies, music, spiritual and a consumer-centric channel which offers diverse content to its subscribers with the right mix of localisation.

    Commenting on the rebranding efforts, Hathway Cable and Datacom video business president Tavinderjit Panesar stated, “Our continuous efforts to streamline and create a robust portfolio of Hathway channels has seen another step forward with the refreshing of our key channels — CCC, Flicks 1, Flicks 2, H-Tube and H-Mart with the right degree of positioning and vibrancy. We firmly believe in making this as a true differentiator in the industry and build a value proposition for our subscribers.”

    All these channels will be available on a pan-India basis with Flicks 1 and Flicks 2 offering regional and local content for specific regions.

    With digitization and growing consumer demand, the cable segment sees a big opportunity in providing differentiated & value-for-money content. With this rebranding, Hathway now has a unique, potent offering of 10 major in-house channels available for its subscribers unlike some of its competitors.

  • Patanjali gears up to battle ad regulator ASCI

    Patanjali gears up to battle ad regulator ASCI

    MUMBAI: Patanjali Ayurveda is about to go head-to-head with The Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) – the self regulatory body constituting of advertisers, advertising agencies and media to address misleading and rogue advertising content issues. The Swami Ramdev promoted FMCG company has decided to drag ASCI to court for its ‘high handedness’ and ‘unfairness.’

    Reason? ASCI’s Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) has called several advertisements of Patanjali Ayurveda products misleading and unfair, hampering other brands. Patanjali is amongst the biggest advertisers on Indian television.

    “The claims in the advertisement (of Patanjali Dugdhamrut) in Hindi as translated into English states “Infertility is increasing in cattle,” “Cattle is being butchered,” “Other companies mix up 3 to 4% urea and other non-edible things in their cattle feed” and “Patanjali Gaushala’s cow that gives 25 Liters milk,” were not substantiated and were misleading,” reads one such upheld complaint from ASCI’s Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) report in April.

    This decision is something that the top bosses at Patanjali cannot stomach and they see in it a possible conspiracy driven by competitors.

    “We feel that these complaints and accusations are an intentional act to mar Patanjali’s name and is part of a conspiracy by certain multinational companies, who have a great deal of influence on ASCI,” shares Patanjali managing director Acharya Balkrishna.

    And the brand has secured evidence to substantiate this, that it will present to the court against ASCI. “In order to expose ASCI’s underhanded behaviour for certain brands to the entire nation we want to take this matter to court. We have documental evidence that the complaints against our ads didn’t come from any individual consumer but from certain MNCs that have influence within ASCI.”

    It may be noted that several leading FMCG brands are part of ASCI’s member list including Nestle, Mondelez, and P&G.

    But suing ASCI wasn’t the first thing that Patanjali had decided upon after receiving the notices. The decision came after the brand failed to secure a satisfactory explanation from the self-regulatory body on each of those complaints. “We had replied to each and every one of the mails from ASCI on account of the complaints, but we got back one liners from them saying ‘We are not satisfied with your response,’ without any further explanation whatsoever,” shares an exasperated Balakrishna.

    Citing Justice GS Patel’s ruling in the Teleshop Teleshopping case in the Bombay High Court that declined to recognise ASCI as a regulator, Balakrishna also added, “That particular Bombay High Court order clearly flayed ASCI for its high handedness despite not being a regulator. In fact, it can’t issue notices against brands that aren’t its members. Patanjali isn’t a member of ASCI so we are not answerable to them.” The company is currently abiding by its policies to take up this matter to court in due time.

    To put matters into perspective, Balakrishnan reveals that the Patanjali has received at least more than forty such notices from ASCI within the past two to three months. “What is strange is that we have been making those products mentioned in the notices for almost 15 years now, and the ads have been going around for probably 10 years. Where was ASCI all these years?” asks Balakrishna incredulously.

    Balakrishna isn’t against an idea of a government regulatory body that monitors all misleading or objectionable advertisements fairly, allowing a level playing field.

    Meanwhile, ASCI has remained silent throughout the entire time. Current ASCI chairman Benoy Roychowdhury refused to comment on the issue when indiantelevision.com reached out to him before filing this story.

  • Patanjali gears up to battle ad regulator ASCI

    Patanjali gears up to battle ad regulator ASCI

    MUMBAI: Patanjali Ayurveda is about to go head-to-head with The Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) – the self regulatory body constituting of advertisers, advertising agencies and media to address misleading and rogue advertising content issues. The Swami Ramdev promoted FMCG company has decided to drag ASCI to court for its ‘high handedness’ and ‘unfairness.’

    Reason? ASCI’s Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) has called several advertisements of Patanjali Ayurveda products misleading and unfair, hampering other brands. Patanjali is amongst the biggest advertisers on Indian television.

    “The claims in the advertisement (of Patanjali Dugdhamrut) in Hindi as translated into English states “Infertility is increasing in cattle,” “Cattle is being butchered,” “Other companies mix up 3 to 4% urea and other non-edible things in their cattle feed” and “Patanjali Gaushala’s cow that gives 25 Liters milk,” were not substantiated and were misleading,” reads one such upheld complaint from ASCI’s Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) report in April.

    This decision is something that the top bosses at Patanjali cannot stomach and they see in it a possible conspiracy driven by competitors.

    “We feel that these complaints and accusations are an intentional act to mar Patanjali’s name and is part of a conspiracy by certain multinational companies, who have a great deal of influence on ASCI,” shares Patanjali managing director Acharya Balkrishna.

    And the brand has secured evidence to substantiate this, that it will present to the court against ASCI. “In order to expose ASCI’s underhanded behaviour for certain brands to the entire nation we want to take this matter to court. We have documental evidence that the complaints against our ads didn’t come from any individual consumer but from certain MNCs that have influence within ASCI.”

    It may be noted that several leading FMCG brands are part of ASCI’s member list including Nestle, Mondelez, and P&G.

    But suing ASCI wasn’t the first thing that Patanjali had decided upon after receiving the notices. The decision came after the brand failed to secure a satisfactory explanation from the self-regulatory body on each of those complaints. “We had replied to each and every one of the mails from ASCI on account of the complaints, but we got back one liners from them saying ‘We are not satisfied with your response,’ without any further explanation whatsoever,” shares an exasperated Balakrishna.

    Citing Justice GS Patel’s ruling in the Teleshop Teleshopping case in the Bombay High Court that declined to recognise ASCI as a regulator, Balakrishna also added, “That particular Bombay High Court order clearly flayed ASCI for its high handedness despite not being a regulator. In fact, it can’t issue notices against brands that aren’t its members. Patanjali isn’t a member of ASCI so we are not answerable to them.” The company is currently abiding by its policies to take up this matter to court in due time.

    To put matters into perspective, Balakrishnan reveals that the Patanjali has received at least more than forty such notices from ASCI within the past two to three months. “What is strange is that we have been making those products mentioned in the notices for almost 15 years now, and the ads have been going around for probably 10 years. Where was ASCI all these years?” asks Balakrishna incredulously.

    Balakrishna isn’t against an idea of a government regulatory body that monitors all misleading or objectionable advertisements fairly, allowing a level playing field.

    Meanwhile, ASCI has remained silent throughout the entire time. Current ASCI chairman Benoy Roychowdhury refused to comment on the issue when indiantelevision.com reached out to him before filing this story.

  • ASCI upheld complaints against 67 out of 141 advertisements for violating code

    ASCI upheld complaints against 67 out of 141 advertisements for violating code

    MUMBAI:  In April 2016, the Advertising Standard Council of India’s (ASCI) Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) upheld complaints against 67 out of 141 advertisements.

    Out of 67 advertisements against which complaints were upheld, 27 belonged to the Healthcare & Personal Care category – this included a few ads on sex/sexual enhancement products, ten in the Food & Beverages category, seven in the E-commerce Category, four depicting Automotives, followed by four in the Education category and 15 advertisements from other categories.

    The CCC found the claims in 27 health and personal care product advertisements to be either misleading or false or not adequately or scientifically substantiated and hence violating ASCI’s code. Some of the health care products or services advertisements also contravened provisions of the Drug & Magic Remedies Act and Chapter 1.1 and III.4 of the ASCI Code. Complaints against the following advertisements which included Razorbill, Colgate-Palmolive (India), Pantene Shampoo, L’Oreal India Limited, Patanjali Ayurved Limited , and Hindustan Unilever Ltd were upheld

    Click here for the detailed report

    The list below is not the complete list

    Some of the complaints against ads in the healthcare segment that were upheld included

    Razorbill (RazorSlimAyurvedic Instant Slimming Capsules): The advertisement’s claims, ‘RazorSlimAyurvedic Instant Slimming Capsules’ and ‘No Exercise and No Diet’ were not substantiated and the before and after visuals in the advertisement were grossly misleading.

    Colgate-Palmolive (India) Ltd. (Colgate Herbal): The ambiguous presentation of the trademark ‘Colgate Herbal’ on packaging as two separate words and omission of the reference to trademark was misleading.

    Procter & Gamble Hygiene & Health Care Ltd. (Pantene Shampoo): The advertisement’s claim, Pantene is the ‘World’s No. 1 Hair Care Brand’, regardless of the disclaimer, is misleading by implication and ambiguity. It was not accepted, that the qualifier in the advertisement stating ‘Hair Care Category sirf shampoo aur conditioner se sambandhit’ is appropriate to validate the advertiser’s own categorisation of Hair care category which comprises of Shampoo, Conditioner and Hair Oils.

    L’Oreal India Limited (New Garnier White Complete Double Action Facewash): The advertisement on the pack claims, ‘instant whitening’ and ‘Gives 1 tone fairer looking skin in one wash’ were not substantiated. The TVC claim, ‘You think only cream can give you visible fairness? Think again …. This fights dark spots and gives instant whitening’, was misleading by implication.

    Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (Rexona Roll On): The advertisement of Rexona Roll On claim, ‘Ten times (10X) Protection’, was misleading by omission of qualifiers and reference to the comparison to talcum powder.

    Rajnish Hot Deals Pvt. Ltd. (Play Win Plus Capsules): The claim in the advertisement (in Marathi) ‘And, what continues the whole night? Quick results, one capsule one hour prior, get a surge of energy, for better results use PlayWin oil’, in the advertisement read in conjunction with the pack visual and the advertisement visual is misleading and 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.

    Rajnish Hot Deals Pvt. Ltd. (Play Win Capsules): The advertisement’s claim, ‘Effect start from First Day Only’, was not substantiated with supporting product efficacy data, and is misleading. Also, the claims (in Marathi) as translated into English, ‘If you want to make your life happy! Then make your wife happy!!!’, ‘Play Win Capsules are effective for this kind of problems. Which can help you gain your power, stamina, strength’ and ‘Make your relationship stronger’, read in conjunction with the advertisement visual and pack visual 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.

    Ayuway Herbal (Noni Wellness Drink): The claims in the advertisement (in Gujarati) as translated into English, ‘By taking Ayuway Herbal Noni daily in appropriate dose, the following stubborn diseases can be brought under control – Cancer, Arthritis, Blood circulation, Stomach ulcers, Muscle pain, Thyroid, Gas trouble, Diabetes, H.I.V., Skin problem’, ‘In many such diseases Ayuway Noni is beneficial’ and ‘100% money back guarantee’, were not substantiated and are misleading.  Also, specific to the claims with money back guarantee implying treatment/cure for Cancer, Arthritis, Diabetes, the advertisement is in breach of the law as it violated The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act.

