recommendations - january 2021 - asci, the advertising

Recommendations - January 2021

Complaints deliberated in the month of January

2021

2101-CCC.26

Complaints for Re-Examination

1. @ 2009-C.1150 ITC Limited (*) - (Nim Wash

Vegetable & Fruit Wash)

MEDIUM: Times of India (*), Pune Edition, Main

Issue (English) (09.08.2020)

NATURE OF THE COMPLAINT:

Claims objected to:

1. Wash Away Pesticides & 99.9% Germs

2. 100% Natural Action

Objection:

Advertisement is in Potential Violation of ASCI

Celebrity Guidelines

CCC RECOMMENDATION:

The ASCI had approached the advertiser for its

response in addressing the objections raised in the

complaint. The advertiser was offered an opportunity

to seek an Informal Resolution (IR) of the complaint

and a telecon with the ASCI Secretariat to seek

further guidance, which they did not avail but

submitted their written response

The advertiser submitted an exhaustive point-wise

reply to the objections raised in the complaint. In

response to the objection against claim Wash Away

Pesticides & 99.9% Germs the Advertiser

submitted, “The Product has been tested, and found

to be effective in removing pesticides from sample

fruits and vegetables. Further, soaking vegetables in

citric acid, one of the ingredients of the Product, has

been demonstrated to be an effective tool for

minimising pesticide residue. The Product has also

been tested against, and has exhibited ≥99.9%

effectiveness for Antimicrobial Activity and Retaining

Freshness in Vegetables”. The advertiser provided

several test reports in support of the claim made.

In response to the objection against the claim 100%

Natural Action the Advertiser replied that it is well

demonstrated that the “Product washes away

pesticides and 99.9% germs by substantiating the

Claims with test reports, additionally supported by

literature as well, and we submit that the ingredients

are natural. The Product, composed of the aforesaid

natural ingredients in its entirety, has been tested for

its action on pesticides and germs. It is thus,

abundantly clear that the cleansing and anti-

microbial action of the Product is 100% natural”.

The advertiser further provided the following

documents as claim support data: 1) copy of test

report on Pesticide Removal Efficacy of Nimwash on

Fresh Fruits; 2) copy of test report on Pesticide

Removal Efficacy of Nimwash on Fresh Vegetables;

3) copy of image of back of pack label; 4) copy of

image of front of pack label; 5) copy of Pesticide

Removal Efficacy report of Nimwash from TUV

Süd; 6) copy of literature on Assessing and Reporting

Household Chemicals as a Novel Tool to Mitigate

Pesticide Residues in Spinach, published in

Nature.com; 7) copy of literature on Minimization of

Imidacloprid Residues in Cucumber and Bell Pepper

Through Washing with Citric Acid and Acetic Acid

Solutions and Their Dietary Intake Assessment,

published in International Journal of Food Properties;

8) copy of literature on Safety methods for

chlorpyrifos removal from date fruits and its relation

with sugars, phenolics and antioxidant capacity of

fruxits, published in J Food SciTechnol; 9) copy of

test report on Contact Time Kill Study of Fruits &

Vegetables Wash Product from TUV Süd; 10) copy

of test report on Nimwash Efficacy Study for

Antimicrobial Activity and Retaining Freshness in

Vegetables; 11) copy of Test Report: BS EN

14476:2013 + A2:2019 Chemical disinfectants and

antiseptics –Quantitative suspension test for the

evaluation of virucidal activity in the medical

area‐ Test method and requirements (Phase 2/Step 1)

from BluTest; 12) copy of certification of citric acid

source from Panacea Polychem; 13) copy of

document stating ISO 16128 provides guidelines on

definitions for natural and organic cosmetic

ingredients and on approaches to calculate natural,

natural origin, organic and organic origin indexes

from Corbion; 14) copy of product test data on

PURAC HS 88 from Corbion; 15) copy of

declaration from Corbion; 16) copy of O-BASF

report on Indication of Naturalness; 17) copy of O-

BASF report on statement details of origin; 18) copy

of declaration on purity of neem oil supplied for

product from SPS Organics India(P) Ltd; 19) copy of

final draft of Guidelines on technical definitions and

criteria for natural & organic cosmetic ingredients

and products, International Standard; 20) copy of

excerpts from ISO 16128.

The complaint and the advertiser’s response along

with the claim support data were referred to an

independent technical expert of ASCI. The expert’s


opinion was shared with the advertiser for making

any additional submissions. The advertiser sought an

audience with the independent technical expert,

which was arranged by the ASCI secretariat through

video conferencing. Additionally, the Advertiser

made further submissions in response to the initial

expert opinion. The following documents were

shared: 21) copy of Study the effect of fruits and

Vegetable wash in reducing the pesticide content; 22)

copy of Pesticide Removal Efficiency report of

Nimwash Vegetable and Fruit Wash from TUV Süd;

23) copy of literature on Decontamination of

Microorganisms and Pesticides from Fresh Fruits and

Vegetables: A Comprehensive Review from

Common Household Processes to Modern

Techniques published in comprehensive reviews in

Food Science and Food Safety; 24) copy of literature

on Use of agricultural chemicals: rodenticides; 25)

copy of literature Rodent control in India; 26) copy of

document listing insecticides approved by the

registration committee to control household pests in

houses under the insecticides act 1968; 27) copy of

literature on Minimization of Imidacloprid Residues

in Cucumber and Bell Pepper Through Washing with

Citric Acid and Acetic Acid Solutions and Their

Dietary Intake Assessment published in International

Journal of Food Properties; 28) copy of report on

microbial efficacy of nimwash fruit & vegetable

wash; 29) copy of test report on Microbial removal

Efficiency of Fruits and Vegetables Wash Product;

30) copy of literature on Treatment of norovirus

particles with citrate published in Virology; 31) copy

of literature on Chemical Disinfectants for

Inactivation of Human Norovirus Surrogates; 32)

copy of literature on L-Lactic Acid –A Safe

Antimicrobial for Home-and Personal Care

Formulations; 33) copy of literature on Inactivation

of Exogenous Endoparasite Stages by Chemical

Disinfectants: Current State and Perspectives; 34)

copy of literature on Antiparasitic disinfectant,

effective against ascarids and coccidia, including

their eggs and oocysts, containing disinfecting agent

and ester as keratolytic agent; and 35) copy of

literature on Probiotics for the Control of Helminth

Zoonosis. The Advertiser presented the relevant

points at the meeting with the technical expert. Post

meeting with the ASCI Secretariat and the technical

expert, the Advertiser’s submissions were shared

with the technical expert for his final opinion. Based

on both initial and additional data submissions, the

technical expert submitted his final opinion for the

Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) to consider.

The CCC viewed the print advertisement and

considered the advertiser’s response as well as the

opinion of the Technical expert presented at the

meeting.

The CCC carefully considered the documents

submitted in support of the claim, along with the

expert’s opinion and deliberated on this and raised

questions around how is natural action demonstrated,

to make the claim “100% natural action”. The CCC

observed that the product composition was of natural

ingredients, namely, neem oil, lemon juice, citric acid

and lactic acid and that the Advertiser had tested the

product against sample fruits and vegetables and

pesticides that they believed were representative of

various classes that are relevant to a fruit and

vegetable wash and have covered a wide range of

sample fruits and vegetables and pesticides as

additional substantiation material. However, there

was no evidence of the testing protocol standard

provided, nor was the details of quality standards

used for test protocol mentioned. The CCC pointed

out that though some reports were from an NABL

accredited laboratory, however, they were not

appropriately signed on every page by the responsible

NABL approved authorised signatory as required by

the NABL when releasing the Test Report. In its

current form the reports appeared like technical study

report rather than a test study report. The CCC

considered the technical experts view in

understanding that the importance and the degree of

responsibility of ownership of Study Report and Test

Report is different, and opined that the documents

provided were not based on standard test protocols,

thus not fulfilling the criteria of a test report. The

CCC concluded, the claims objected to were not

adequately substantiated and requires further

evidence to clearly establish the same. Additionally,

there was no evidence provided for celebrity

guidelines. The claims are misleading by ambiguity

and exaggeration and in violation of Chapters 1.1, 1.4

and 1.5 of the ASCI code and the ASCI Guidelines

for Celebrities in Advertising. The objection to the

claims “Wash Away Pesticides & 99.9% Germs” and

“100% Natural Action” were UPHELD.

