13 Dec 2017
Live Post
ACT Fibernet rolls-out 1 Gbps plan in Bengaluru after Hyderabad
Vishnu Shankar takes charge as &TV business head
Unitech Shares Plunge 13% As Supreme Court Stays NCLT Order
Tax department probes unregulated bitcoin exchanges after valuations jump
Coal scam: Fmr Jharkhand CM Madhu Koda, Fmr coal Secy held guilty
Deadline for linking PAN with Aadhaar was extended to March 31, 2018

ASCI upheld complaints against 80 ads in February

MUMBAI: The Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) of the Advertising Standards Council of India’s (ASCI) upheld complaints against 80 advertisements out of the 133 against which objections were raised.

Of these 80 ads, 48 belonged to the Education category, 13 in the Healthcare category, five in the Food and Beverages category, and 14 ads were from other categories.

Health & Personal Care

The CCC found claims in the healthcare and personal care product or service advertisements of 13 advertisers to be either misleading or false or not adequately/scientifically substantiated and hence violating ASCI’s Code. Some of the healthcare products or services advertisements also contravened provisions of the Drug & Magic Remedies Act and Chapters 1.1 and III.4 of the ASCI Code. Complaints against the following advertisements were upheld:

1. Emami Ltd (Fair & Handsome):

The advertisement’s claim, ‘Long lasting fairness’ was not substantiated.

2. Colorbar Cosmetics Pvt Ltd (Colorbar U.S.A. Hydra White Intense Whitening Hydrating Day Lotion):

The advertisement’s claims relating to usage results, ’70 per cent felt an increase in skin brightness, freshness and radiance’, ’75 per cent felt their skin tone looked more clear’, ’80 per cent agreed their skin remained hydrated all day long’, ’80 per cent loved the light-weight texture’, were not substantiated and were likely to mislead consumers. Moreover, the advertisement’s claim, ‘Our patented Illumeskin Whitening Complex* (*Patent pending)’ on product packaging, was not substantiated and was misleading by implication as no proof/data was provided to substantiate the fact that the advertiser had applied for a patent, which was pending.

3. Hindustan Unilever Ltd (Dove Hair Fall Rescue Shampoo with Nutrilock Actives):

The advertisement of Dove Hair Fall Rescue Shampoo with Nutrilock Actives is misleading by ambiguity because consumers will believe that Dove will also reduce natural hair fall; whereas the context of product benefit is with reference to hair fall due to breakage, as specified in the disclaimer. Moreover, the advertisement’s claim, ‘Yeh damage balon ko jadon se upar poshan de aur unhe banaye siron se majboot’ (‘Nourishes Damaged Hair from Roots Up’), as used in the print advertisement was considered misleading by ambiguity and implication that the product was effective for physiological hair loss.

4. Shree Maruti Herbal (Stay-On Oral Liquid):

The advertisement’s claims, ‘Quick Acting’ and ‘Get charged for the intense pleasure’ were not substantiated for the proprietary product. The advertisement is also in breach of the law as it violates the Drugs & Magic Remedies Act.

5. HealthCare Global Enterprises Ltd (HCG Hospital-CyberKnife):

The advertisement’s claim, ‘In Cyberknife Surgery… And, By the End of It. No Cancer’ were not substantiated. Also, specific to the claim-implying cure for cancer, the advertisement is in breach of the law as it violates the Drugs & Magic Remedies Act.

6. Truweight Wellness Pvt Ltd (Truweight Loss Programme):

The ads claims, ‘See Results in 10* Days! Or your money back*!’ and ‘India’s first honest weight loss programme where you lose weight through super foods, not weight loss pills, gadgets, surgery or false promises’ were not substantiated and were misleading by exaggeration.

7. Johnson & Johnson Ltd:

The advertisement’s claim, ‘Johnson & Johnson – Making clinically proven mild products for more than 100 years!’ was not substantiated.

8. Mission Health (Non-surgical spine care technologies):

The advertisement’s claims, ‘Neck pain, back pain, slipped disc, sciatica?’, ‘No medicine, no injections, no surgery’, ‘India’s 1st super speciality spine clinic in Ahmedabad’, ‘World’s most advanced non-surgical spine care technologies’ and ‘12,000+ patients treated successfully’ were not substantiated.

9. Hindustan Unilever Ltd (Lifebuoy Clini-Care 10 Soap):

The advertisement’s claim, ’10X more skin care moisturizers’ was not substantiated.