    Babuline Pharma Pvt. Ltd. (Babuline Carminative Water): The advertisement’s claim, ‘Five times faster than churan or tablet’ was not substantiated as there was no authentic evidence comparing the speed of action of the product versus any marketed product. Also, the claim in the advertisement, ‘Fit and Healthy’ was considered to be misleading by ambiguity.

    Vaidya Pritam Singh (Shiva Aushadhalaya): The advertisement (in Hindi) claiming to ‘Cure childless women with guarantee’, was not substantiated and is misleading by exaggeration.  Also, specific to the claims implying guaranteed cure for childless women (infertility), the advertisement is in breach of the law as it violated The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act.

    A few complaints about ads in the F&B segment that were upheld included

    Patnajali Ayurved Ltd. (Patanjali Kachi Ghani Mustard Oil): The advertisement’s claim, ‘mustard oils are being adulterated with oil made by solvent extraction process with neurotoxin containing Hexane’, was not substantiated.  Also, the claim is grossly misleading by exaggeration.

    Kamla Kant & Company LLP (Rajshree Pan Masala): The advertisement themed blood donation features Anu Kapoor – a celebrity from the field of cinema for a product which has a health warning ‘Pan Masala is injurious to health’ and which cannot be purchased or used by minors, who are very likely to be exposed to the advertisement. The celebrity in the advertisement would have a significant influence on minors who are likely to emulate the celebrity in using the product. The advertisement contravened Chapter III.2 (e) of the ASCI Code which specifically states that advertisements ‘Should not feature personalities from the field of sports and entertainment for products which, by law, require a health warning such as ‘………….. is injurious to health’ in their advertising or packaging’. Also, the supers/statutory warning in the Hindi TVC were not legible and not in the same language as the audio of the TVC.

    DJ Group (Pan Bahar Pan Masala): The advertisement features Saif Ali Khan – a celebrity from the field of cinema for a product which has a health warning ‘Pan Masala is injurious to health’ and which cannot be purchased or used by minors, as minors are very likely to be exposed to the advertisement. The celebrity in the advertisement would have a significant influence on minors who are likely to emulate the celebrity in using the product. The advertisement contravened Chapter III.2 (e) of the ASCI Code which specifically states that advertisements ‘Should not feature personalities from the field of sports and entertainment for products which, by law, require a health warning such as ‘………….. is injurious to health’ in their advertising or packaging’. Also, the advertisement is misleading by omission of an appropriate disclaimer/statutory warning.

    Meeka Restaurants Private Limited (Nando’s Chicken): The statements in the advertisement, ‘Try something you can grab with both hands’ and ‘We don’t mind if you go on to touch our buns, breasts or thighs’, are sexually suggestive and objectifies female body parts, which is likely in the generally prevailing standards of decency to cause grave and widespread offence.

    Kellogg India P. Ltd. (Kelloggs Chocos Mascot in Chota Bheem): The advertisement’s claim, ‘Kellogg’s chocos – Isse behetar kya ho sakta hai’ implies that Kellogg’s Chocos is recommended as a better food option and can be had several times. The advertisement hence contravened the Guidelines on Advertising of Food and Beverages (Clause # 3 and #7 – (‘Advertisements should not disparage good dietary practice or the selection of options, such as fresh fruits and vegetables that accepted dietary opinion recommends should form part of the normal diet’, ‘Advertisements for food and beverages unless nutritionally designed as such should not be promoted or portrayed as meal replacement.’).

    Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (Knorr Classic Thick Tomato Soup): The advertisement’s claim, ‘Knorr chefs have handpicked the best quality vegetables’ was not substantiated and is misleading by implication, given that the product is made on a mass production scale and not customized or personalized.

    A few complaints about ads in the eCommerce segment that were upheld included

    One Mobikwik Systems Pvt. Ltd. (Mobikwik Rs. 20 Cashback Offer): The advertisement’s claim, ‘Rs 20 cashback’ was misleading by ambiguity and omission of complete disclaimer.

    One Mobikwik Systems Pvt. Ltd. (Mobikwik) (Get Rs 500 Cashback): The advertisement’s claim, ‘Pay via Mobikwik (Get Rs. 500 Cashback)’ was misleading by ambiguity and omission of a qualifier.

    Uber India (Uber Taxi Service – Distance Surcharge): The advertisement was misleading by omission of the mention of applicable additional charges (i.e. distance surcharge) per trip along with the fares on the website.

    One97 Communications Limited (Paytm): The advertisement’s claim, ‘24/7’ is misleading by ambiguity and omission of the details of the specific services for which the claim is valid.

    Astrologerad.com: The claims in the advertisement (in Gujarati) guaranteeing sure solutions for problems such as infertility, marital discord, winning a lottery, were false and misleading by exaggeration. The advertisement exploits the consumers’ lack of knowledge and is likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers.

    Bankbazaar.com (Bhartiya Jan Dhan Credit Scheme): The advertisement of Bhartiya Jan Dhan Credit Scheme was posing like a Government scheme and was misleading the consumers by ambiguity and implication.

    A few complaints about ads depicting Automotives that were upheld included

    Nissan Motors India Pvt. Ltd.  (Nissan Sunny): The scenes in advertisement showing the ‘driver speaking on the phone’, ‘vehicles coming from the wrong sides’,  ’car overtaking from  the wrong side’, and the last scene of the ‘driver not wearing the seat belt’, shows / encourages dangerous / unsafe practices and manifests a disregard for safety.

    Apollo Tyres Ltd. (Apollo Tyres for Scooters): The scene in the advertisement showing, albeit for a short time, the ‘protagonist riding the scooter on the footpath to get ahead of the blocked traffic’, shows / encourages an unsafe practice, and also portrays violation of Traffic Rules.

    Hamilton Housewares Pvt. Ltd. (Milton i Fresh – 100 percent  Leakproof Lunch Boxes): The advertisement showcasing rash driving to demonstrate 100 percent Leakproof Lunch Boxes depicts speed and manoeuvrability in a manner which encourages unsafe and reckless driving and manifests a disregard for safety and encourages negligence.

    Amazon.com Inc. (Amazon – Friendly Customer Service): The visual in advertisement, ‘a pillion rider on a bike without a helmet’ as depicted in the advertisement shows violation of traffic rules and also is an unsafe practice.

    Education sector

    The CCC found following claims in the advertisements by 4 different advertisers were not substantiated and, thus, violated ASCI Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions. Hence complaints against these advertisements were UPHELD.

    New Delhi Institute of Management: The advertisement’s claim, ‘A+++ with Average Salary in S2 Grade (Rs.5.0-Rs.9.9 Lakh)’, was not substantiated with evidence to prove that the individual students were indeed given the salary offer. Further, the advertisement’s claim, ‘100 percent Finest Placements since Inception’, was not substantiated with authentic data. In addition, the advertisement’s claim, ‘15th Best Placements in India’ was not substantiated with authentic comparative data. Also, the claims are misleading by ambiguity in the absence of any disclaimers.

    Test Cracker  Education Private  Limited   (Test Cracker – CAT  2016 coaching): The advertisement’s claims, ‘95 % Guarantee in CAT 2016’,  ’Srikant is the Bangalore topper in CAT 2015’,  ’Best Results in CAT 2015’ and ‘Ashank Dubey the best Quant faculty in India’,  were not substantiated and are misleading by exaggeration.

    S.Tech Group of Education (S Tech I.T School): The advertisement’s claim, ‘No. 1 Biggest Campus’, was not substantiated and is misleading.

    British Fort Foundation (British Institute): The advertisement’s claim, ‘Award in USA’, was not substantiated and is misleading.

    Others

    Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Mortein Insta5): As for the absence of the word ‘mosquitoes’ in the tagline of the advertisement of Mortein Insta5, the claim, ‘Relief from Dengue in just 5 minutes’ was misleading by ambiguity.

    Pernod Ricard India P. Ltd. (Seagram’s Royal Stag): The advertiser did not provide the annual market sales data of the product/service ‘Royal Stag Mega Music’, which was advertised. It was concluded that the advertisement was a surrogate advertisement for a promotion of a liquor product – Royal Stag.

    Whirpool of India Ltd. (Whirlpool 3D Cool Xtreme AC): The advertisement’s claim, ‘3 times more powerful cooling’ is proven in terms of air throw distance, but not in terms of speed of cooling the room. The claim was not adequately substantiated and is misleading by ambiguity. Further, the advertisement’s claim, ‘6th Sense Climate control’ was not adequately substantiated and is misleading by implication. The advertisement also claims, ‘cools the room instantly’ which was not substantiated and misleading by exaggeration. Also, the advertisement’s claim, ‘Health protection’ was not adequately substantiated and is misleading by implication.

    Idea Cellular Ltd. (Idea 3G 900): The advertisement’s claims, ‘Jam free network’ and ‘Adwiteeya internet indoor coverage (second to none internet indoor coverage)’, were not substantiated by comparative data of other service providers and were misleading by ambiguity.

    Idea Cellular Ltd. (Idea 3G): The advertisement states, ‘Idea 3G’ in Baharpur village where the 3G service is not being offered was misleading by omission of an appropriate disclaimer. Also, the advertisement exploits the consumers’ lack of knowledge and is likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers.

    Reliance Industries Ltd. (Reliance Jio Infocomm): The advertisement’s claim, ‘Financial year 2016-17 will be the first full year of commercial operations of its Reliance Jio’,  is factually wrong and likely to mislead the consumers as the advertiser has not started their commercial services.

    Aircel Ltd. (Aircel): The advertisement’s claim, ‘RC 32 1.2p/2 sec STD+LOC 90 D’, was false and misleading.

    Suzuki Motorcycle India Pvt. Ltd. (Suzuki Gixxer): The advertisement’s claim, Suzuki Gixxer is ‘Most Awarded Bike of the Year 2015-16’, with the picture of 19 awards shown at the bottom of the advertisement, was false and misleading, as Suzuki Gixxerhas won only 6 awards in 2015-16.

    Shwas Homes Pvt. Ltd: The advertisement’s claim, ‘Aluva Railway station & Metro station is just a cigarette distance away’ was not adequately substantiated and is misleading by ambiguity.

    12. Sri Vedic Pratisthan (Rashi Bhagya Ratna): The advertisement’s claims, ‘If you possess RashiRatna (5.25 ‘Rati’ RashiRatna) thousands of rupees, you can become quickly fortunate and receive miraculous betterment, health, accomplishment and ‘Buy our talisman in just Rs.525/- and become fortunate to get your wishes fulfilled. Be profited by using it for job, success in business, conquest of enemy, dream marriage and love’, were not substantiated and are misleading by exaggeration. The advertisement exploits the consumers’ lack of knowledge and is likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers.

    Agarwal D2D Packers and Movers: The advertisement’s claim, ’60 percent of the people in the country shift through us’, was not substantiated and is misleading.

    Tata Motors Ltd. (Tata Signa): The advertisement’s claims, ‘Higher Productivity through improved comfort and fleet utilization’, ‘Superior incab experience’, ‘Fleetman. Fleet telematics for higher productivity. In-built telematics’ and ‘Proven and reliable driving’, were not substantiated by submission of claim support data as to how the advertised product is better as claimed. Also, the claims were misleading by omission of a reference to the comparison being made.

     

  • ASCI upheld complaints against 67 out of 141 advertisements for violating code

    ASCI upheld complaints against 67 out of 141 advertisements for violating code

    MUMBAI:  In April 2016, the Advertising Standard Council of India’s (ASCI) Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) upheld complaints against 67 out of 141 advertisements.