CCC RECOMMENDATION ON RE-

EXAMINATION:



complaint. The advertiser was offered an option to

seek Informal Resolution (IR) of the complaint by

modifying or withdrawing the claims objected to in


the advertisement, or alternately to substantiate the

claims with the required supporting data. The

advertiser did not seek an IR but submitted their

written response.

The complaint and the advertiser’s response with the

claim support data was referred to an independent

technical expert of ASCI. The expert opinion was

shared with the advertiser, and a meeting of the

advertiser with the technical expert was arranged by

the ASCI Secretariat.

Based on the advertiser’s response, and the final

opinion of the technical expert, the Consumer

Complaints Council (CCC) Upheld the complaint as

the claims were inadequately substantiated. The

recommendation of the CCC was conveyed to the

advertiser. The final opinion of the expert was also

shared with the advertiser. Post receiving these

documents, the advertiser was offered an opportunity

for a meeting with the technical expert which they

availed.

Advertiser then submitted the documents in support

of the clarifications provided in the meeting with the

technical expert pertaining broadly to: “(i) NABL

accreditation of laboratories whose test reports have

been submitted and signature of authorised signatory

on the test reports of such NABL accredited

laboratories; (ii) References to test protocol and

quality standards in connection with the test reports

submitted; and (iii) the reports provided are ‘test

reports’.”

As claim support data, the advertiser provided – (1)

The accreditation certificates of TUV SUD and ITC

Analytical Laboratory, Agribusiness Division, (2)

Documents with the names of such authorized

signatories of TUV SUD and ITC Analytical

Laboratory, Agribusiness Division, (3) Addendum

letters and SOPs which set out the names of the

standards for test reports in which they have not

already been specified, (4) Certificates from the

NABL accredited laboratories that the reports qualify

as ‘test reports’, (5) Report BLR/F(C)/20/13399 – 1

with signed annexures, (6) Signed copies of test

reports MR-SS-18-007 and PC/CL/20-108, (7)

Standard ISO 17025:2017, (8) Brochures of TUV-

SUD.

In view of the above data provided by the advertiser,

the complaint was placed before the Consumer

Complaints Council (CCC) for Re-examination of the

CCC recommendation.

Based on the advertiser’s supporting data, the


CCC to consider. The CCC viewed the print

advertisement and considered the advertiser’s

response as well as the opinion of the Technical

expert presented at the meeting. The CCC observed

that the advertiser has tested the product against

sample fruits and vegetables and pesticides that they

believed were representative of various classes that

are relevant to a fruit and vegetable wash and have

covered a wide range of sample fruits, vegetables and

pesticides as additional substantiation material. The

additional data submitted specifies the protocol for

each test report. Quality Standards have been

specified in the test reports that were available with

the laboratories, as is required by the Standard

(NABL) ISO/IEC 17025:2017. They have also

submitted addendum letters and SOPs, which set out

the names of the standards of test protocols, wherever

not mentioned, in the earlier reports. The details of

quality standards used for test protocols, are

mentioned in the reports. Also the documents are

signed by the responsible NABL approved authorised

signatory as required by the NABL when releasing

the test report.

The CCC noted that the expert in his earlier opinion

had mentioned that the product comprises of 100%

natural ingredients which is supported by adequate

published literature. The ingredients are natural and

supporting relevant documents / certificates from raw

material suppliers were acceptable.

Based on this assessment, the CCC opined that the

claims have been adequately supported by

appropriate test reports. The CCC concluded that the

claims, “Wash Away Pesticides & 99.9% Germs”

and “100% Natural Action” were substantiated. The

advertisement is not in contravention of Chapter I of

the ASCI Code. This complaint was Not Upheld on

Re-examination.

2. @ 2011-C.1828 Technique Polytechnic

Institute

MEDIUM: News18 Bangla(*)

(Bengali)(19.09.2020) (10 Secs) (7:14:30)


Claims objected to:

1. West Bengal’s One and Only NBA Accredited

Polytechnic (Voice Over Claim)”

2. “West Bengal’s One and Only MBA Oriented

Polytechnic” (Voice Over Claim)

3. “West Bengal’s one and only Polytechnic

Institute having NBA Accredited Courses”.


CCC RECOMMENDATION: Exparte


response in addressing the objection raised in the



modifying or withdrawing the claim objected to in


claim with the required supporting data. The

advertiser was also offered an opportunity for a

telecon with the ASCI Secretariat. The Consumer

Complaints Council (CCC) noted that no response

was received from the advertiser prior to the

prescribed due date for this complaint. The CCC

viewed the TVC (in Bengali) and observed that the

advertiser is offering

coaching for courses in various fields of engineering

and technology. Upon careful consideration of the

complaint and in the absence of response from the

advertiser, the CCC concluded that the voice over

claim, “West Bengal’s One and Only MBA Oriented

Polytechnic”, was not substantiated with verifiable

comparative data of the advertiser’s institute versus

other similar institutes in West Bengal, to prove that

they are the one and only MBA Oriented Polytechnic

institute. The claim was also not backed by an

independent third-party validation. The claim is

misleading by exaggeration and is likely to lead to

widespread disappointment in the minds of students.

The TVC contravened ASCI Guidelines for

Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs

as well as Chapters I.1, I.4 and I.5 of the ASCI Code.

This complaint was UPHELD.


EXAMINATION:





modifying or withdrawing the claim objected to in the

advertisement, or alternately to substantiate the claim

with the required supporting data. The advertiser was

also offered an opportunity for a telecon with the

ASCI Secretariat, which they did not avail nor did

they submit their written response.

In the absence of the advertiser’s response prior to

the due date, the matter was examined by the

Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) on the basis of

the materials available then and an exparte decision

was taken. The complaint was Upheld as the claim

was not substantiated.

On receiving the CCC recommendation, the

advertiser responded that “the complaint is simply a

result of incorrect and wrong translation. In the said

TV Commercial, it has been claimed that Technique

Polytechnic Institute is “West Bengal’s one and only

Polytechnic Institute having NBA Accredited

Courses”. Here, NBA stands for National Board of

Accreditation which is an independent autonomous

body which promotes international quality standards

for technical education in India.”

Advertiser in their response referred to the link from

the NBA’s official website -

https://www.nbaind.org/accreditationprogram/Accred

itedProgram?ID=qwlMeKvvRFkROOUyYkKt0g==

&lbl=9Qi/IwtMApXDLczJCj6HXA==&name=wMN

R/LxT4iwXWKhiAHUUp7arLoQxrBw+ynRVIBZ6c

K8AV5bqAqzgcg3F5RqtTwH1

As claim support data, the advertiser provided copy

of the certificate given by the NBA and a copy of the

TVC.

The complaint was placed before the CCC for Re-

examination of the CCC recommendation. The CCC

viewed the TVC (in Bengali) and considered the

advertiser’s response. The CCC observed that the

advertiser’s institute is offering coaching for

Electrical Engg, Mechanical Engg, Computer Science

& Technology, Electronics & Telecommunication

Engg, Civil Engg, Survey Engg courses. The CCC

also noted that the voice over claim made (in

Bengali) as translated in English says “West Bengal’s

one and only Polytechnic Institute having NBA

Accredited Courses”, whereas there was an error in

the complaint which mentioned the claim as “West

Bengal’s One and Only NBA Accredited

Polytechnic”, and also in the CCC recommendation

which stated as “West Bengal’s One and Only MBA

Oriented Polytechnic”.