10. Shree Maruti Herbal (Stay-On Power Capsule):

The ad’s claims, ‘Its proper intake gradually revived my vigour, vitality, energy & helped my confident game with match winning performances’, ‘Viva Stay-On …. for longer, stronger & bigger performance’, were not substantiated with evidence of effectiveness and were misleading by exaggeration. Also, the claim, ‘… for longer, stronger and bigger performance’, read in conjunction with pack visual of a man and woman, with a qualifier that the product is only for men (‘Herbal Supplement for men’), implies 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.

11. Future Value Products Pvt Ltd (Dr Back Orthopaedic Mattress):

The advertisement’s claim, ‘Since 1982, Pyare Lal Group is the only manufacturer in the world, who manufactures all types of mattresses under one roof’, was not substantiated and was misleading by gross exaggeration.

12. Ban Labs Ltd (Sesa Oil):

The claim in the advertisement of ‘8X’ referring to the eight benefits of the product was not substantiated.

13. Marico Ltd (Livon Hairgain Tonic):

The advertisement’s claim, ‘It controls hair fall in 90 days’, was not substantiated adequately as the product was at most helpful in moderately improving the condition.

Food & Beverages

Nutricia International Pvt Ltd (Protinex Health Drink):

The presentation of the advertisement was likely to mislead by implying that protein-deficient diet as determined by the 24-hour recall survey would result in protein deficiency, when that was not the case. The advertisement’s claim, ‘And your regular diet isn’t sufficient to meet your daily protein requirement’, was considered to be misleading by implication, as it implies that Protinex is a replacement for regular diet.

2. Cargill India Pvt Ltd (Leonardo Olive Oil):

The advertisement’s claim, ‘1/3 oil usage, makes it light’ is not acceptable since the sensory results presented were not statistically significant as compared to other cooking oils. Further, the advertisement’s claim, ‘Improves Metobolic Health’, ‘Increases Good Cholesterol’, ‘Maintains sugar levels’, ‘Controls weight and waist line’ were not substantiated. Also the claim, ‘helps in improving digestion’ was not substantiated and was considered to be misleading by ambiguity as adequate reports for substantiation were not presented by the advertiser.

3. Paras Surti Products Pvt Ltd (Paras Pan Masala):

The TVC features Arbaaz Khan—a celebrity from the field of cinema for a product which has a health warning that it is injurious to health and cannot be purchased or used by minors. It was noted that minors are very likely to be exposed to the TVC. The celebrity in the advertisement would have a significant influence on minors who are likely to emulate the celebrity in using the product. Also, the supers/statutory warning in the Hindi TVC were not in the same language as the audio of the TVC, and were not clearly legible.

4. Pan Parag India Ltd (Pan Parag Pan Masala):

The TVC features Sachin Khedekar—a celebrity from the field of cinema, for a product which has a health warning that it is injurious to health and cannot be purchased or used by minors. It was noted that minors are very likely to be exposed to the TVC. The celebrity in the advertisement would have a significant influence on minors who are likely to emulate the celebrity in using the product. Also, the supers/statutory warning in the Hindi TVC were not in the same language as the audio of the TVC.

5. ITC Ltd (Sunfeast Farmlite Cookies):

In the advertisement, the visual of ‘two ladies (mother and daughter) playing on zebra crossing’, shows and encourages, without justifiable reason, an unsafe practice, and manifests a disregard for safety.

Education

The CCC found that the following claims in the advertisements by 48 different advertisers were not substantiated and, thus, violated ASCI Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions. Hence, complaints against these advertisements were upheld.

Sojatia Competition Classes:

The advertisement’s claims, ’63 selections in NLUs’, ‘All India Level Test Series & Online Testing’ and Comparison of CLAT 2015 with others and IPM with other competitors, were not substantiated with authentic supporting data.

2. Erudite (CAT Coaching):

The advertisement’s claim, ‘By far the highest number of IIM Calls in Kolkata are from Erudite’, ‘No. 1 for CAT’ and ‘Best results and personalised attention’ were not substantiated.

3. IMS Learning Resources Pvt Ltd (CAT exam series):

The advertisement’s claims, ‘IMS offers the most comprehensive study material designed by our 100 percentilers and our best faculty for CAT and other B-school entrance tests’ and ‘SimCAT is by far the most comprehensive and most popular simulated CAT exam series in the country’ were not substantiated and were misleading by gross exaggeration.

4. VistaMind Education Pvt Ltd (Best Trainers for CAT, Bank PO):

The advertisement’s claim, ‘The Best trainers for CAT, Bank PO now in Hyderabad’, is an absolute claim and was not substantiated with comparative data versus other institutes to show that their trainers were better than anyone else was.