    Out of 67 advertisements against which complaints were upheld, 27 belonged to the Healthcare & Personal Care category – this included a few ads on sex/sexual enhancement products, ten in the Food & Beverages category, seven in the E-commerce Category, four depicting Automotives, followed by four in the Education category and 15 advertisements from other categories.

    The CCC found the claims in 27 health and personal care product advertisements to be either misleading or false or not adequately or scientifically substantiated and hence violating ASCI’s code. Some of the health care products or services advertisements also contravened provisions of the Drug & Magic Remedies Act and Chapter 1.1 and III.4 of the ASCI Code. Complaints against the following advertisements which included Razorbill, Colgate-Palmolive (India), Pantene Shampoo, L’Oreal India Limited, Patanjali Ayurved Limited , and Hindustan Unilever Ltd were upheld

    Click here for the detailed report

    The list below is not the complete list

    Some of the complaints against ads in the healthcare segment that were upheld included

    Razorbill (RazorSlimAyurvedic Instant Slimming Capsules): The advertisement’s claims, ‘RazorSlimAyurvedic Instant Slimming Capsules’ and ‘No Exercise and No Diet’ were not substantiated and the before and after visuals in the advertisement were grossly misleading.

    Colgate-Palmolive (India) Ltd. (Colgate Herbal): The ambiguous presentation of the trademark ‘Colgate Herbal’ on packaging as two separate words and omission of the reference to trademark was misleading.

    Procter & Gamble Hygiene & Health Care Ltd. (Pantene Shampoo): The advertisement’s claim, Pantene is the ‘World’s No. 1 Hair Care Brand’, regardless of the disclaimer, is misleading by implication and ambiguity. It was not accepted, that the qualifier in the advertisement stating ‘Hair Care Category sirf shampoo aur conditioner se sambandhit’ is appropriate to validate the advertiser’s own categorisation of Hair care category which comprises of Shampoo, Conditioner and Hair Oils.

    L’Oreal India Limited (New Garnier White Complete Double Action Facewash): The advertisement on the pack claims, ‘instant whitening’ and ‘Gives 1 tone fairer looking skin in one wash’ were not substantiated. The TVC claim, ‘You think only cream can give you visible fairness? Think again …. This fights dark spots and gives instant whitening’, was misleading by implication.

    Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (Rexona Roll On): The advertisement of Rexona Roll On claim, ‘Ten times (10X) Protection’, was misleading by omission of qualifiers and reference to the comparison to talcum powder.

    Rajnish Hot Deals Pvt. Ltd. (Play Win Plus Capsules): The claim in the advertisement (in Marathi) ‘And, what continues the whole night? Quick results, one capsule one hour prior, get a surge of energy, for better results use PlayWin oil’, in the advertisement read in conjunction with the pack visual and the advertisement visual is misleading and 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.

    Rajnish Hot Deals Pvt. Ltd. (Play Win Capsules): The advertisement’s claim, ‘Effect start from First Day Only’, was not substantiated with supporting product efficacy data, and is misleading. Also, the claims (in Marathi) as translated into English, ‘If you want to make your life happy! Then make your wife happy!!!’, ‘Play Win Capsules are effective for this kind of problems. Which can help you gain your power, stamina, strength’ and ‘Make your relationship stronger’, read in conjunction with the advertisement visual and pack visual 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.

    Ayuway Herbal (Noni Wellness Drink): The claims in the advertisement (in Gujarati) as translated into English, ‘By taking Ayuway Herbal Noni daily in appropriate dose, the following stubborn diseases can be brought under control – Cancer, Arthritis, Blood circulation, Stomach ulcers, Muscle pain, Thyroid, Gas trouble, Diabetes, H.I.V., Skin problem’, ‘In many such diseases Ayuway Noni is beneficial’ and ‘100% money back guarantee’, were not substantiated and are misleading.  Also, specific to the claims with money back guarantee implying treatment/cure for Cancer, Arthritis, Diabetes, the advertisement is in breach of the law as it violated The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act.

    Babuline Pharma Pvt. Ltd. (Babuline Carminative Water): The advertisement’s claim, ‘Five times faster than churan or tablet’ was not substantiated as there was no authentic evidence comparing the speed of action of the product versus any marketed product. Also, the claim in the advertisement, ‘Fit and Healthy’ was considered to be misleading by ambiguity.

    Vaidya Pritam Singh (Shiva Aushadhalaya): The advertisement (in Hindi) claiming to ‘Cure childless women with guarantee’, was not substantiated and is misleading by exaggeration.  Also, specific to the claims implying guaranteed cure for childless women (infertility), the advertisement is in breach of the law as it violated The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act.

    A few complaints about ads in the F&B segment that were upheld included

    Patnajali Ayurved Ltd. (Patanjali Kachi Ghani Mustard Oil): The advertisement’s claim, ‘mustard oils are being adulterated with oil made by solvent extraction process with neurotoxin containing Hexane’, was not substantiated.  Also, the claim is grossly misleading by exaggeration.

    Kamla Kant & Company LLP (Rajshree Pan Masala): The advertisement themed blood donation features Anu Kapoor – a celebrity from the field of cinema for a product which has a health warning ‘Pan Masala is injurious to health’ and which cannot be purchased or used by minors, who are very likely to be exposed to the advertisement. The celebrity in the advertisement would have a significant influence on minors who are likely to emulate the celebrity in using the product. The advertisement contravened Chapter III.2 (e) of the ASCI Code which specifically states that advertisements ‘Should not feature personalities from the field of sports and entertainment for products which, by law, require a health warning such as ‘………….. is injurious to health’ in their advertising or packaging’. Also, the supers/statutory warning in the Hindi TVC were not legible and not in the same language as the audio of the TVC.

    DJ Group (Pan Bahar Pan Masala): The advertisement features Saif Ali Khan – a celebrity from the field of cinema for a product which has a health warning ‘Pan Masala is injurious to health’ and which cannot be purchased or used by minors, as minors are very likely to be exposed to the advertisement. The celebrity in the advertisement would have a significant influence on minors who are likely to emulate the celebrity in using the product. The advertisement contravened Chapter III.2 (e) of the ASCI Code which specifically states that advertisements ‘Should not feature personalities from the field of sports and entertainment for products which, by law, require a health warning such as ‘………….. is injurious to health’ in their advertising or packaging’. Also, the advertisement is misleading by omission of an appropriate disclaimer/statutory warning.

    Meeka Restaurants Private Limited (Nando’s Chicken): The statements in the advertisement, ‘Try something you can grab with both hands’ and ‘We don’t mind if you go on to touch our buns, breasts or thighs’, are sexually suggestive and objectifies female body parts, which is likely in the generally prevailing standards of decency to cause grave and widespread offence.

    Kellogg India P. Ltd. (Kelloggs Chocos Mascot in Chota Bheem): The advertisement’s claim, ‘Kellogg’s chocos – Isse behetar kya ho sakta hai’ implies that Kellogg’s Chocos is recommended as a better food option and can be had several times. The advertisement hence contravened the Guidelines on Advertising of Food and Beverages (Clause # 3 and #7 – (‘Advertisements should not disparage good dietary practice or the selection of options, such as fresh fruits and vegetables that accepted dietary opinion recommends should form part of the normal diet’, ‘Advertisements for food and beverages unless nutritionally designed as such should not be promoted or portrayed as meal replacement.’).

    Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (Knorr Classic Thick Tomato Soup): The advertisement’s claim, ‘Knorr chefs have handpicked the best quality vegetables’ was not substantiated and is misleading by implication, given that the product is made on a mass production scale and not customized or personalized.

    A few complaints about ads in the eCommerce segment that were upheld included

    One Mobikwik Systems Pvt. Ltd. (Mobikwik Rs. 20 Cashback Offer): The advertisement’s claim, ‘Rs 20 cashback’ was misleading by ambiguity and omission of complete disclaimer.

    One Mobikwik Systems Pvt. Ltd. (Mobikwik) (Get Rs 500 Cashback): The advertisement’s claim, ‘Pay via Mobikwik (Get Rs. 500 Cashback)’ was misleading by ambiguity and omission of a qualifier.

    Uber India (Uber Taxi Service – Distance Surcharge): The advertisement was misleading by omission of the mention of applicable additional charges (i.e. distance surcharge) per trip along with the fares on the website.

    One97 Communications Limited (Paytm): The advertisement’s claim, ‘24/7’ is misleading by ambiguity and omission of the details of the specific services for which the claim is valid.

    Astrologerad.com: The claims in the advertisement (in Gujarati) guaranteeing sure solutions for problems such as infertility, marital discord, winning a lottery, were false and misleading by exaggeration. The advertisement exploits the consumers’ lack of knowledge and is likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers.

    Bankbazaar.com (Bhartiya Jan Dhan Credit Scheme): The advertisement of Bhartiya Jan Dhan Credit Scheme was posing like a Government scheme and was misleading the consumers by ambiguity and implication.

    A few complaints about ads depicting Automotives that were upheld included

    Nissan Motors India Pvt. Ltd.  (Nissan Sunny): The scenes in advertisement showing the ‘driver speaking on the phone’, ‘vehicles coming from the wrong sides’,  ’car overtaking from  the wrong side’, and the last scene of the ‘driver not wearing the seat belt’, shows / encourages dangerous / unsafe practices and manifests a disregard for safety.

    Apollo Tyres Ltd. (Apollo Tyres for Scooters): The scene in the advertisement showing, albeit for a short time, the ‘protagonist riding the scooter on the footpath to get ahead of the blocked traffic’, shows / encourages an unsafe practice, and also portrays violation of Traffic Rules.

    Hamilton Housewares Pvt. Ltd. (Milton i Fresh – 100 percent  Leakproof Lunch Boxes): The advertisement showcasing rash driving to demonstrate 100 percent Leakproof Lunch Boxes depicts speed and manoeuvrability in a manner which encourages unsafe and reckless driving and manifests a disregard for safety and encourages negligence.

    Amazon.com Inc. (Amazon – Friendly Customer Service): The visual in advertisement, ‘a pillion rider on a bike without a helmet’ as depicted in the advertisement shows violation of traffic rules and also is an unsafe practice.

    Education sector

    The CCC found following claims in the advertisements by 4 different advertisers were not substantiated and, thus, violated ASCI Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions. Hence complaints against these advertisements were UPHELD.

    New Delhi Institute of Management: The advertisement’s claim, ‘A+++ with Average Salary in S2 Grade (Rs.5.0-Rs.9.9 Lakh)’, was not substantiated with evidence to prove that the individual students were indeed given the salary offer. Further, the advertisement’s claim, ‘100 percent Finest Placements since Inception’, was not substantiated with authentic data. In addition, the advertisement’s claim, ‘15th Best Placements in India’ was not substantiated with authentic comparative data. Also, the claims are misleading by ambiguity in the absence of any disclaimers.

    Test Cracker  Education Private  Limited   (Test Cracker – CAT  2016 coaching): The advertisement’s claims, ‘95 % Guarantee in CAT 2016’,  ’Srikant is the Bangalore topper in CAT 2015’,  ’Best Results in CAT 2015’ and ‘Ashank Dubey the best Quant faculty in India’,  were not substantiated and are misleading by exaggeration.

    S.Tech Group of Education (S Tech I.T School): The advertisement’s claim, ‘No. 1 Biggest Campus’, was not substantiated and is misleading.

    British Fort Foundation (British Institute): The advertisement’s claim, ‘Award in USA’, was not substantiated and is misleading.