The CCC reviewed the support data provided which

was a certificate of National Board of Accreditation

(NBA), and observed that the above courses offered

by the advertiser as mentioned in the TVC, are

accredited by NBA. Based on the advertiser’s

response with the supporting data provided, the CCC

concluded that the voice over claim, “West Bengal’s

one and only Polytechnic Institute having NBA

Accredited Courses” was not objectionable. The


the ASCI Code. This complaint was Not Upheld on

Re-examination.

https://www.nbaind.org/accreditationprogram/AccreditedProgram?ID=qwlMeKvvRFkROOUyYkKt0g==&lbl=9Qi/IwtMApXDLczJCj6HXA==&name=wMNR/LxT4iwXWKhiAHUUp7arLoQxrBw+ynRVIBZ6cK8AV5bqAqzgcg3F5RqtTwH1






Complaints received directly by ASCI on OCMS /

[email protected]

3. $ 2011-C.2214 Greenlam Industries Limited

(Greenlam Laminates)

MEDIUM: The Times of India (*) (22.11.2020)

ADVERTISING AGENCY: Mullen Lintas (*)


Claims objected to:

1. World’s First COVID-19 Resistant Laminate

2. Greenlam laminates are now proven effective

against SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) with 99%*

efficacy within 30 minutes of exposure to

laminate surface.

Complaint:

"Volunteer, Mumbai grahak panchayat. Ad in

yesterday's Times of India. This ad is making claims

of protection against coronavirus and other viruses.

Despite you issuing covid advisory for ads these

manufacturers have not stopped making tall claims

about covid virus. Test report attached by them

doesn't give much clarity about various atmospheric

conditions, also they have used some German

technology, no clarity on that also. They are making

claims that world's first one, when still there is no

cure or prevention available for corona, how can they

make such misleading claims? What about test

reports for other viruses? When they say kills 99.9%

of viruses what it means? Kills 99.9% viruses present

in the air or some specific types? Pl stop such ads.”

CCC RECOMMENDATION:


response in addressing the grievances of the

complainant and forwarded the details of the

complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request

to respond to the same. The advertiser was offered

an opportunity to seek an Informal Resolution (IR) of

the complaint and a telecon with the ASCI Secretariat

to seek further guidance, which they availed and

replied requesting for an extension of time to submit

their detailed response.

The deadlines stipulated by Consumer Complaints

Council (CCC) procedure exist keeping in mind the

immediate and widespread impact that

advertisements have on the public. Consequently, any

action which is needed to be taken with respect to the

same is required to be prompt and urgent. It is for this

purpose that the deadlines, as stipulated, are set for

advertisers/broadcasters etc. and the CCC itself

makes it a priority to deal with every complaint

before it as expeditiously as possible. However, as a

special gesture and considering the current pandemic

situation, the advertiser was granted an extension of

two business days to respond.

Advertiser submitted point-wise reply to the

objections raised in the complaint.

Claim – “World’s First COVID-19 Resistant

Laminate” – advertiser stated that “there are many

manufacturers who have already tested their

products for Anti-Virus efficacy. They went another

step ahead and got their product tested for efficacy

against SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) virus and the test

result proves the efficacy. They being the first in

laminate industry to do so, they are justified in

claiming that the new achievement made Greenlam

the World's first proven SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19)

virus resistant laminate brand.”

Claim – “Greenlam laminates are now proven

effective against SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) with

99%* efficacy within 30 minutes of exposure to

laminate surface” – advertiser stated that “Greenlam

Laminates are effective against COVID-19 with 99*

efficacy within 30 minutes of exposure to the

laminate surface and completely eliminates in 45

minutes and beyond as per the Test Certification

given to them by Rajiv Gandhi Centre for

Biotechnology, upon conducting Antiviral Efficacy

Test. A copy of the said report is attached.

The report of anti-bacterial efficacy as issued by a

reputed Laboratory i.e. Biotech Testing Services

(BTS)is also attached. They did not use any German

Technology. However, the source of the SARS CoV-2

virus kit was from Germany.”


Copy of the print advertisement, (2) Report issued by

RGCB, (3) Report (Anti-Bacterial) issued by BTS,

(4) Report (Anti-Virus) issued by BTS, (5)

Advertiser’s reply in the format recommended by

ASCI.




shared with the advertiser for making any additional

submissions. The advertiser was also offered an

opportunity for IR at this stage based on the expert

opinion. The advertiser did not opt for an IR but

mailto:[email protected]


responded to the queries raised by the technical

expert in his opinion.

In response to the technical expert opinion, the

advertiser stated that “It is submitted that both Rajiv

Gandhi Centre for Biotechnology ("RGCB") and BTS

have followed the ISO 21702/2019 standards while

conducting the tests as is specifically stated in the

anti-viral test report submitted by BTS and by RGCB.

It is submitted that there is no global standard testing

protocol to evaluate antiviral efficacy of treated

laminate surface against SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19)

strains as sought to be vaguely suggested by the

expert.

There is a plethora of material available in the public

domain and it is known within medical and research

circles that ISO 21702/2019 is the ISO standard for

measurement of anti-viral activity on plastics and

other non-porous surfaces.

There is no material to indicate that a BSL 3 facility

lab is mandated by law or that RGCB is not equipped

to conduct the necessary tests. Since material

available in public domain suggests that BSL 2

facilities are sufficiently equipped and have been

assigned tasks for testing related to COVID-19 and

as RGCB is a BSL 2 compliant facility, all legally

mandated due processes have been complied, and

only for the purpose of ensuring safety were live

SARS COV-2 viruses not utilised for testing, which is

also the general practice across industries.”




meeting.

The CCC observed that for the claim of being the

“World’s First COVID-19 Resistant Laminate”, the

advertiser’s response has only assertions about their

claim. Advertiser did not provide verifiable

comparative data of the advertiser’s product versus

other laminate products in the world, to prove that

their product is the `World’s first COVID-19

Resistant Laminate’. The claim was also not backed

by an independent third-party validation. In the

absence of claim support data, the CCC concluded

that the said claim was not substantiated and is

misleading by exaggeration.

Claim - “Greenlam laminates are now proven



laminate surface”. The CCC observed that the

antiviral efficacy study for the product was done at

Rajiv Gandhi Centre for Biotechnology (RGCB) with

SARS-CoV-2 RT PCR method. The study result

concluded that SARS-CoV-2 specific RNA (E&S

target gene) was not detected after 30 minutes of

treatment. However, this is not the standard testing

protocol for demonstrating the antiviral/

antimicrobial activity / efficacy of products on

surfaces etc. Standard test protocols are required to

be used to validate the claims. Even the RGCB has

mentioned it in their report.

Due to high risk/hazard involved in testing dangerous

pathogens like SARS CoV 2 viruses requiring BSL 3

facilities; testing of less risky surrogate

coronaviruses, which can be handled in BSL 2

facilities; are used as a safer acceptable standard

testing practice. Appropriate claim support testing

data using standard test protocol was not submitted.

Therefore, the claim of efficacy against Covid 19

viruses was not acceptable.

The claim of antiviral activity using MS2 phage,

which is a virus infecting bacteria that has been used

in testing against the product is only broadly

indicative. The Bacteriophage cannot be accepted as

surrogate virus for testing against several other more

virulent viruses infecting humans and animals

including SARS-Cov-2 virus. The claim of 99.9%

virus kill action (virucidal activity) of the Greenlam

Laminates and based on the MS2 phage

(Bacteriophage) is only suggestive indication of

antiviral activity, it is not acceptable as a

representative of marker of virus kill action against

several other virulent human and animal viruses

which differ from MS2 phages by several

morphological, physical, chemical and biological

characteristics of these animal viruses. To prove

efficacy against SARS Cov-2 Corona viruses, other

coronaviruses are used as surrogate virus for testing.

Based on this assessment, the CCC concluded that

the claim, “Greenlam laminates are now proven



laminate surface”, was inadequately substantiated.

The claim is misleading by exaggeration.

The claims are likely to lead to widespread

disappointment in the minds of consumers. The print

advertisement contravened Chapters I.1, I.4 and I.5 of

the ASCI Code. This complaint was UPHELD.


4. OC 2012-C.2328 Titan Company Ltd(*)

(Titan Eyeplus)

MEDIUM:Website (https://www.titaneyeplus.com/)

,

Facebook

(https://www.facebook.com/titaneyeplus/photos/a.40

2036826078/10159049845286079/?type=3&theater)

,

Twitter

(https://twitter.com/titaneyeplus/status/13196447945

16275207/photo/1) ,

Instagram

(https://www.instagram.com/p/CGsHBslsg6U/)

YouTube(*)

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hX6IrllliVQ)


Claims objected to:

1. “India’s First Anti-Virus Frames”

2. “Kills 99.99% Germs”

3. “With a design that deters microbial growth, these

frames stay 99.99% virus-free and safe.”