5. GL Bajaj Institute of Management and Research:

The advertisement’s claims, ‘The Highest Salary Offered: 17.0 LPA.’, ‘The Highest Salary Achieved: 10.42 LPA.’, ‘Average Salary: 4.5 LPA.’, and ‘International Package Rs 17 LPA’, were not substantiated.

6. Asian Business School:

The advertisement’s claim, ‘Average Package offered 5.8 lakh/p.a’, was not substantiated.

7. Chandigarh University:

The advertisement’s claim, ‘The highest salary package offered is 17 lakh’, was not substantiated.

8. LegalEdge Tutorials (LegaEdge – All India Rank 1):

The advertisement’s claim, ‘All India Rank 1, 8, 13, 42, 56, 71, 75 and many more in CLAT 2015’, was not substantiated and is misleading by ambiguity.

9. IILM Institute of Business and Management:

The advertisement’s claim, ‘The Average annual salary package offered touched near to about 7.5 lakh’, was not substantiated with evidence such as the batch size, enrolment forms, appointment letters and contact details of the students who got placements and is misleading in the absence of any disclaimer/qualifier.

10. Jaipuria School of Business:

The advertisement’s claims, ‘Highest package of Batch 13–15 is Rs 6.00 lakh & average Rs 4.5 lakh’, and ‘100% placement’, were not adequately substantiated with evidence such as the batch size, enrolment forms, appointment letters and contact details of the students who got placements for verification and were misleading in the absence of any disclaimer/qualifier.

11. ITM Business School:

The advertisement’s claims, ‘Top International Placement: 10,50,000’, ‘Top Domestic Placement: 8,50,000’ and ‘Average CTC: ‘5,00,000’, were not substantiated.

12. JK Business School:

The advertisement’s claim, ‘An average salary of Rs 4 lakh (Domestic) and Rs 13 lakh (International)’, was not substantiated.

13. Jagannath International Management School:

The advertisement’s claim, ‘Highest Salary is Rs 14.75 lakh p.a. & Average Salary is Rs 5.5 lakh p.a.’, was not adequately substantiated. In addition, the claims are misleading by ambiguity as the salary package mentioned in the advertisement is in Indian Rupees whereas the employment referred to an overseas offer.

14. Techno Institute of Management Sciences:

The advertisement’s claim, ‘Minimum 3 Jobs for every student’ nor the claim the advertiser intended to make (i.e. ‘Minimum 3 Job offers for every student’) was not substantiated and is misleading by ambiguity.

15. Parul Institute of Management:

The advertisement’s claim, ‘Highest salary package 6.0 lakh, Average salary Package 3.25 lakh’, was not substantiated and is misleading by ambiguity in the absence of any disclaimers / qualifiers.

16. Pune Institute of Business Management:

The advertisement’s claims, ’14 lakh PA Highest Package’ and ‘6 lakh PA Average Package’, were not substantiated.

17. Thiagarajar School of Management:

The advertisement’s claims, ‘Average Salary: 5.3 lakh p.a.’, ‘Highest Salary: 7.50 lakh p.a.’ and ‘Average no. of offers/Students: 1.3’, were not substantiated.

18. Srusti Academy of Management:

The advertisement’s claims, ‘2014-15 – Highest Salary Rs 3.16 lakh, Median Salary Rs 2.20 lakh’ and ‘2013-14 – Highest Salary Rs 3.14 lakh, Median Salary Rs 1.88 lakh’, were not substantiated.

19. Master School of Management:

The advertisement’s claims, ‘Highest Package-10.5 lakh P.A.’, ‘Average Package-6.3 lakh P.A.’ and Placement Trend 2013-15 – ‘Students Placed- 98.33%’ and ‘Students Opted for Entrepreneurship – 1.67%’, were not substantiated.

20. Dr. Gaur Hari Singhania Institute of Management & Research (GHS-IMR):

The advertisement’s claim, ‘Institute is not only known for its actual 100% placement but also for quality education’, was not substantiated.

21. Institute of Engineering & Management Group:

The advertisement’s claim, ‘Average CTC Rs 3 lakh/annum. Highest package Rs 9.2 lakh/annum’, was not substantiated.

Complaints against ads of all educational institutes listed below have mostly been upheld because of unsubstantiated claims that they ‘provide 100% placement/and/or they claim to be the No.1 in their respective fields’.