    Others

    Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Mortein Insta5): As for the absence of the word ‘mosquitoes’ in the tagline of the advertisement of Mortein Insta5, the claim, ‘Relief from Dengue in just 5 minutes’ was misleading by ambiguity.

    Pernod Ricard India P. Ltd. (Seagram’s Royal Stag): The advertiser did not provide the annual market sales data of the product/service ‘Royal Stag Mega Music’, which was advertised. It was concluded that the advertisement was a surrogate advertisement for a promotion of a liquor product – Royal Stag.

    Whirpool of India Ltd. (Whirlpool 3D Cool Xtreme AC): The advertisement’s claim, ‘3 times more powerful cooling’ is proven in terms of air throw distance, but not in terms of speed of cooling the room. The claim was not adequately substantiated and is misleading by ambiguity. Further, the advertisement’s claim, ‘6th Sense Climate control’ was not adequately substantiated and is misleading by implication. The advertisement also claims, ‘cools the room instantly’ which was not substantiated and misleading by exaggeration. Also, the advertisement’s claim, ‘Health protection’ was not adequately substantiated and is misleading by implication.

    Idea Cellular Ltd. (Idea 3G 900): The advertisement’s claims, ‘Jam free network’ and ‘Adwiteeya internet indoor coverage (second to none internet indoor coverage)’, were not substantiated by comparative data of other service providers and were misleading by ambiguity.

    Idea Cellular Ltd. (Idea 3G): The advertisement states, ‘Idea 3G’ in Baharpur village where the 3G service is not being offered was misleading by omission of an appropriate disclaimer. Also, the advertisement exploits the consumers’ lack of knowledge and is likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers.

    Reliance Industries Ltd. (Reliance Jio Infocomm): The advertisement’s claim, ‘Financial year 2016-17 will be the first full year of commercial operations of its Reliance Jio’,  is factually wrong and likely to mislead the consumers as the advertiser has not started their commercial services.

    Aircel Ltd. (Aircel): The advertisement’s claim, ‘RC 32 1.2p/2 sec STD+LOC 90 D’, was false and misleading.

    Suzuki Motorcycle India Pvt. Ltd. (Suzuki Gixxer): The advertisement’s claim, Suzuki Gixxer is ‘Most Awarded Bike of the Year 2015-16’, with the picture of 19 awards shown at the bottom of the advertisement, was false and misleading, as Suzuki Gixxerhas won only 6 awards in 2015-16.

    Shwas Homes Pvt. Ltd: The advertisement’s claim, ‘Aluva Railway station & Metro station is just a cigarette distance away’ was not adequately substantiated and is misleading by ambiguity.

    12. Sri Vedic Pratisthan (Rashi Bhagya Ratna): The advertisement’s claims, ‘If you possess RashiRatna (5.25 ‘Rati’ RashiRatna) thousands of rupees, you can become quickly fortunate and receive miraculous betterment, health, accomplishment and ‘Buy our talisman in just Rs.525/- and become fortunate to get your wishes fulfilled. Be profited by using it for job, success in business, conquest of enemy, dream marriage and love’, were not substantiated and are misleading by exaggeration. The advertisement exploits the consumers’ lack of knowledge and is likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers.

    Agarwal D2D Packers and Movers: The advertisement’s claim, ’60 percent of the people in the country shift through us’, was not substantiated and is misleading.

    Tata Motors Ltd. (Tata Signa): The advertisement’s claims, ‘Higher Productivity through improved comfort and fleet utilization’, ‘Superior incab experience’, ‘Fleetman. Fleet telematics for higher productivity. In-built telematics’ and ‘Proven and reliable driving’, were not substantiated by submission of claim support data as to how the advertised product is better as claimed. Also, the claims were misleading by omission of a reference to the comparison being made.

     

  • ASCI upholds complaints against Balaji Telefilms, Viacom 18, Patanjali, Coca Cola, Facebook, Amazon.in, TOI

    ASCI upholds complaints against Balaji Telefilms, Viacom 18, Patanjali, Coca Cola, Facebook, Amazon.in, TOI

    MUMBAI: In January 2016, ASCI’s Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) upheld complaints against 51 out of 102 advertisements. Out of 51 advertisements against which complaints were upheld, 13 belonged to the education category, 12 to the food & beverages category, followed by 11 in the healthcare category, 6 in the eCommerce category and 9 advertisements from other categories.

    Balaji Telefilms The suggestive scenes in the movie promo showing “two men and women on the beach” are indecent, vulgar and repulsive, which, in the light of generally prevailing standards of decency and proprietary, will cause grave and widespread offence to general public.  

    Viacom18 Media Private Limited (Bigg Boss 9) The TV promo advertisement, depicting the protagonists wearing shoes in a temple is likely to cause grave and widespread offence.

    Patanjali Ayurved Limited (Youvan Gold Plus): The claims on pack of Youvan Gold Plus, ‘An authentic powder booster Ayurvedic Medicine useful in physical & sexual weakness which improves libido, vigour & vitality, sexual power. Keeps you always healthy, energetic & gives you total satisfaction of married life’, were not substantiated and imply that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure, which is in breach of the law as it violates the Drugs & Magic Remedies Act.

    Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. (Patanjali Pure Cow’s Ghee): The reference to ‘Keratin’ content in Cow’s milk in the advertisement was found to be an error. The word Keratin was used instead of ‘Carotene’ and the claim ‘Scientific fact: Cow’s milk contains Keratin’ was incorrect.

    Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. (Patanjali Atta Noodles): The claim in the advertisement, ‘Oil Free’ was not substantiated and is misleading by implication.

    Coca-Cola India Pvt. Ltd. (Coca-Cola Zero): The disclaimer in the advertisement of Coca-Cola Zero was not as per the size stipulated in the ASCI Guidelines for Supers. It was concluded that disclaimer in the advertisement is not clearly legible.  The advertisement contravened the ASCI Guidelines on Supers. 

    Facebook India (Facebook Free Basics): The claim in the advertisement, ‘Free Basics is at risk of being banned’ was considered to be misleading by exaggeration. Further, the claim in the advertisement, ‘Through a trial of Free Basics by Facebook, Ganesh learnt new farming techniques that doubled his crop yield’, the farmer’s interview / testimonial is not an adequate substantiation for the claim quantifying doubling of crop yield directly attributable to the Free Basics trial by the farmer. Also, it was not conclusively proven what the crop yields were prior to Ganesh using internet and post using Free Basics trial.  Using an individual testimonial without any claim support data, while reaching out to consumers at large, was considered to be misleading by implication and exaggeration. Also, in the absence of any disclaimer to that effect, the reference to the claim in the advertisement, ‘benefits of Free Internet’ was misleading by ambiguity.

    Amazon.in: The discrepancy between the specification declared on the Amazon.com web-site for AdraxxCrosman Roof Prism Binoculars, and the specification mentioned on the product visual led to the conclusion that the advertisement is misleading.

    The Times of India: The claim in the advertisement, ‘Presenting India’s most challenging school quiz.’ was not substantiated by providing comparative data versus other contests of similar nature to support how this quiz is better in the challenge level and the claim of the ‘Most’ challenging quiz.

  • ASCI upholds complaints against Balaji Telefilms, Viacom 18, Patanjali, Coca Cola, Facebook, Amazon.in, TOI

    ASCI upholds complaints against Balaji Telefilms, Viacom 18, Patanjali, Coca Cola, Facebook, Amazon.in, TOI

    MUMBAI: In January 2016, ASCI’s Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) upheld complaints against 51 out of 102 advertisements. Out of 51 advertisements against which complaints were upheld, 13 belonged to the education category, 12 to the food & beverages category, followed by 11 in the healthcare category, 6 in the eCommerce category and 9 advertisements from other categories.

    Balaji Telefilms The suggestive scenes in the movie promo showing “two men and women on the beach” are indecent, vulgar and repulsive, which, in the light of generally prevailing standards of decency and proprietary, will cause grave and widespread offence to general public.  

    Viacom18 Media Private Limited (Bigg Boss 9) The TV promo advertisement, depicting the protagonists wearing shoes in a temple is likely to cause grave and widespread offence.

    Patanjali Ayurved Limited (Youvan Gold Plus): The claims on pack of Youvan Gold Plus, ‘An authentic powder booster Ayurvedic Medicine useful in physical & sexual weakness which improves libido, vigour & vitality, sexual power. Keeps you always healthy, energetic & gives you total satisfaction of married life’, were not substantiated and imply that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure, which is in breach of the law as it violates the Drugs & Magic Remedies Act.

    Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. (Patanjali Pure Cow’s Ghee): The reference to ‘Keratin’ content in Cow’s milk in the advertisement was found to be an error. The word Keratin was used instead of ‘Carotene’ and the claim ‘Scientific fact: Cow’s milk contains Keratin’ was incorrect.

    Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. (Patanjali Atta Noodles): The claim in the advertisement, ‘Oil Free’ was not substantiated and is misleading by implication.

    Coca-Cola India Pvt. Ltd. (Coca-Cola Zero): The disclaimer in the advertisement of Coca-Cola Zero was not as per the size stipulated in the ASCI Guidelines for Supers. It was concluded that disclaimer in the advertisement is not clearly legible.  The advertisement contravened the ASCI Guidelines on Supers. 

    Facebook India (Facebook Free Basics): The claim in the advertisement, ‘Free Basics is at risk of being banned’ was considered to be misleading by exaggeration. Further, the claim in the advertisement, ‘Through a trial of Free Basics by Facebook, Ganesh learnt new farming techniques that doubled his crop yield’, the farmer’s interview / testimonial is not an adequate substantiation for the claim quantifying doubling of crop yield directly attributable to the Free Basics trial by the farmer. Also, it was not conclusively proven what the crop yields were prior to Ganesh using internet and post using Free Basics trial.  Using an individual testimonial without any claim support data, while reaching out to consumers at large, was considered to be misleading by implication and exaggeration. Also, in the absence of any disclaimer to that effect, the reference to the claim in the advertisement, ‘benefits of Free Internet’ was misleading by ambiguity.

    Amazon.in: The discrepancy between the specification declared on the Amazon.com web-site for AdraxxCrosman Roof Prism Binoculars, and the specification mentioned on the product visual led to the conclusion that the advertisement is misleading.

    The Times of India: The claim in the advertisement, ‘Presenting India’s most challenging school quiz.’ was not substantiated by providing comparative data versus other contests of similar nature to support how this quiz is better in the challenge level and the claim of the ‘Most’ challenging quiz.

  • ASCI upholds 54 complaints against various advertisers

    ASCI upholds 54 complaints against various advertisers

    MUMBAI: In September 2015, ASCI’s Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) upheld complaints against 54 out of 84 advertisements.

     

    Out of those 54, 13 belonged to the Personal and Healthcare category, followed by seven advertisements each in the Education and telecommunication and broadband categories, six in the e-commerce category and 15 advertisements from other categories.

     

    Some of the health care products or services advertisements also contravened provisions of the Drug & Magic Remedies Act and Chapter 1.1 and III.4 of the ASCI Code.

     

    In the education sector, the CCC found that claims in the advertisements by seven advertisers were not substantiated and violated ASCI Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions. Hence complaints against these advertisements were upheld.

     

    Click here to read the full report.

  • ASCI upheld complaints against 87 out of 117 advertisements

    ASCI upheld complaints against 87 out of 117 advertisements

    MUMBAI: In August 2015, ASCI’s Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) upheld complaints against 87 out of 117 advertisements.