Complaint:

These claims need to be substantiated with the

necessary test reports that demonstrate efficacy of the

said product as advertised. ASCI observes that the

visuals resembling Coronavirus shown in the

YouTube advertisement would make the viewers

believe that the Titan Eyeplus eye wear will give

protection against the human SARS COV-2 virus,

which could lead to grave and widespread

disappointment in the minds of the consumer.

Website Link for reference:

https://www.titaneyeplus.com/

Facebook Link for reference:

https://www.facebook.com/titaneyeplus/photos/a.402

036826078/10159049845286079/?type=3&theater

Twitter Link for reference:

https://twitter.com/titaneyeplus/status/131964479451

6275207/photo/1

Instagram Link for reference:

https://www.instagram.com/p/CGsHBslsg6U/

YouTube Link for reference:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hX6IrllliVQ

CCC RECOMMENDATION:






further guidance, which they availed and submitted

their response.

Advertiser responded point-wise to the objections

raised in the complaint.

Claim - “India’s First Anti-Virus Frames” –

advertiser stated that “To best of their knowledge and

research, as a brand they are the first to introduce

such coating within the Eyewear category. In the

event if there is anyone claiming to have registered

Eyewear with similar properties and characteristics

within the limits of Indian geography then they will

be happy to change their claim.”

Claim - “Kills 99.99% Germs” - advertiser responded

that “They refer to the following 3 reports in support

of their claim: Report from Himway Test house which

is a NABL approved Lab. During the test, coating

was tested against various Virus and Bacteria such

H1N1, HIV-1 and others mentioned in the report.

Report from Haffkine which is a Govt approved lab.

In this report during the test, coating was tested

against various Virus and Bacteria. Report from

Intertek independent lab has tested the coating with

Liquid Guard as having Anti-Bacterial activities

along with efficacy of coating on various material of

frames. For Timeline efficacy, refer to report from

Quality lab which establish the efficacy of coating for

1 year.”

Claim – “With a design that deters microbial growth,

these frames stay 99.99% virus-free and safe.” –

advertiser stated that “their Coating is 100%

Transparent which has a Layer Thickness of 150-300

NM. This Coating can withstand a Temperature

between -20C to +150C. As stated in their reply to

Claim/Objection no.2, when Virus / Bacteria / Germs

get in contact with the treated surface, Cells gets

ruptured hence it doesn’t allow any microbial growth

for 1 Year from date of Coating. Coating also

provides a long-term control of Growth on treated

surface thus making our Product 99.99%

virus/bacteria/germs free and safe. Also as discussed,

they are removing visual depicting virus from their

communication.”

As claim support data, the advertiser provided 1 Year

Efficacy Quality Lab, Test reports of Haffkine

Institute, Himway test house, and Intertek, and details

of the testing methodology used by each of the labs.







https://www.facebook.com/titaneyeplus/photos/a.402036826078/10159049845286079/?type=3&theater


https://twitter.com/titaneyeplus/status/1319644794516275207/photo/1








submitted that “They refer to a report of Quality

Labs, a Germany based lab specifically mentioned to

have followed JIS Z 2801(Japanese Industrial

Standards) along with test description while arriving

at the test results mentioned in the reports.

Lab reports provided in support of their claim is from

Himway Test House and Intertek which are ISO &

ISO/IEC 17025:2017 accredited NABL laboratory.

The methods and protocols followed by labs and

institutes herein above mentioned are as per

international standards and industry practice and

same is stated in the reports provided in support of

their advertisements. They are enclosing Standard

Methods referred to in the lab reports.”

The additional response with the support data was

again referred to the technical expert. The

observations cited in the expert opinion was provided

to the advertiser for their response, and an option of

IR was offered to them. In response to the expert

opinion, the advertiser responded that “They would

want the team to consider the Himway Test report

which has tested efficacy on 5 different viruses. It can

be inferred that due consideration is not given to the

lab report from ‘Himway Test House’ carried out

against five different viruses while arriving at the

opinion by the technical expert. Do consider the

same.”

Advertiser further sought for a meeting with the

technical expert, which was arranged by the ASCI

Secretariat through Zoom video conference.

Post meeting with the Technical expert and the ASCI

Secretariat, the advertiser clarified that “Titan would

be removing GERMS across all communication and

will get replaced by Virus and Bacteria. Titan will

ensure consistent messaging across all Adv media.

Since they have all valid certification for 1 year

efficacy of coating, they would continue to claim a

1year warranty.”

The Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) viewed

the Website advertisement

(https://www.titaneyeplus.com/),Facebook

advertisement

(https://www.facebook.com/titaneyeplus/photos/a.40

2036826078/10159049845286079/?type=3&theater)

Twitter advertisement

(https://twitter.com/titaneyeplus/status/13196447945

16275207/photo/1), Instagram advertisement

(https://www.instagram.com/p/CGsHBslsg6U/) and

YouTube

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hX6IrllliVQ)

and considered the advertiser’s response as well as

the opinion of the Technical expert presented at the

meeting.

The CCC observed that the advertiser has provided

following test reports - Himway Test House for tests

conducted against 5 different viruses by ISO 21702:

2019 Method with timeline efficacy of 180 days,

Intertek report tested against 2 bacteria by JIS Z 2801

method, Quality labs for tests against one bacterium

by JIS Z 2801 method with timeline efficacy study,

and Haffkine institute against 15 different organisms

and their spore forms by protocol define by Haffkine

with validation has incomplete timeline efficacy

(Monthly or yearly) studies. As per these

observations’ antiviral, antibacterial (along with

spores) antifungal efficacy has been tested mainly in

Haffkine labs and the other 2 laboratories have only

done studies on bacteria. The CCC was of the view

that 99.99 % antibacterial and antiviral activity can

be claimed only after a specific disclaimer about

timeline efficacy for each of them, as the timeline

efficacy differs from organism to organism. The

CCC added that the term ‘germ’ constitutes various

species belonging to families of microorganisms like

bacteria, virus, fungus, protozoa and algae. In the

present case, the claim of “Kills 99.99% germs”

cannot be made as only 3 types of microorganisms

(bacteria, virus & fungi) have been tested and

reported; for protozoa and algae there were no test

reports submitted.

The CCC further discussed that the claim was

restricted to the frames and deliberated that an

unacquainted consumer may tend to assume the

context of frames to the entire eyeglasses. A

consumer may have a concern since the frames

cannot be used without the glasses and thus the

protection from virus will be only limited to frame

and not the entire glasses.

The CCC viewed the disclaimer mentioned in the

advertisement which stated “This frame is equipped

with nano-technology enabled coating which kills

germs bacteria and viruses on the frame

surface……”. The CCC confirmed that the claim

was restricted to the frames only and the

advertisement clearly mentioned the same.

Based on this assessment, the CCC did not consider

the claim, “With a design that deters microbial

growth, these frames stay 99.99% virus-free and

safe”, to be objectionable. This complaint was NOT

UPHELD as it was not in contravention of Chapter I

of the ASCI Code.









In the absence of claim support data, the CCC

concluded that the claim, “India’s First Anti-Virus

Frames” was not substantiated with verifiable

comparative data of the advertiser’s product and

other eye glass frames in India, to prove that their

product is the first of its kind in India to be anti-virus

frames. The claim is misleading by exaggeration and

is likely to lead to widespread disappointment in the

minds of consumers. Claim, “Kills 99.99% Germs”

was inadequately substantiated and is misleading by

exaggeration and is likely to cause widespread

disappointment in the minds of consumers.

The Website advertisement, Facebook advertisement,

Twitter advertisement, Instagram advertisement, and

YouTube advertisement contravened Chapters 1.1,

1.4 and 1.5 of the ASCI code. This complaint was

UPHELD.

5. W 2012-C.2390 Bank of Baroda (Bank of

Baroda Housing Loan)

MEDIUM: Ad – leaflet circulated with Dainik

Bhaskar(*) or The Times of India(*) (13.12.2020)


Claim objected to:

“Zero processing charges”

Complaint:

“In the above leaflet, hidden issues/misleading issues:

1. They are charging upfront fee of Rs.10000.00, but,

in this leaflet, they are mentioning Zero processing

fee and no mention of upfront charges.