DLM Academy, Accurate Group of Institutions, Fortune Institute of International Business, Ansal University, Centre for Management Development, Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Institute of Management & Higher Studies, Asia-Pacific Institute of Management, Dewan V.S. Group of Institutions, Ishan Institute of Management & Technology, Endeavor Careers, International Management Centre, IMS Ghaziabad, Institute of Technology and Science Ghaziabad, K.R. Mangalam University, Jindal Global Business School, Suryadatta College of Hospitality Management & Travel Tourism (SCHMTT), Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi Viswa Mahavidyalaya (SCSVMV University), Bengal College of Engineering and Technology, Alard Institute of Management Sciences, Al-Barkaat Institute of Management Studies, Disha Institute of Management and Technology, International School of Management Patna, Institute of Management & Information Science, Hi-Tech Institute of Technology, Heritage Business School, Future Institute of Engineering and Management and Kochi Business School Mar Thoma School of Management Studies.

Others

1. Bharti Airtel Ltd (Airtel 4G):

The ad’s language and the hold duration of the super in the advertisement was not as per the ASCI guidelines on supers. The TVC contravened the ASCI Guidelines on supers.

2. Vodafone India Ltd (Vodafone 4G Network):

The ad’s claim, ‘World’s Largest 4G Network, now in Kochi’ was not substantiated. Also, the claim was misleading in the absence of appropriate disclaimer/qualifier.

3. Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt Ltd (Hewlett Packard printer):

Regardless of the disclaimer (the claim of ‘Upto 480 pages’ is with reference to ISO test page yield for a black cartridge under standard test conditions), the visuals of coloured print-outs appearing along with the headline ‘Upto 480 pages for just Rs 475 per cartridge’ is misleading by ambiguity and implication.

4. Jaguar and Company Ltd (Jaguar Lighting):

The ad’s claim, ‘eco-friendly mercury free’ was considered to be misleading by omission of reference to other products that are not mercury free. Further, the claim, ‘Energy efficient, more than 80 percent saving’, was not substantiated with results from independent test agency. The claim was misleading, since it did not compare CFL and tube lights. Moreover, the claim in the advertisement, ‘lasts up to 30 years’, was not substantiated.

5. MRF Ltd (MRF ZSLK Tyres):

The ad’s claims, ‘When you drive on MRF ZSLK, Delhi Breaths a Little easier’, and ‘MRF ZSLK India’s Eco-Friendly Car tyre’, were not substantiated with supporting data to prove that the MRF ZSLK Tyres resulted in vehicle consuming significantly less fuel and so less emissions. The claims were misleading by exaggeration.

6. Hathway Cable & Datacom Pvt Ltd (Hathway Broadband Internet):

While the claim in the ad of Hathway Broadband Internet, ’10 TIMES FASTER’ was substantiated, it was misleading by omission of an appropriate disclaimer.

7. Reliance Communications (Reliance Upgrade to 3G):

The ad’s claim, ‘India’s finest 3G network’, was not adequately substantiated and is misleading by exaggeration.

8. Vinr Communications Shantketan Entertainments (Ishq Junoon):

The visual in the movie promo is vulgar, indecent, repulsive especially in the depiction of a woman and not suitable to be viewed by minors. In the light of the generally prevailing standards of decency and proprietary, the visual will cause grave and widespread offence to the general public.

9. KAFF Appliances (India) Pvt Ltd (KAFF):

The ad’s claims, ‘KAFF is now India’s Most Trusted Brand. Consumer Validated 2015’, ‘In a nationwide survey conducted by IBC Infomedia and consumersurvey.com, KAFF has been declared as the most trusted Brand of 2015 in the Kitchen Appliance category. This award by India’s Most Trusted Brand Awards Council just reaffirms what we always believed’, ‘A fact validated by consumers’ and ‘Think Green with KAFF’, were not substantiated.

10. Tata Motors Ltd (GENX Nano Easy Shift):

In one frame of the TVC, the vehicle indicator light is not lit while overtaking another vehicle. This visual is in violation of traffic rules and shows an unsafe practice.

11. Hike Ltd (Hike Messenger):

The ad’s claim, ‘5 times faster’ was not substantiated and was misleading by ambiguity and omission of reference of comparison.

12. Hike Ltd (Hike Messenger):

The scene shown in the TVC of students playing a prank and as a result ‘a bursting sound in the class room while the teacher is teaching’, shows a dangerous practice and this depiction could be avoided.

13. ANI Technologies Pvt Ltd (OLA Cabs):

The ad’s claim, ‘Ride an OLA for just Rs 8/km’, was not substantiated and was also misleading by ambiguity.

14. ANI Technologies Pvt Ltd (OLA Cabs):

The claim in the Ad, ‘Ola! Now pay lesser for your cab ride. Travel in Delhi- NCR starting at just Rs 25. Open the app and use code NCR25. TCA’, was not substantiated. Also, the term `TCA’ in the SMS Advertisement is misleading by ambiguity.