     

    Out of the advertisements related complaints received, 37 belonged to the personal and healthcare category, followed by 41  in education and nine  from other categories.

     

    In health and personal care 37 advertisers were found either misleading, false or not adequately substantiated and hence violating ASCI’s code. LG Electronics India, Hindustan Unilever, L’Oreal India, Lotus Herbals and VLCC Ltd were among them.

     

    The CCC found that claims made by 41 advertisers in the education category were not substantiated which violates ASCI Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions. Therefore the complaints were upheld.

     

    The advertisements against which complaints were upheld included HSIL Limited, Bharti Airtel, Amazon Kindle, Corona Plus Industries, Carlsberg India and 3M India Limited amongst others.

     

    Health and personal care:

     

    The CCC found the following claims in health and personal care product or service advertisements of 37advertisers to be either misleading or false or not adequately / scientifically substantiated and hence violating ASCI’s Code. Some of the health care products or services advertisements also contravened provisions of the Drug & Magic Remedies Act and Chapter 1.1 and III.4 of the ASCI Code. Complaints against the following advertisements were UPHELD.

     

      1.LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.  (LG Water Purifiers): The advertisement of LG Water Purifiers claims, “India’s only true water purifier” which was not adequately substantiated.

     

      2. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (PureitUltima):The TVC of PureitUltima claims, “PureitUltima RO+UV. Sirf is meinhai Purity Indicator josaafsaafdikhatahaikipaanikitna pure hai”, which was false and misleading. Furthermore, the Print advertisement and Website claims, “PureitUltima with Purity Indicator. Purity you can see!” was misleading by implication.

     

      3.L’Oreal India Private Limited (L’Oreal Fall Repair):  The claims in the advertisement, “Its   triple action arginine nourisheshair from its roots, it reduces breakage, hair grow stronger” and “Save up to 2000 hair strands”, were inadequately substantiated and were misleading by ambiguity.

     

      4.Lotus Herbals Limited (Lotus Herbals Youth RX): The claims in the advertisement, “A firmer and younger skin in just seven days” and “In four weeks 96 percent of users have agreed that effects of ageing are almost gone”, were inadequately substantiated.

     

      5.VLCC Ltd Healthcare: The claims in the advertisement, “Listen to your DNA for weightloss. Presenting for the first time VLCC DNA Slim a scientific weight loss solution based on your DNA”, “Running 4KM daily helped your colleague Lose weight. But may only make you lose your cool” and “Lose four kilograms or get your money back”, were considered to be misleading by exaggeration and implication.

     

      6.Sanzyme Ltd (Nutrus Slim Tea): The claims in the advertisement, “Slim”, and “Green Tea reduces the risk of Diabetes and Cancer”, were not substantiated with clinical evidence.

     

      7.Dr. Amit Sharma: The claim in the advertisement, “Completely cure HIV AIDS and any kind of cancer through Ayurveda treatment”, was not substantiated.  Also, specific to the claim related to complete cure of Cancer, the TVC is in breach of the law as it violated The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act.

     

      8.Yogis Ayurveda: The claims in the advertisement, “Since 1944 Worldwide Safe & Successful Ayurvedic Herbal Treatment for Every one – Height increase” and “Takat Da TohfaKesar- Gold Course for newly married couples”, were not substantiated.  Also, specific to the claim related to height increase and for claims implying enhancement of sexual pleasure, the advertisement is in breach of the law as it violated The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act.

     

      9.ParthvimedaGauUtpadPvt Ltd. (Pathmeda Products): The claims in the advertisement, “Consume Pathmedagomutra ark regularly to get protected from the incurable diseases like obesity, Diabetes, Heart Diseases and Cancer”, were not substantiated.  Also, specific to the claims implying prevention of obesity, Diabetes, Heart Diseases and Cancer, the advertisement is in breach of the law as it violated The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act.

     

      10.Shreeji Herbal Products: The claims in the advertisement, “Shreeji Herbal Products – Stops hair fall in 24 hours – Money back if no results are seen – 100% result on damage caused due to medicines of thyroid – Makes skin whiter in 20 days”, were not substantiated. 

     

      11.Shree BaidyanathAyurvedBhawanPvt Ltd (BaidyanathMedoharGuggulu): The diagrammatic representations of before and after images shown in the advertisement and on the product pack were found to be misleading by exaggeration.

     

      12.Vaidic Clinic: The claims in the advertisement, “100% Ayurvedic Treatment by advanced technique – Premature Ejaculation – Night fall – Problem in penis – Impotency – Sexual weakness – Skin diseases – Arthritis – Female diseases – Piles – Obesity”, were not substantiated. Specific to the claims related to treatment of sexual impotency, Obesity, the advertisement is in Breach of the law as it violated The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act.   Also, specific to the claims related to treatment for Piles, the advertisement is in breach of the law as it violated Schedule J of The Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940 and Rules, 1945. The headline in the advertisement, “100% Ayurvedic Treatment by advanced technique”, was considered to be misleading.

     

      13.Hair Doc Trichology Hair Clinic: The claims in the advertisement which states, “Complete Baldness Treatment”, “White Hair Control”, “Specialized HDHT+ for 100% natural hair growth”, “Awarded with Keshratna”, “Stop Hair loss” and “Advanced Non-Surgical Mesotechnology for Hair Loss Control”, were not substantiated.  The visuals of before and after the treatment were misleading.  Specific to the claims related to complete baldness treatment (a condition referred in Schedule J of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act) is in breach of the law as it violated The Drugs & Cosmetics Rule 106.

     

      14.RV New Visions Healthcare Pvt Ltd: The advertisement states, “After research by Dr. Manju Ray of Kolkata (a reputed scientist of Bose Institute and felicitated by Government of India), the effectiveness of this treatment M.G. (Methy/Glyoxal) has been proved, which was successfully tested at Kolkata as well as at the Chinchwad based hospital of Lokamanya Group of Hospitals. This medicine works very well as complementary to the regular cancer medicines; and treats it”, “Suitable for preventing regrowth of cancer tumor after removing it with surgery”, “It acts as a complementary while starting radiation or chemotherapy, making it more beneficial and helpful in preventing its side effects”, “Starting this treatment immediately is effective when radiation or chemotherapy is not possible”, were not substantiated. Also, specific to the claims for Cancer prevention, the advertisement is in breach of the law as it violated The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act.

     

      15.Nityanand Herbals (DiaNitya): The claims in the advertisement, “Miracle in the world DiaNitya – For Diabetes – Instant relief – Made from traditional natural herbs – Helps in reactivating the beta cells – Helps in high consumption of glucose by cells – Works as insulin – No Side effects”,  “Our aim to make the world diabetes free”,  were not substantiated. Also, specific to the claims implying cure for Diabetes, the advertisement is in breach of the law as it violated The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act.

     

      16.AsthaAyurved: The claims in the advertisement, “Successful treatment of nil sperms/ less sperms, impotency, premature ejaculation, less stress, looseness, nightfall, semen in urine, less desire of sex, etc. Ovarian/Uterus clot, blocked ovary tube, irregular periods, leucorrhoea/ white discharge, lack of desire in women by ayurvedic technique”, were not substantiated. Also, specific to the claims related to successful treatment for sexual impotency, the advertisement is in breach of the law as it violated The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act.

     

      17.Mardana Josh Range of Products: The advertisement’s claims, “Mardana Josh Herbal Majun& Capsule – Increases masculine energy, provides stoppage, increases stimulation and potential, stops premature ejaculation, successful in curing physical weakness”, were not substantiated.  Also, the advertisement claims read in conjunction with the advertisement visual 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.

     

      18.Dilco Slimming Capsule: The claims in the advertisement, “Dilco Slimming Capsule – Get rid of obesity, immediately – Reduce obesity – Reduce fat – Increase energy – Without any side effect – Without operation – Without crash dieting – Without yoga – Without any exercise”, “Now Obesity, will never trouble you”, “Obesity gets over with Dilco Slimming”, “We have brought a natural and easy way to reduce weight”, “Dilco Slimming melts your fat like wax”, were not substantiated.  The visuals of before and after the treatment were misleading.  Also, specific to the claims related to cure / prevention of Obesity, the advertisement is in breach of the law as it violated The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act.

     

      19.SMG Healthcare  (Sugar Haran Kit): The claims in the advertisement, “Sugar Haran- For relief in sugar control, continue with your healthy life style, regular medicines, exercises, nutritious and balanced diet and take only ten drops of Sugar Haran per day”, were not substantiated.

     

      20.Weitrex Forte Capsule & Drops: The claims in the advertisement, “Weitrex Forte Capsule & Drops – Reduce Obesity”, “No Dieting” and “No Side Effects with pure ayurvedic treatment”, were not substantiated.

     

      21.Kiran Homeopathic Clinic: The claims in the advertisement, “Successful treatment of piles, stones, premature ejaculation in men, masturbation, weakness & impotency”, were not substantiated. Specific to the claims related to successful treatment for Piles, the Ad is in breach of the law as it violated Schedule J of The Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940 and Rules, 1945.

     

      22.Sultan Forte: The claims in the advertisement, “Sultan Forte – For the lost energy, passion and stoppage in men/women – Beneficial in nightfall, bad nerves, erectile dysfunction, nil sperms & all kinds of sexual problems”, were not substantiated.  Also, the advertisement claims read in conjunction with the pack visual 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.

     

      23.Ramban Liquid: The claims in the advertisement, “Get Rid of Drinking – Use Ramban Herbal Liquid Medicine by Vedban Delhi. A person stops drinking forever by using this medicine”, were not substantiated. 

     

      24.NirogAyurvedic Center: The advertisement’s claims, “Treatment for Paralysis now completely possible in Himachal – Patients of Stroke, Non-functioning of legs, hands and tongue, facial muscle drop, loss of control over  urine & stool discharge and other dangerous initial  symptoms of paralysis like: stumbling, shocks, skin crawling, heaviness, numbness etc., can now be saved from paralysis by treating them with Ayurvedic Medicine developed by N.A.C”,  “This medicine removes the dead blood cells and smoothens the blood circulations. It saves from being paralysed by curing the weakened cells after attack”, “This medicine has no side effects and can be consumed with Allopathic Medicines. Clear improvement can be seen within few hours in new patients and within few days in case of old patients by this medicine” and “Epilepsy: Special medicine for all types of brain attacks, frothing in mouth, crooked neck, becoming moony, tongue not working, tremors, weakness of brain by balancing the cells and cures attacks. With the help of this English medicines stop slowly and gradually”, were not substantiated. Also, specific to the claims related to treatment/cure for Paralysis and Epilepsy, the advertisement is in breach of the law as it violated The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act.

     

      25.Laborate Pharmaceuticals India Limited (PathriNashak Range of Products): The advertisement’s claims, “Helpful in problems of all kinds of stone”, “Helps in dissolving stone by making it small and by which stone gets removed by the way of urine”,  “Helps in stopping the formation of stone and increases the functioning of kidney”,  “Beneficial in curing all types of urine disorders, inflammations in urine etc”, were not substantiated with clinical data to justify this particular composition for this proprietary product to provide the specific benefits as claimed.

     

      26.Claris Lifesciences limited: The claim in the advertisement, “Industry best in Healthcare” is false as it is ranked #2. The advertisement does not have a disclaimer qualifying the source and date of research for the claim made in the advertisement.

     

      27.Cure Sight Laser Centre: The claims in the advertisement, “Wavelight EX-500 which is US FDA approved and can remove one eye number in just 1.4 second”, were not substantiated.