2. Rate of interest is linked to CIBIL Score whereas,

there is no such mention, and they are mentioning

Rate of Interest as start from 6.85%.

3. They are mentioning rebate of 0.25% in rate of

interest for takeover cases, whereas, this rebate is

applicable only in cases, where, rate of interest is

worked out as 7.10% or more depending upon CIBIL

Score.

4. There is no mention about stamp duty applicable

on execution of various Bank agreements and

creation of mortgage in favour of the Bank.

Basis of my above points-

I have talked on given mobile number-9928025101

and came to know as above.

My request- Please take up this misleading

advertisement appropriately.

Other information- above leaflet has been received in

today's newspaper as circulated by the vendor.

The contents/issues which I have already shared

through whatsapp are based on the leaflet circulated

by Bank Of Baroda and my interaction/enquiry with

the concerned official on mobile (mobile number has

been mentioned on the said leaflet).

Till date, I have not applied for loan as also not paid

Rs.10000.00

My grievances are relating to misleading contents

advertising/circulated through printed leaflets by

Bank of Baroda.

The subject leaflet was received on 13.12.2020, in the

daily newspaper: either in Dainik Bhaskar or in

Times of India edition:13.12.2020.”


The ASCI approached the advertiser for its response

in addressing the grievances of the complainant and

forwarded the details of the complaint, verbatim, to

the advertiser with a request to respond to the same.

The advertiser was offered an option to seek Informal

Resolution (IR) of the complaint by modifying or

withdrawing the claims objected to in the Ad –

Leaflet, or alternately to substantiate the claims with

the required supporting data. The advertiser was also

offered an opportunity for a telecon with the ASCI

Secretariat, which they did not avail nor did they

submit their written response. The Consumer



prescribed due date for this complaint.

The CCC viewed the Ad – Leaflet and observed that

Bank of Baroda is promoting their housing loan

scheme and one of the features of the housing loan

scheme mentions `zero processing charges’. The

CCC also considered the complainant’s grievances

that on a telecon with an official of Bank of Baroda

(on mobile number-9928025101 as cited in the

complaint), he noted that – “(1) they are charging

upfront fee of Rs.10000.00 but the leaflet mentions

`Zero processing fee’, (2) Rate of interest is linked to

CIBIL Score whereas there is no such mention and

Rate of Interest starts from 6.85%, (3) they are

mentioning rebate of 0.25% in rate of interest for

takeover cases, whereas, this rebate is applicable

only in cases, where, rate of interest is worked out as

7.10% or more depending upon CIBIL Score, (4)

There is no mention about stamp duty applicable on

execution of various Bank agreements and creation

of mortgage in favour of the Bank.”

Upon careful consideration of the complaint and in

the absence of any response from the advertiser, and

based on the complainant’s grievances, the CCC


concluded that the said claims mentioned in the Ad-

leaflet, and objected to by the complainant, was not

substantiated. There was no link for reference to the

terms and conditions in the advertisement. The Ad –

leaflet is misleading by exaggeration and omission,

and is likely to lead to widespread disappointment in

the minds of consumers. The Ad – Leaflet

contravened Chapters 1.1, 1.4 and 1.5 of the ASCI

Code. This complaint was UPHELD.

6. # 2012-C.2392 Matrimony.com Ltd (*)

(Marathimatrimony.com

MEDIUM: Website Advertisements

YouTube(*)

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYATvqxZzhA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUM51qhqjrUht

tps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F60Q3TrKEN4)


Claims objected to:

1. CLAIM CHALLENGED: The Advertiser’s

Claim - The No. 1 & Most Trusted Matrimony

Service for Marathis (“Claim”) and the

Advertisements which have been in circulation since

April 2018 and the claims on its website(s) are in

violation of the following ASCI Codes.

2. We draw your attention to the following provisions

of the ASCI code which are blatantly and knowingly

being violated by the impugned Advertisements and

Claim being made by the Advertiser:

ASCI CODE PROVISIONS VIOLATED:

• Awards/Rankings should not be used as an

alternative for consumer or scientific research or

testing which is required to substantiate a superiority

claim about the effective use or performance of

products or services. Advertisements that refer to

awards/rankings should indicate clearly the name of

the organisation that has provided the award/ranking

and the month and year in which the award/ranking

was pronounced. The validity of the award/ranking

so used to substantiate a claim should be of a period

preceding the advertisement by not more than 12

months.

• Advertisement shall neither distort facts nor

mislead the consumer by means of implications or

omissions. Advertisements shall not contain

statements or visual presentation which directly or by

implication or by omission or by ambiguity or by

exaggeration are likely to mislead the consumer

about the product advertised or the advertiser or

about any other product or advertiser.

• Advertisement shall not be framed as to abuse

the trust of consumers or exploit their lack of

experience or knowledge. No advertisement shall be

permitted to contain any claim so exaggerated as to

lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the

minds of consumers.

3. THE GROUNDS OF CHALLENGE are, in order

to sustain a claim relating to an award/ranking of a

product/service, consumer or scientific research is to

be undertaken. Further, an advertisement should

clearly indicate the name of the organization that has

provided the award/ranking and the year in which it

was pronounced. The ASCI Code further goes on to

clarify that the validity of the award/ranking should

be of a period preceding the advertisement by not

more than 12 months.

4. MEDIUM OF ADVERTISEMENTS:

Advertisements circulating on the YouTube channel

of the Advertiser indicates that its Claim is that it is

‘The No. 1 & Most Trusted Matrimony Service for

Marathis’. Further, the website of the Advertiser also

depicts this Claim of the Advertiser.

5. YouTube links of the advertisements:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYATvqxZzhA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUM51qhqjrU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F60Q3TrKEN4

6. Website link of the Advertiser:

https://www.marathimatrimony.com/

CCC RECOMMENDATION:





to respond to the same. The advertiser was offered

an opportunity to seek an Informal Resolution (IR) of


to seek further guidance, which they did not avail and

submitted their written response.

Advertiser in their response stated that “They are now

providing Google trends report comparing all the

possible usage of keywords for Maharashtra, India

and Worldwide from 15th Dec 2019 to 23rd August

2020. They are also submitting Google Keyword

Search Volume Report comparing all possible

combination of keywords for Maharashtra, India and

all locations from Nov 2019 to Oct 2020. They

herewith also provide Comscore, a globally

recognized and accepted media measurement and

analytics company’s ranking in respect of






comparison of Marathi Matrimony (desktop and

mobile metrix) vis-a-vis their competitors. It is also

seen that the competitors of Marathi Matrimony does

not meet Comscore’s minimum reporting standards

for a report since their search volumes are too low to

warrant a report. Thus, the Google data is self-

explanatory in respect of Marathi Matrimony with

Marathi Shaadi on different possible usage of

keywords. The figures show that Marathi Matrimony

is on top of the list. The overall trend of “Marathi

Matrimony” is higher in all locations such as in

Maharashtra, India and Worldwide when compared

to “Marathi Shaadi”.”


Marathi Matrimony Vs Marathi Shaadi- Google

Search Volume,(2) Marathi Matrimony Vs Marathi

Shaadi- Google Trends, (3) Marathi Trends URL-L,

(4) Matrimony Report-MediaMetrix-April 2019-

March2020 -comscore- desktop –M, (5) Matrimony

Report-Mobile Metrix-April 2019-March2020 -

comscore-M.

As this data being inadequate as claim support data,

ASCI Secretariat requested the advertiser to provide

market research data, or comparative studies to

support the claim. Advertiser responded that “they

have provided third-party ranking/research i.e., com

score for Marathi Matrimony.”


the Website advertisement

(https://www.marathimatrimony.com/) and the

YouTube advertisements

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYATvqxZzhA)

,(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUM51qhqjrU

),

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F60Q3TrKEN4)

and considered the advertiser’s response.