     

      28.DharampalSatyapal Ltd. (Rajnigandha Pan Masala): The disclaimer in the TVC of Rajnigandha Pan Masala is not legible and contravened the ASCI Guidelines for Supers.

     

      29.Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (Fair & Lovely Men’s Fairness): The visual of “a model in the jeep without wearing seat belt” as depicted in the TVC of Fair and Lovely Men’s Fairness shows an unsafe practice. 

     

      30.BSY Noni India (BSY Noni Black Hair Magic): The claims in the advertisement, “No more chemicals”, “No more bye (black)”, “Used confidently by people in over 28 countries across the World”, “Just ten minutes”, were not substantiated. 

     

      31.Alaska Water Marketing (Amazing Water): The claims in the advertisement, “First Time in India”and “Amazing Water – Anti-Oxidant – Anti-Ageing – 7 X Faster Hydration – Increase Performance & Energy – Enhanced Electrolyzed Alkaline Functional Water – More PH More Healthy”, were not substantiated.

     

      32.Berry’s Skin Care Clinic: The claim in the advertisement, “White spots (Leukoderma), Psoriasis – Product awarded with Indira Gandhi award”, was not substantiated with authentic support data. The advertisement further claims the product to be the only Ayurvedic formula which gives 100% results. They further claim, “Cure completely from its roots”, “No chances for reoccurrence”, “No need to consume medicines for years”, were not substantiated. In addition to these claims, “Certified by Government of Dubai”, was not substantiated with authentic support data. Also, specific to the claims related to complete cure of White Spots, the advertisement is in breach of the law as it violated The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act.

     

      33.Abdan Pharmacare Private Limited: The claim in the advertisement, “Abdan Hair Tonic – Stops hair fall – Stop balding – Increases memory by dendrite cells”, was not substantiated with proof of efficacy. 

     

      34.Torque Pharmaceuticals (U B Fair): It was concluded that the name “U-B Fair” does not have FDA approval nor is it stated on the product licence.  The name of the product itself presents it as a Fairness product (U-B Fair) and along with the claims in body copy of various advertisements, promotes its use for several cosmetic benefits. The product contains topical steroids which are potentially dangerous when used over a prolonged period. Thus, the name of the product “UB Fair” and information provided in the advertisement was found to encourage its unsafe use. It was also concluded that the advertisement is misleading and is likely to exploit the lack of knowledge among consumers. In additions, specific to the reference of this “drug product” for fairness claim, the advertisement is in violation of Schedule J clause 18 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.

     

      35.Vishal Personal Care Pvt Ltd (Banjaras Hair Oil): The claim in the advertisement, “Banjara’sSamvridhi Hair Oil with Ayurvedic herbs and oils that gives upto eight centimetre of hair growth in just eight weeks”, was not substantiated adequately and was misleading by ambiguity.

     

      36.Johnson & Johnson Ltd (Aveeno Active Naturals): The claims mentioned on the pack and as cited in the complaint, state “Aveeno Active Naturals are ingredients derived from nature” for the declared active ingredient on the pack “Dimethicone” which is not considered to be natural was false and not substantiated.

     

      37.Rafael Medicare Centre: The advertisement’s claim, “An option beyond Bypass & Stents EECP Treatment”, is misleading since the indications for this treatment are limited. The advertisement also claims, “Safest, USA- FDA Approved Treatment for Chest Pain (Angina) & Heart Failure”, which was not substantiated.

     

    Education

     

    The CCC found that claims in the advertisements by 41 advertisers were not substantiated and, thus, violated ASCI Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions. Hence complaints against these advertisements were UPHELD.

     

      1.Personaliteez: The advertisement’s claim, “Making 2 lakhs per weekend”, was not substantiated. 

     

      2.Peoples Empowerment Group – ISB&M School of Technology: The claims in the advertisement, “100% Placement” and “ISB&M School of Technology Ranked 8th in Emerging Engineering Institutes in India”, were not substantiated.

     

      3.NIPS  School of Hotel Management: The claims in the advertisement,  “World Record Holder”,  “Ranked No. 1 Eastern India the Pioneer Newpaper 2014”,  “Best Placement Award- By South Asian Academy, New Delhi, 2012”,  “Ranked No. 2 Among India’s Private Hotel Management Institute – The Pioneer Newspaper – 2013”,  “Holder of Limca, Asia & India Books Of Records”,  “Eastern India’s Best Hotel Management College- Awarded By Brands Academy, New Delhi – 2013”, “Winner 8th National Education Award- Awarded by NEA, New Delhi- 2014”,  “Winner National W.B Education Award- Awarded by NEA, New Delhi – 2014” and “Worldwide Hospitality Award- Awarded by WWHA, Paris, France- 2003”, were not adequately substantiated with evidence.

     

      4.The Mentor’s Academy: The claims in the advertisement stating, “Get a reputed Government job. Get Bank, Railway, Police etc. in just one day exam”, and “100% Money Back Guarantee”, were not substantiated.

     

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

     

      6.SCMS School of Engineering & Technology: The claim, “Kerala’s No. 1 Engineering College (SF) in quality and excellence”, was not substantiated with comparative data..Theclaim, “SCMS is ranked No. 1 in all ranking surveys conducted by RECCA-NIT”, was not substantiated with supporting data and also the claim is misleading by omission of what the ranking was specific to.

     

      7.Invertis University: The advertisement claims, “National Education Award 2014 for Outstanding B-School &Engg. Univ. – ABP”, “4 Star Ranking – The Pioneer”, “Bharat ShikshRatan–Velidictedby GAF, Delhi” and “Best Emerging University Of North India – Indian Achievers Podium”, were not adequately substantiated and were misleading by omission of disclaimers.

     

      8.Career Institute for Commerce & Accounting: The claim in the Advertisement, “AIR-26, 30, 36, 37, 41, 42” as a declaration is considered to be fake and not substantiated with supporting data. 

     

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

     

    Vidyalankar Classes, Vivekananda Degree & PG College, Aim Entertainment Acting Academy, Learn & Earn Academy, Master of Science Information & Technology, Mediit Educational Institute,ADCC Infocad Private Limited (ADCC Academy), Wisdom Institute, Sri Shakthi Institute Of Engineering & Technology, Ponjesly College of Engineering, Vidyalankar Classes, One Dream, Blue Bells Innovative School, UEI Global Education, Tajinder Bhatia Achieve Max, Vidya Knowledge Park, MIST Plus, Happy Child College of Nursing, Sai Wellness Education, The Prayag International Institute of Hotel &Tourism, All India Computer Trainers Association, IPCA Accountancy, Millennium Institute of Management, Banda Para College Medical, KIPM College of Engineering & Technology, ISC CNC Training Centre, Chalapathi Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, National Power Training Institute Corporate Centre, Centre for Bioinformatics, SKML Defence Academy, Mangayarkarasi Educational Trust (Mangayarkarasi College of Arts & Science), NIV Foundations (NIV School of Hospitality Management) and Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies (Delhi School of Business).

     

    Others

     

      1.HSIL Limited (Hindware Ensemble Kitchen): The claim in the advertisement, “Air Flow–1200 m3/hr”, was not substantiated with supporting technical data.

     

      2.Bharti Airtel Ltd. (Airtel Broadband): The claim offer of “Airtel Broadband – 60 GB @ Rs.1099 with unlimited calls”, was not substantiated with evidence of the customers who have availed this scheme.  

     

      3.Amazon Kindle: The advertisement claiming price off of Rs 1000/- from Rs. 5999 to Rs 4999 in large prominent font shown for an image of the product costing Rs.8999/-  is misleading by implication regardless of the disclaimer (in fine print), “Device shown in Image is Rs.8999/-”.

     

      4.Corona Plus Industries Limited (Plus Easy Washing): The claims in the point of sale material (POSM) of Plus Easy Washing state, “Rs. 5 KeChote, PatleSabuno Se DhulaiBadiKashtdayiHain”,  “ApkoBadiRahatDega, KashtdayiDhulaikoAsaan Karta HainAur 66% JyaadaKapdeAsani Se SaafDhulteHain”, were not substantiated with comparative data against competition products.  The claims used in conjunction with the images of the competition products in the POSM is denigrating and disparaging competition.

     

      5.Carlsberg India Limited (Tuborg Zero): The advertisement was a surrogate advertisement for a promotion of a liquor product – Tuborg Zero.  The advertiser did not provide the annual market sales data of the product/service advertised, thus the advertisement contravened Chapter III.6 (a) (b) of the ASCI Code and the Guidelines for Brand Extension product or service.

     

      6.3M India Limited (3M Car Care): The advertisement visual showing a car splashing water filled on the road, encourages people to indulge in dangerous practices without justifiable reason.

     

      7.City Broadband: The claim in the advertisement, “India’s No.1 Leading Internet Service Provider”, was not substantiated.

     

      8.John Distilleries Pvt Ltd (Original Choice):The advertisement shows a bar situation with coloured liquid in bottles/glasses which appears to be a direct promotion of liquor product – Original Choice.  The advertisement is misleading by implication and contravened Chapters I.4 and  III.6(b) of the Code (“Whether there exists in the advertisement under complaint any direct or indirect clues or cues which could suggest to consumers that it is a direct or indirect advertisement for the product whose advertising is restricted or prohibited by this Code.”).  Also, the advertisement did not meet the requirements as per ASCI’s Guidelines for Qualification of Brand Extension Products and thereby contravened Chapter III.6 (a) of the ASCI Code.

     

      9.Manappuram Finance Limited: In absence of a disclaimer to indicate that the earlier scheme of 5% reduction in interest rate has been extended to other branches, the advertisement is misleading by omission.       

  • ASCI upheld complaints against 82 out of 148 advertisements

    ASCI upheld complaints against 82 out of 148 advertisements

    MUMBAI:  In June 2015, ASCI’s Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) upheld complaints against 82 out of 148 advertisements. Out of 148 advertisements against which complaints were upheld, 26 belonged to the Personal and Healthcare category, followed by 22 advertisements in the Education category, 9 advertisements in Food and Beverage category, 7 advertisements in media and entertainment category and 18 advertisements from other categories.

     

    Health and personal care:

     

    The CCC found the following claims in health and personal care product or service advertisements of 26 advertisers to be either misleading or false or not adequately/ scientifically substantiated and hence violating ASCI’s Code. Some of the health care products or services advertisements also contravened provisions of the Drug & Magic Remedies Act and Chapter 1.1 and III.4 of the ASCI Code. Complaints against the following advertisements were UPHELD.

     

    1. L’Oreal India P. Ltd (GarnierPureActive Neem+ Tulsi High Foaming Face): The advertisement, promotional pamphlets and leaflets of the product claim, “removal of 99.9 %   pimple causing germs” was found ambiguous and unsubstantiated0.

     

      2. L’Oreal            India Limited (New Garnier Action Facewash): The claim in the advertisement of New Garnier Action Facewash, “1 tone fairer skin”, was not substantiated and was                misleading by ambiguity.

     

      3. CavinKare Pvt Ltd (Chik Egg White Protein Shampoo): The advertisement claims “Isska Egg White Protein damage baalon ko jad se sire tak nourish karke hair fall kam kare” (“Its Egg White Protein nourishes damaged hair from root to tip and reduces hair fall”), was not substantiated with data specific to Egg White Protein. The visual depiction showing strengthening of the hair roots by the Egg White Protein, resulting in reduction of hair fall, and strengthening of hair, was misleading. In view of the above, the claim of “Perfect Solution” against hair fall was also found misleading. In addition, the supers/disclaimers in the TVC were not legible.