The CCC was of the view that while there are other

search engines as well, Google is one of such search

engines which is most likely to be used by the users

worldwide as a search engine. In digital marketing

the evaluation of websites, blogs is more of

dependent on the number of searches and traffic on

such websites, the data of which is also provided

through Google reports. However, Google trends is

not a third-party platform and that it provides

research data only for the searches that are made

through Google.

In addition, the CCC felt that the Google analytic

data is by itself not sufficient evidence to support the

claim, and did not consider this data as acceptable as

it is only search data which does not make the

advertiser’s brand/service as No.1and most trusted.

The Comscore data provided is also not sufficient to

substantiate the claim of ‘most trusted’ and the claim

of leadership position ('No.1').

The CCC discussed that the advertiser can claim

themselves to be `No.1 search brand’ but not `No.1

and most trusted’. The revenue figures and the profit

figures quoted in the advertiser’s response comparing

themselves with that of the complainant was not

considered relevant, as according to the CCC,

websites with lesser number of searches could have

higher revenues. For claiming to be No.1, the

volume of search interest does not suffice, instead the

number of individuals registered with the website

should be given weightage. The advertiser relied on

data which was available on Google trend, and did

not provide a certification by an independent third-

party to validate the data of being `No.1 and most

trusted’ matrimony service for Marathis. The CCC

observed that the Comscore data provided was not of

a comparative nature and thus not acceptable as valid

third-party data to substantiate the above claims. The

parameter they have used to claim No.1 and most

trusted does not justify the claim made and is not

recognised for a claim of this nature. They have not

used the correct data to make an appropriate claim.

Based on these observations, the CCC concluded that

the claim, “The No. 1 & Most Trusted Matrimony

Service for Marathis” was inadequately substantiated

with verifiable comparative data with market sales

data, volume and value share data, or any third-party

validation. The claim is misleading by exaggeration


the minds of consumers. The Website advertisement

and the YouTube advertisements contravened

Chapters I.1, I.4 and I.5 of the ASCI Code. This

complaint was UPHELD.

For the objection raised against the use of the

Celebrity (Mahendra Singh Dhoni) in the

advertisement, the CCC observed that the advertiser

did not provide any evidence to show that the

celebrity had done due diligence prior to

endorsement, to ensure that all descriptions, claims

and comparisons made in the advertisements are

capable of substantiation. This contravenes Clauses

(c), (d) of the ASCI Guidelines for Celebrities in

Advertising. This complaint was UPHELD.

7. Suo Motu 2012-C.2420 Aforeserve

Technologies Private Limited (XtraCover)

MEDIUM: The Times of India(*), Mumbai Edition

(20.12.2020)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYATvqxZzhA






“Print Ad in the Toi, Mumbai edition, Page 3 on 20-

Dec-2020. The Ad is for refurbished phones. Against

each phone there is an MRP mentioned. This is

misleading since a refurbished phone does not have

any MRP. This is a deliberate attempt to show

unrealistic savings. Interestingly, the same MRP

price of the phone on the website is not mentioned as

MRP.”



in addressing the objections raised in the complaint.



withdrawing the claims objected to in the

advertisement, or alternately to substantiate the



telecon with the ASCI Secretariat, which they did not

avail nor did they submit their written response. The

Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) noted that no

response was received from the advertiser prior to the



observed that the advertiser is selling refurbished

Iphones and Laptops on discount. The advertiser has

also mentioned the MRP of the refurbished mobiles

phones. Upon careful consideration of the complaint,

and in the absence of any comments or response from

the advertiser, and based on the objections raised of a

refurbished phone not having any MRP, the CCC

concluded that the advertisement offering refurbished

mobiles phones with MRP and discount, distorts fact

and is misleading. The advertisement exploit’s

consumers lack of knowledge and is likely to lead to

grave disappointment in the minds of consumers as

the consumers could get wrong impression due to

false comparison between the MRP of the phone, and

the discount being offered, as the advertiser is selling

refurbished phones at discounted prices. The print

advertisement contravened Chapters 1.4 and 1.5 of


NAMS Complaints

8. @ 2011-C.1893 Gyanveer Private Industrial

Training Institute (ITI)

MEDIUM: Dainik Bhaskar(*), Sagar Edition, Main

Issue,(Hindi), (21.10.2020)


Claim objected to:

“Job Guarantee, admission with minimum fee”

CCC RECOMMENDATION:


in addressing the objection raised in the complaint.



withdrawing the claim objected to in the





they submit their written response. The Consumer





observed that the advertiser’s institute is providing

coaching for ITI, and is giving job guarantee to their

students. Upon careful consideration of the

complaint, and in the absence of response from the

advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Job

Guarantee, admission with minimum fee” was not

substantiated with authentic supporting data such as

batch size of students per year, detailed list of

students and evidence to support their enrolment,

contact details of students for verification, list of

students who were placed through their institute in

relevant industry sectors on completion of their

courses, their appointment letters, list of students who

were not placed and the reason for their non-

placement, nor any independent audit or verification

certificate. Furthermore, the advertisement did not

have any disclaimers to indicate “Past record is no

guarantee of future job prospects” nor did it have a

declaration of the total number of students passing

out from the placed class.

The claim is misleading by exaggeration and is likely

to lead to widespread disappointment in the minds of

consumers including students. The print

advertisement contravened ASCI Guidelines for

Advertising of Educational Institutions and

Programs, ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers made in

supporting, limiting or explaining claims made in

advertisements, as well as Chapters1.1, 1.4 and 1.5 of


9. @ 2011-C.1898 SRM Institute of Science and

Technology


MEDIUM: Times of India(*), Coimbatore Edition,

Supplement SPL Times Engineering, (English)

(31.08.2020)


Claims objected to:

1. Ranked No.1 among private institutions in

prestigious Nature Index Ranking 2020.

2. Best Industry-linked Institution for Electrical

Engineering and Allied Institute by AICTE-CII.

3. Ranked No.1 amongst the cleanest Higher

Educational Institutions in the Country.

CCC RECOMMENDATION:







submitted their response.

Advertiser in their response stated that “The evidence

required under each of these claims are sent herewith

via links:

“Ranked No.1 among private institutions in

prestigious Nature Index Ranking 2020”

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1unIFAHXAZ5aNUz

_TUUrR0q5Ge3EtGWtM/view?usp=sharing

“Best Industry-linked Institution for Electrical

Engineering and Allied Institute by AICTE-CII”

https://www.aicte-

india.org/education/collaborations/moucii/AICTE%2

0-%20CII%20Collaboration/AICTE_CII_2019_004

“Ranked No.1 amongst the cleanest Higher

Educational Institutions in the Country”

https://www.natureindex.com/annual-

tables/2020/institution/all/all/countries-India”


2020 tables - Institutions - Nature Index, (2) AICTE-

CII-2019-004 - Government of India,All India

Council for Technical Education, (3) Copy of

Swachh Campus award 2019 certificate.

Advertiser was further requested by the ASCI

Secretariat to provide details of the process and

survey methodology involved for the selection of the

awards, and any financial transaction for participating

and receiving such awards. However, the advertiser

did not submit this information within the timelines

provided for their response.





submissions. The advertiser did not provide any

additional data in response to the expert opinion.


the print advertisement and considered the

advertiser’s response as well as the opinion of the

Technical expert presented at the meeting. The CCC

observed that -

Claim - “Ranked No.1 among private institutions in

prestigious Nature Index Ranking 2020” - In support

of this claim the advertiser has provided the 2020

tables of institutions based on Nature Index data from

Jan 1 2019 to 31 Dec 2019. In this list, SRMIST was

26th on an All-India basis and is the first private

institution mentioned in the list.

Claim - “Best Industry-linked Institution for

Electrical Engineering and Allied Institute by

AICTE-CII” - This claim is based on the AICTE-CII

Survey of Industry-Linked Technical Institutes 2019.

CII has been conducting the Indpact Survey, a survey

of industry linkages of technical institutes in

partnership with the AllIndia Council for Technical

Education (AICTE) for the past seven years. The

objective of the survey is to showcase best practices

of industry partnerships across AICTE approved

technical institutes in selected streams. SRMIST has

been awarded the Best Industry linked institute for

Electrical Engineering and Allied (streams).