     

      4. CavinKare Pvt Ltd (Nyle Naturals Hairfall Defence shampoo): The disclaimer in the advertisement claims, “Baalon ke tootne ke karan hone wale hair fall …” is factual.However, the the term used in the voice over “…baalon ka jhadna …” was considered to be misleading by ambiguity.

     

      5. Lotus Herbals Limited  (Lotus Herbals Youth RX): The advertisement claims, “A firmer and younger skin in just 7 days”, “ In 4 weeks 96 percent of users have agreed that effects of ageing are almost gone”,  were inadequately substantiated. 

     

       6. Akansha Hair & Skin Care Herb Unit Private Limited   (Akansha  SwarnaliFairness Cream): The claim in the advertisement which states “Fairness in three weeks” was not substantiated.

     

       7.  Fortis Healthcare Limited: The advertisement of Fortis Healthcare Limited does not refer to the criteria applicable for cosmetic surgeries and by presenting this as a “limited period discount” offer could encourage unsafe practices.  Also, the advertisement is misleading by omission of a disclaimer INDICATING the risk factors involved.

     

       8.  Vicco Laboratories (ViccoTurmeric Facewash): The advertisement claim, “No Pimples, No blackheads”, “Kyunki (pimples / blackheads) hai hi nahi” is an absolute claim and was not adequately substantiated with efficacy data for this product. In addition the claim, “har ladki ki skin problem ka ek hi upaay” was also considered to be misleading.

     

       9. Japanese Automatic Penis Increasing Tool: The advertisement of the product claims, “World’s No, 1 Sexologist”, “Sexual Diseases, why disappointed?”, “Free Japanese Penis Increaser Tool”, “Makes penis long by seven to eight inches, thick, shapely and energetic. Cures premature ejaculation, impotency, childlessness and increase sex time up to 25-30 minutes. Get excitement capsule, romantic spray, 175 Kaam Kala Book, 16GB Memory Card and DVD Free along with 45 days medicine”,  “Money back if it does not work”,  “By the use of these machines size of the male penis will increase by two to six inches and intercourse timing will increase by 30-45 minutes”,  were not substantiated.  Also, specific to the claims related to sexual impotency, and the advertisement claims read in conjunction with the advertisement visual implying that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure, is in breach of the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act.

     

      10. Japanese Automatic Penis Increasing Tool: The advertisement claims, “See the effects with its use”, “If your penis is small, thin crooked then make it long, thick, strong and shapely and increase sex time by 30-40 minutes. Cure premature ejaculation, nightfall, impotency, childlessness, nil sperms 100% from its roots. Get 30 days medicine with Japani Masti Oil, Kaam Kala Book, DVD, rapturous spray, excitement capsule without any charge. Colour Mobile Free”, “By the use of these machines size of the male penis will increase by two to six inches and intercourse timing will increase by 30-45 minutes”, were not substantiated.  Also, specific to the claims related to sexual impotency, and the advertisement claims read in conjunction with the advertisement visual implying that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure, is in Breach of the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act.

     

      11. Japanese Automatic Penis Increasing Tool: The advertisement claims, “Make penis eight to nine inches long, thick & strong and increase sex time up to 30 -45 minutes by making it straight. Get 100% rid from impotency, premature ejaculation, nil sperms, nightfall, and bad habits like masturbation with guarantee. Get 30 days medicine, 8GB memory card, fun gel and excitement capsule free”,  “Benefits Guaranteed”,  “No Side Effect”,  “By the use of these machines size of the male penis will increase by two to six inches and intercourse timing will increase by 30-45 minutes”, were not substantiated.  Also, specific to the claims related to sexual impotency, and the advertisement claims read in conjunction with the advertisement visual implying that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure, is in Breach of the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act.

     

      12. Sexual Disease: The advertisement claims, “Small penis, why disappointed?”, “World’s No.1 Penis Increaser Tool”, “Effect starts immediately with its use. Make penis long by seven to eight inches, thick, strong, shapely and energetic. Increase sex time up to half an hour. Successful cure of impotency, premature ejaculation, nightfall, childlessness. Powerful 30 days medicine, excitement capsule, romantic spray, Kamasutra Book, 8GB Memory Card free”,  “Money back if not benefits are not found”,  “By the use of these machines size of the male penis will increase by two to six inches and intercourse timing will increase by 30-45 minutes”,  were not substantiated.  Also, specific to the claims related to sexual impotency, and the advertisement claims read in conjunction with the advertisement visual implying that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure, is in Breach of theDrugs and Magic Remedies Act.

     

      13. Sex Dhamaka: The claims in the advertisement says,  “Small penis, why disappointed?”,  “Japanese Penis Increaser Tool”,  “Automatic Power Tool”, “Make penis long by eight to nine inches, thick, shapely, thick by five inches and sex time up to 40-45 minutes”,  “Cure premature ejaculation, nightfall, nil sperms, and impotency and take double joy of sex. For more information 8GB memory card, color mobile, sex texts free”, “By the use of these machines size of the male penis will increase by two to six inches and intercourse timing will increase by 30-45 minutes”, were not substantiated.  Also, specific to the claims related to sexual impotency, and the advertisement claims read in conjunction with the advertisement visual implying that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure, is in Breach of the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act

     

      14. Vaccum Therapy: The claims in the advertisement state,  “Unique invention”,  “Penis Increaser Tool with Vaccum Therapy”,  “American Agency FDA believes that by Vaccum Therapy and Penis increaser Tool along with  Ayurvedic medicines make your penis eight to nine inches long within 15 minutes, three to four inches thick, strong, straight and increase sex time by 30-45 minutes, also cures premature ejaculation, impotency, small penis, looseness of penis, thinness, nightfall, erectile dysfunction, childlessness, impotency from its roots”,  “100% Herbal Treatment”,  “By the use of these machines size of the male penis will increase by two to six inches and intercourse timing will increase by 30-45 minutes”,  were not substantiated.  Also, specific to the claims related to sexual impotency, and the advertisement claims read in conjunction with the advertisement visual implying that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure, is in Breach of the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act.

     

      15. The Body Care Slimming & Beauty Clinic: The claims in the advertisement, “Seven days fast track program”, “Fastest reduction infrared cavitation therapy”, “Lose up to five to eight centimetres in one area”, “Get rid of baldness result in 6 weeks only”, were not substantiated. Also, the visuals showing the images of before and after the treatment were misleading. In addition, specific to the claims implying baldness prevention is in Breach of the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act.

     

       16. Rocket Capsules: The claims in the advertisement to enhance sexual power was not substantiated. Also, the advertisement claims read in conjunction with the advertisement visual and the pack visual implies that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure, is in Breach of the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act.

     

      17.  Neem Jamun Kerala Ras: The advertisement claims, “Natural source of iron, vitamin and calcium”, “Controls sugar and reduces sugar levels in just seven days of its consumption”, “Completely cure diabetes in six months”, “100% organic”,  “No side effects”, were not substantiated. Also, specific to the claim related to cure of Diabetes, the advertisement is in Breach of the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act.

     

      18.  Vibes Healthcare Limited: The claims in the Advertisement state, “Get a flat belly without exercising”, “Lipo Laser programs 60 minutes”, “Quick Inch Loss and Quick Weight Reduction”, “Lose up to six centimetres from Waist, Hips and Thighs”. These claims were not substantiated.

     

      19. Shathayu Ayurveda: The advertisement claims, “Special detoxification at Shathayu Ayurveda increases the natural Insulin production in the body by activating pancreases” and “Ayurveda says Diabetes is curable”, were not substantiated. Also, specific to the claim related to cure of Diabetes, is in Breach of the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act.

     

      20. Sanzyme Ltd. (Nutrus Slim Tea): The advertisement claims relating to the Health Benefit such as “Weight reduction” and, “Reduces the risk of diabetes and cancer”, were not substantiated. 

     

       21. The Body Care Slimming and Beauty Clinic: The claims in the Advertisement says, “Stay Slim Forever without Dieting”,  “2.3 day slim program”,  “Fat reduction of six to eight centimetres”,  “Lose up to ten kilograms”,  were not substantiated.

     

       22. HealthCare     Global Enterprises Limited: The advertisement mentioned the complainant doctor’s name without his permission, which is in contravention of the ASCI code and also confers an unjustified advantage for their hospital.

     

       23. Raghudeep Eye Hospital: The claim in the advertisement states, “India’s first exclusive blade free Lasik Centre in Ahmedabad”, was not substantiated with supporting data. Also the claims, “World’s safest blade free technology” and “US-FDA approved single use disposables to prevent infections” were not substantiated with authentic evidence.

     

       24. Sikandar-e-Azam: The advertisement claims,  “World’s Best Sikandar-e-Azam”,  “Capsule for Penis Enlargement available in India”,  “New trust with one capsule”,  “Make penis long by one to two inches, thick cures premature ejaculation and makes penis steely”,  “Strength, contentedness, satisfaction – With Guarantee Card”,  “By the use of these machines size of the male penis will increase by two to six inches and intercourse timing will increase by 30-45 minutes”,  were not substantiated.  Also, specific to the claims implying that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure, the advertisement is in Breach of the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act.

     

       25. Mangal Pharma (Madhu Care Churma): The advertisement claims, “Sureshot Treatment/ Solution of Diabetes- Madhu Care Churna”, was not substantiated. Also, specific to the claim related to treatment of Diabetes, the advertisement is in Breach of the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act.

     

      26. Thyrocare:  The advertisement claims, “Nine out of ten thyroid patients are mothers”, was not substantiated.

     

    Education

     

    The CCC found that claims in the advertisements by 23 advertisers were not substantiated and, thus, violated ASCI Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions. Hence complaints against these advertisements were upheld.

     

    1. Amity University: The advertisement claims, “Amity University ranked among the Top Universities in Asia by QS, a leading ranking organization”, was not substantiated.

     

      2. The Sagar School: The advertisement’S claim “International School Award 2014-2017”, is false, and is misleading by omission.  Also, the advertisement does not fulfil the criteria laid down by the British Council for making such claims in the advertisement such as size of the logo, placement of the logo etc.

     

      3. BYJU’s Classes: The advertisement claims, “Announcing excellent success ratio in our first IIT batch with 161 of 212 students clearing JEE Mains” and “Get classes from India’s best teachers”, were not substantiated with data. In addition, the claim “Bangalore’s Biggest Scholarship Test for 7th to 12th Class students”, was not substantiated with comparative data.

     

      4. Amity University: The advertisement’S claim, “Distance Learning Programmes ranked #18 worldwide by QS”, was not substantiated.

     

      5. CLAT Possible: The claims, “Rank 1 in CLAT & AILET. 30/71 selections in NLU. CLAT UP Rank 1 & 2” and “Rank 1 in CLAT & AILET. More than 18 students in top 60 ranks in CLAT. 30 out of 71 students selected in first list”, were not substantiated.

     

      6. Career Launcher: The claimS in the advertisement state, “3 OUT OF 5 TOPPERS IN CLAT 2015 ARE CLSTians, 7 State Toppers & Counting”, were not substantiated.

     

      7. Career Launcher: The advertisement claims, “CLAT CL Nagpur Students Create History! Swarnima Mukharjee AIR 204, Shrinkhala Shikhar AIR 606, Shivani Dixit AIR 561, Darshan Gandhi AIR 1472”. These claims were not substantiated.

     

      8. Career Launcher: The claim in the advertisement, “10/10 top Ranks in MNLUAT (NLU, Mumbai) are LSTians”,   was not substantiated.

     

      9. Green Valley High School: The claims, “17 Acre Lush Green Campus” and “20 students per class”, were not substantiated.

     

      10. Institute of Finance Banking and Insurance: The advertisement claims, “Become a Senior Officer in a Bank in just 6 Months” is misleading and was not substantiated with support data.  They further claim, “Over 17,500 placed in the I.C.I.C.I bank” and “32,500 Placements since inception in September 2006”, were inadequately substantiated.

     

      11. Koneru Lakshmaiah Education: The claims, “The Leader in Placements”, “K.I.U Awarded Best Engineering Institute in Asia”, “918 Placements in a single day! from a single Campus”,  “KLU created history with 65% Placements on Day One (2014-2015)”,  “K.I.U. University Awarded at National Level- – AAAA+ – Careers 360 – 2nd – Digital Mailer – 5th- Silicon India – 6th- Dainik Bhaskar – 8th – The Pioneer”,  were not substantiated.  

     

      12. DPSG Dehradun: The claims, “DPSG – The Best CBSE Day Schools of India Now in Dehradun”, “DPS Ghaziabad ranked No.8 in the country”, were not substantiated. 

     

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

     

    Koneru Lakshmaiah Education Foundation (KL University), KLU University, Aishwarya Educational Trust (Audisankara Group of Institute), ANIHM Institute of Hotel Management, Nalanda Education Society, Academy of Commerce, The Institute of Education and Management, RojgarMahiti Kendra, Sun Infotech and JK Group of Institute.

     

    Food & Beverages:

     

    1. Borges India Pvt. Ltd. (Borges Extra Light Olive Oil): The CLAIM of Borges Extra Light Olive Oil “Borges `Extra Light Olive Oil” is false and misleading by omission. 

     

      2.  General Mills India Pvt. Ltd (Pillsbury): The claim in the advertisement states, “…Payein bilkul ghar jaisa swaad. Yeh hai desh ki 10 mein se 9 mahilaon ka kehna” for the Pillsbury RavaIndli Mix was not substantiated.

     

      3. Modi Natural Limited (Rizolo Rice Bran Oil): The advertisement of Rozolo Rice Bran Oil claims to be “Suitable for diabetics” as it is rich in MUFA and PUFA and so considered good for diabetics.  They further claim “Cholesterol reduction”, “Cancer protection” and “Skin health”. These claims were not substantiated with clinical evidence.

     

      4. Healthy Heart Foods (Healthy Heart Cooking Oil): The claim in the advertisement “India’s No.1 Brand”, was not substantiated. Also, the accompanying graphical representation in the advertisement referring to the Consumer VOICE survey findings was found to be misleading.

     

      5. Saboo Sodium Chloro Limited (Surya Salt):  The advertisement claims, “Surya salt has right amount of Sodium that helps to take care of your heart and protects from high blood pressure so that you live healthy and for longer period”, is misleading as acceptability of Sodium level for every person will be variable.  Also, the product being low sodium was not substantiated. 

     

      6. TMA Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd (Ammi’s Biryani): The website advertisement of Ammi’s Biryani shows leg piece of chicken in their biryanis.  According to Ammi’s Biryani, they do not serve chicken leg pieces as a matter of policy. Thus, the advertisement was found to be misleading.

     

      7.  Sri Sri Ayruveda (Yumlakki Instant Poha Mix): The visual in the advertisement of  “noodles being animated as snakes” with the voiceover “leave poisonous Maida noodles” (“Jeharilee maide waali noodle chhodiye”),  unfairly denigrated entire category of noodles products, distorts facts and is misleading by exaggeration. 

     

      8. Heinz India P. Ltd (Complan): The advertisement claims that Complan has 100% milk protein and comparing it versus other malt based drinks, which is misleading by implication. By choosing this comparison, it bestows an artificial advantage on milk protein based drinks and creates an impression that a better bargain is offered than truly is the case.

     

      9. Pernod Ricard India P. India (Seagram): The advertisement of Seagram states, “More than a few drinks can change the meaning of U-turn”, read in conjunction with the logo of `Seagram’ and statement “Enjoy responsibly”, directly promotes a brand linked to alcohol. 

     

    Media and Entertainment

     

    1. TV 18 Broadcast Ltd (CNBC): The claim in the advertisement by CNBC, “‘No. 1 TV channel in India” was not substantiated and was found to be misleading.

     

      2. Odisha Television Ltd (Tarang): The advertisement of Tarang TV claims of being the No.1 channel was found to be misleading.  The advertisement violates the TAM guidelines and the subject matter of comparison confers an artificial advantage upon the advertiser so as to suggest that a better bargain is offered than is truly the case.

     

      3. Insight           Media   City (India) Private Limited : The advertisement of Insight Media City claims, “Flowers emerges as clear No.2 in general entertainment space” and “Week 2 of launch Flowers continues to strengthen its position as clear No.3”,  were not substantiated and were found to be  misleading.  The subject matter of comparison confers an artificial advantage upon the advertiser so as to suggest that a better bargain is offered than is truly the case.

     

      4. Sarthak TV: The advertisement of Sarthak TV claims higher viewership than other competitor channels. This claim was found to be misleading as is not based on at least 4 weeks of data as per the TAM Guidelines.  This confers an artificial advantage upon the advertiser so as to suggest that a better bargain is offered than is truly the case

     

      5. Prameya News7: The advertisement of Prameya News7 represents the viewership growth which is based on only one week’s data, which violates the TAM guidelines that advises taking a base of least 8 weeks data to arrive at a valid conclusion. The advertisement also violates the TAM guidelines which require that the estimate should be clearly stated.  This confers an artificial advantage upon the advertiser so as to suggest that a better bargain is offered than is truly the case.

     

      6. Sarthak Entertainment Private Ltd (Sarthak TV): The advertisement of Sarthak TV claims that it is the leading channel in the Odisha market, as per weekly GVT data. The super in the advertisement does not indicate that the data is based on at least 4 weeks of data as per the TAM advertising guidelines.

     

      7. Living Media Ltd (India Today): The advertisement of India Today depicts a graph showing 4 News Channels i.e. INDIA TODAY, TIMES NOW, CNN IBN & NDTV 24*7 and in the graph.It is displayed that INDIA TODAY is leading the market by holding 33.1 % Market share, followed by Times Now channel with 24.8 %, CNN IBN with 10.5 % and NDTV 24*7 with 10 This advertisement does not show the total market share of 100%. They also claim to be ‘No.1 English News Channel’ without any source data specified in the advertisement. By providing incorrect information for the purposes of substantiating the claim made by India Today, the advertisement is false, misleading, and disparaging to the other news channels.

     

    Others

     

    1. Flipkart Internet Private Limited:The website communication claims the MRP of the product as Rs.799, when actual printed MRP on product is Rs. 399 which is being offered as the discounted price for Canvera. The website communication claims the MRP of the product as Rs. 999, when actual printed MRP on product is Rs. 449 which is being offered as the discounted price for OBS. This distorts facts and is therefore misleading the consumers as to actual discount being offered.

     

      2. BSNL:The advertisement of BSNL’s website claims, “…..NOW BSNL AT YOUR DOORSTEP…. Our Sales team will come to your Doorstep to collect documents and provide the connection”, was found false.

     

       3. Flipkart Internet P. Ltd (Xpert Commendo 6 White Black shoe):The website communication claims the MRP of the product as Rs. 1078, when actual printed MRP on product is Rs. 469 which is being offered as the discounted price.

     

       4. Uber: The advertisement by Uber states, “You drink, we drive”, when read in conjunction with the depiction of logos of Bars such as Zara etc. as #UBERAPPROVED PARTNERS, was seen to promote alcohol drinking. 

     

       5. Jasper Infotech P. Ltd. (Snapdeal.com): The advertisement of Snapdeal.com depicts a visual of “a man riding a bike without a helmet” shows an unsafe practice.

     

       6. Honda Motorcycle &Scooter India Pvt. Ltd (Honda Activa): The advertisement claiming schemes of “lowest down payment of 5555” and the “lowest instalment of 999/month”, are misleading by ambiguity and by omission of a disclaimer qualifying the criteria of the individual schemes.

     

       7. JadeBlue: The TVC of JadeBlue shows the visual of “a man riding a bike without a helmet”. Such actions in an advertisement are seen to promote unsafe practices.

     

       8. Casa Grande: The sign off slogan in the advertisement states, “On time every time”, which was very similar to the sign off slogan of the earlier run advertisement of another competitor advertiser in the same sector of business so as to suggest plagiarism.

     

       9. Milcent Appliances Pvt Ltd: The advertisement claims, “100% Aluminium (Carcinogenic Cancer Causing Metal) Free”, was misleading by exaggeration. Also, grinding in aluminium grinding chamber resulting in incidence of cancer was not substantiated with supporting evidence. The claim was also considered to be disparaging to “Aluminium” based product categories.

     

      10. Lucknow Gramaudyog Sansthan (Ultra Guide Detergent Powder): The advertisement states, “Auro se ek kadam aage” (“We are one step ahead than others”), the basis of which was not provided. Hence the advertisement was found to be misleading.

     

      11Chehra Pahachaano: The advertisement by Chehra Pahachaano lure consumers by showing a fraudulent contest. The winner is asked to deposit money so as to register, and they further give false promises of gifting iPads to the winners in return. These advertisements of “ChehraPahachaano” contest are found to be false, misleading and contravene Chapters I.1, I.4 and I.5 (f) of the Code (“Ads inviting public to take part in prize competitions permitted under law or which hold out the prospect of gifts shall state clearly all material conditions as to enable the consumer to obtain a true and fair view of their prospects in such activities….”).

     

      12. Vikrant Happy Homes Pvt. Ltd: The claims, “Fully Furnished”, “Ready-to-live Studio Apartments” and “Rs.18.9 lakhs onwards”, were false and not proven.

     

      13. Poonam Developers: The claims “NO-Stamp Duty, Registration Fee, Service Tax and V.A.T”, were false and misleading by omission.

     

      14. Scoobee Bags: The advertisement visuals depicting children putting their head and hands outside the window while the vehicle is in motion, show a dangerous practice, manifests a disregard for safety and encourages negligence.

     

      15. Vodafone Essar Ltd. (Vodafone): The claim of “uninterrupted voice calls on 3G Network”, was not substantiated.

     

      16. Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. (Krishnapatnam Port KPCT): The advertisement shows a driver racing his sports car on a public road recording lapping times and trying to beat past time records and then shows chasing a helicopter. The depiction of speed manoeuvrability encourages unsafe or reckless driving.  The advertisement also depicts stunts being performed in normal traffic conditions in some frames.  Also, the duration of the supers in the advertisement was not for a minimum of six seconds hold duration on the screen and not present for the scenes depicting the stunts. 

     

      17. Ruia Agro Farm: The advertisement claims, “Stop Eating Cancer Causing Fruits and Vegetables”, is misleading by exaggeration as they are only selling land where organic farming may be carried out. Also the claim in the advertisement “Buy an organic farm today” was considered misleading. In addition, the claim, “India’s First property Recommended by Doctors” shown along with the visual of a doctor, was not adequately substantiated with supporting proof and was misleading by ambiguity. 

     

      18. Aakash Institute: The advertisement shows the visual of “a boy pillion riding a bike without a helmet” which depicts an unsafe practice.