Claim - “Ranked No.1 amongst the cleanest Higher

Educational Institutions in the Country” - This is

based on the Swachh Campus Ranking 2019 award

given by the Ministry of Human Resource

Development, Govt of India.

The CCC noted that these awards have been made

with an appropriate level of rigour, and are granted

by institutions of repute.


the claims, “Ranked No.1 among private institutions

in prestigious Nature Index Ranking 2020”, “Best

Industry-linked Institution for Electrical Engineering

and Allied Institute by AICTE-CII”, and “Ranked

No.1 amongst the cleanest Higher Educational

Institutions in the Country”, were not objectionable.

The print advertisement is not in contravention of

Chapter I of the ASCI Code. This complaint was

NOT UPHELD.

10. @ 2012-C.1993 Momentum, Gorakhpur

MEDIUM: EP Amar Ujala(*), Gorakhpur Edition,

Main Issue,(English), (29.09.2020)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1unIFAHXAZ5aNUz_TUUrR0q5Ge3EtGWtM/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1unIFAHXAZ5aNUz_TUUrR0q5Ge3EtGWtM/view?usp=sharing

https://www.aicte-india.org/education/collaborations/moucii/AICTE%20-%20CII%20Collaboration/AICTE_CII_2019_004



https://www.natureindex.com/annual-tables/2020/institution/all/all/countries-India

https://www.natureindex.com/annual-tables/2020/institution/all/all/countries-India



Claim objected to:

“Join the No. 1 Institute of Gorakhpur for IIT-JEE

(Main & Advanced)”

















coaching to their students for Board/ IIT-JEE (Main

& Advanced), Pre-foundation, NTSE and Olympiad

courses. They are claiming to be the `No. 1 Institute

of Gorakhpur for IIT-JEE (Main & Advanced)’.

Upon careful consideration of the complaint, and in

the absence of any response from the advertiser, the

CCC concluded that the claim, “Join the No. 1

Institute of Gorakhpur for IIT-JEE (Main &

Advanced)”was not substantiated with verifiable

comparative data of the advertiser’s institute versus

similar institutes in Gorakhpur for IIT-JEE, main &

advanced, to prove that they are in leadership

position (No.1) than the others. The claim was also

not backed by a third-party validation. The claim is



The print advertisement contravened ASCI

Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions

and Programs as well as Chapters1.1, 1.4 and 1.5 of


11. @ 2012-C.2009 Vignan's Foundation for

Science, Technology& Research (Deemed to

be University)

MEDIUM: EP Andhra Jyoti, Ongole Edition, Main

Issue, (Telugu), (25.10.2020)


Claims objected to:

1. 100% Jobs to Vignan Bio-Technology Students

2. B.tech Courses for Bi.P.C. students for the Best

Job Opportunities

CCC RECOMMENDATION:








Advertiser in their response stated that “the

institution may kindly be informed whether ASCI is

registered under any statute and if so the provision

under which ASCI is competent / authorized to issue

the subject mail.”

Advertiser agreed to respond to the complaint in

details on receipt of ASCI’s reply to their query.

ASCI Secretariat explained the ASCI’s role as a self-

regulatory voluntary organization committed to the

cause of Self-Regulation in Advertising. Advertiser

was further given a timeline to submit their response,

to which they replied that “their in-house enquiry is

in progress and would be informed once it is

completed.”

As the advertiser did not submit their response within

the timelines provided, the complaint was processed

for Consumer Complaints Council (CCC)

deliberations.

The CCC viewed the print advertisement. In the

absence of claim support data, the CCC concluded

that the claim, “100% Jobs to Vignan Bio-

Technology Students” was not substantiated with

batch size of students per year, detailed list of all

students and evidence to support their enrollment,

and their contact details for independent verification,

list of students who were placed through the

advertiser’s institute in relevant industry sectors on

course completion, and their appointment letters, list

of students who were not placed and the reason for

their non-placement. The claim was also not backed

by an independent audit or verification certificate.

Furthermore, the advertisement did not have any

disclaimers to indicate “Past record is no guarantee of

future job prospects” nor did it have a declaration of

the total number of students passing out from the

placed class.

Claim, “B.tech Courses for Bi.P.C. students for the

Best Job Opportunities” was not substantiated with

verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s

institute versus other similar institutes, to prove that

they offer better job opportunities for Bi.P.C.


students than all the rest, nor through an independent

third-party report.

The claims are misleading by exaggeration and are

likely to lead to widespread disappointment in the

minds of students. The print advertisement

contravened the ASCI Guidelines for Advertising of

Educational Institutions and Programs as well as

Chapters 1.1, 1.4 and 1.5 of the ASCI Code, and

ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers made in supporting,

limiting or explaining claims made in advertisements.


12. @ 2012-C.2165 Manel Srivas Nayak

Memorial MSNM-Besant Institute of PG

Studies

MEDIUM: Digital Display (http://dinamani.com)

(English) (04.10.2020)


Claim objected to:

"100% Placement Assistance”

CCC RECOMMENDATION:



complaint. Given the nature of the claim, the

advertiser was offered an option to seek Informal



advertisement. The advertiser was offered an

opportunity for a telecon with the ASCI Secretariat to

seek further guidance, which they did not avail but


Advertiser stated that “they have not advertised on

http://dinamani.com Placement assistance in their

institute is a continuous process which they extend to

their students as well as their alumni even after they

complete their studies. They will not be using the

term "100%”.

Advertiser was apprised by the ASCI Secretariat that

since the said digital advertisement had appeared in

their institute’s name on the website,

“http://dinamani.com”, they were made the

responding party to the complaint. Advertiser was

further advised to take up the matter with their digital

media agency or the website which carried the

advertisement.


the Digital Display advertisement

(http://dinamani.com) and considered the advertiser’s

response. Whilst the CCC noted that the advertiser

did not publish the advertisement, there was no proof

provided that the advertiser had taken action against

the concerned party responsible for the

advertisement. The CCC observed that while the

Advertiser asserts to have not authorized the

advertisement, they also assured to not use the term

‘100%’ in any of their future advertising, which

appeared vague.

The CCC further concluded that in the current case,

while the advertiser may be providing placement

assistance to their students as well as alumni for

getting jobs in relevant industries, the use of 100%

numerical is not relevant for “Placement Assistance”

claim. There cannot be a percentage assigned to any

assistance claim such as 40% or 80% assistance. The

use of “100%” as a descriptor in the claim is

misleading by implication and is likely to lead to


The Digital Display advertisement contravened ASCI


and Programs as well as Chapters 1.4 and 1.5 of the

ASCI Code. This complaint was UPHELD.

13. @ 2012-C.2180 Echelon Institute of

Technology

MEDIUM: Digital Display

(http://freedownloadmanager.org)

(English) (08.10.2020)


Claim objected to:

“100% Placement Online”


The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their













The CCC viewed the digital display advertisement

(http://freedownloadmanager.org) and observed that

the advertiser is providing coaching for B.Tech.,

BCA, Mechanical courses and is providing 100%

http://dinamani.com/



http://freedownloadmanager.org/

http://freedownloadmanager.org/


placement online to their students. Upon careful

consideration of the complaint, and in the absence of

response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that

the claim, “100% Placement Online” was not

















consumers including students. The digital display





advertisements, as well as Chapters I.1, 1.4 and 1.5 of


14. @ 2012-C.2182 HMR Institute of Technology

and Management

MEDIUM: Digital Display (http://missmalini.com)

(English) (13.10.2020)


Claim objected to:

“100% Assured Placement Support”







the advertisement or alternately to substantiate the









(http://missmalini.com) and observed that the

advertiser’s institute is assuring placement support to

their students on completion of the courses.



CCC concluded that the claim, “100% Assured

Placement Support”, was not substantiated with

authentic supporting data such as batch size of

students per year, detailed list of students and

evidence to support their enrolment, contact details of

students for verification, list of students who were

placed through their institute in relevant industry

sectors on completion of their courses, their

appointment letters, list of students who were not

placed and the reason for their non-placement, nor

any independent audit or verification certificate.





placed class. The claim is misleading by exaggeration


the minds of consumers including students.

The digital display advertisement contravened ASCI


and Programs as well as Chapters I.1, 1.4 and 1.5 of

the ASCI Code, and ASCI Guidelines for

Disclaimers made in supporting, limiting or

explaining claims made in advertisements. This


15. @ 2012-C.2185 International Institute of

Business Studies

MEDIUM: Digital Display (http://hirelateral.com)

(English) (31.10.2020)


Claim objected to:

“100% Placement”











http://missmalini.com/

http://missmalini.com/

http://hirelateral.com/







(http://hirelateral.com) and observed that the

advertiser is providing coaching for 2-year MBA

program, and is claiming to provide 100% placement

to their students. Upon careful consideration of the


advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “100%

Placement” was not substantiated with authentic

supporting data such as batch size of students per

year, detailed list of students and evidence to support

their enrolment, contact details of students for

verification, list of students who were placed through

their institute in relevant industry sectors on

completion of their courses, their appointment letters,

list of students who were not placed and the reason

for their non-placement, nor any independent audit or

verification certificate. Furthermore, the

advertisement did not have any disclaimers to

indicate “Past record is no guarantee of future job

prospects” nor did it have a declaration of the total

number of students passing out from the placed class.








advertisements, as well as Chapters I.1, 1.4 and 1.5 of


16. @ 2012-C.2190 Indira College of Engineering

and Management

MEDIUM: Digital Display (http://javatpoint.com)

(English) (01.10.2020)


Claim objected to:

“B-Tech Full Time Program at Indira College of

Engineering Pune with 100% Placements Record”
















(http://javatpoint.com) and observed that the

advertiser’s college is providing coaching B.Tech.

full time program, and is claiming to have 100%

placements record. Upon careful consideration of the


advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “B-

Tech Full Time Program at Indira College of

Engineering Pune with 100% Placements Record”

was not substantiated with authentic supporting data

such as batch size of students per year, detailed list of




















advertisements, as well as Chapters 1.1, 1.4 and 1.5

of the ASCI Code. This complaint was UPHELD.

17. @ 2012-C.2191 Indore Institute of Science &

Technology (IIST)

MEDIUM: Digital Display (http://ufreegames.com)

(English) (24.10.2020)


Claim objected to:

“100% Placement Records”


http://hirelateral.com/

http://javatpoint.com/

http://javatpoint.com/

http://ufreegames.com/
















(http://ufreegames.com) and observed that the

advertiser’s institute is providing coaching for

B.Tech. course, and is claiming to have `100%

placement records.’ Upon careful consideration of the


advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “100%

Placement Records.’ was not substantiated with






sector on completion of their courses, their








placed class.








advertisements, as well as Chapters1.1, 1.4 and 1.5 of


18. @ 2012-C.2215 Dhanush Engineering Services

India Pvt Ltd-MEP Centre

MEDIUM: Digital Display (http://eenadu.net)

(English) (05.10.2020)


Claims objected to:

1. No.1 Skilling Company in MEP Sector

2. 100% Placement Support with NSDC Certificate
















(http://eenadu.net) and observed that the advertiser’s

centre is offering courses such as HVAC, Electrical,

Plumbing, Design and Drafting. The advertiser is

claiming to be the No. 1 Skilling Company in MEP

Sector and is claiming to provide 100% placement

support as well.



CCC concluded that the claim, “No.1 Skilling

Company in MEP Sector” was not substantiated with


company versus similar companies in MEP Sector, to

prove that they are in leadership position (No.1) than

the others. The claim was also not backed by a third-

party validation.

Claim, “100% Placement Support with NSDC

Certificate” was not substantiated with authentic
















minds of students. The digital display advertisement

http://ufreegames.com/

http://eenadu.net/

http://eenadu.net/


contravened ASCI Guidelines for Advertising of


Chapters1.1, 1.4 and 1.5 of the ASCI Code, and


limiting or explaining claims made in

Advertisements. This complaint was UPHELD.

19. @ 2012-C.2216 Networkers Eduhome Private

Limited - Networkers Home

MEDIUM: Digital Display (http://techopedia.com)

(English) (31.10.2020)


Claims objected to:

1. 100% Placement Programs

2. NH #1 CCIE Training Company in Asia
















(http://techopedia.com) and observed that the

advertiseris claiming to be the No. 1 CCIE Training

Company in Asia and is also providing placements

programs.Upon careful consideration of the

complaint, and in the absence of any response from

the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim,

“100% Placement Programs” was not substantiated

with authentic supporting data such as batch size of













placed class.

The CCC further deliberated that the claim, “NH #1

CCIE Training Company in Asia” was not

substantiated with verifiable comparative data of the

advertiser’s company versus similar training

companies in Asia, to prove that they are in

leadership position (No.1) than the others. This claim

was also not backed by a third-party validation.





Educational Institutions and Programs, ASCI

Guidelines for Disclaimers made in supporting,

limiting or explaining claims made in advertisements

as well as Chapters 1.1, 1.4 and 1.5 of the ASCI


20. @ 2012-C.2220 Hindustan Unilever Ltd.(*)

(Domex Floor Cleaner)

MEDIUM: Raffles Design International


Claims objected to:

1. 100% Placement Assistance

2. Best Interior Design Institute Mumbai.
















(http://tutorialspoint.com) and observed that the

advertiser is promoting its interior design institute to

be the best in Mumbai and is also claiming to provide

placement assistance to their students.



CCC concluded that, while the advertiser may be

providing placement assistance to their students for

http://techopedia.com/

http://techopedia.com/

http://tutorialspoint.com/



numerical is not relevant for “Placement assistance”


assistance claim such as 40% or 80% assistance.

The use of “100%” as a descriptor in the claim is

misleading by implication.

The claims are likely to lead to widespread

disappointment in the minds of students. The digital

display advertisement contravened ASCI Guidelines

for Advertising of Educational Institutions and

Programs and Chapters1.1, 1.4 and 1.5 of the ASCI


21. @ 2012-C.2221 Regenesys Institute of

Management

MEDIUM: Digital Video (http://youtube.com)

(English) (21.10.2020)


Claim objected to:

“PDBM + MBA = 100% Placement”















The CCC viewed the Digital Video advertisement

(http://youtube.com) and observed that the advertiser

is providing coaching for MBA and PDBM program.

The advertiser is claiming to provide 100%

placement along with free hostel facilities, airline

tickets etc. Upon careful consideration of the


advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim,

“PDBM + MBA = 100% Placement” was not

















consumers including students. The digital video





advertisements as well as Chapters1.1, 1.4 and 1.5 of


22. @ 2012-C.2223 Acharya Education

MEDIUM: Dinamalar, Madurai Edition, Main

Issue(English) (01.11.2020)


Claim objected to:

“Success Assured in a Govt-Medical College”
















observed that the advertiser is providing coaching for

NEET exams and is assuring success to their students

in government medical college.


the absence of response from the advertiser, the CCC

concluded that the claim, “Success Assured in a

Govt-Medical College” was not substantiated with

authentic supporting data such as detailed list of

students who were selected for NEET including

dropouts, evidence to support their enrolment, their

http://youtube.com/

http://youtube.com/


contact details for verification, or independent audit

or verification certificate. The claim is misleading by

exaggeration and is likely to lead to widespread

disappointment in the minds of students. The print



as well as Chapters1.1, 1.4 and 1.5 of the ASCI Code.


23. @ 2012-C.2224 Aptech Limited-Aptech

Aviation Academy

MEDIUM: EP Pudhari, Belgaum Edition,

Supplement Venugram(English) (14.11.2020)


Claims objected to:


2. One Sky, One Destination, for the best careers in

Aviation

CCC RECOMMENDATION:






the advertisement or to substantiate the claims with

the required supporting data. The advertiser was

offered an opportunity for a telecon with the ASCI

Secretariat to seek further guidance, which they did

not avail but submitted their written response.

Advertiser stated that “the said advertisement was

not released by them. Necessary instruction is being

sent to their franchisee to refrain from using 100%

numerical and superlative claims in the

advertisement.”

Advertiser provided a copy of their communication

sent to their Franchisee.



advertiser’s response. The CCC concluded that while

the advertiser may be providing placement assistance

to their students for getting jobs in relevant

industries, the use of 100% numerical is not relevant

for “Placement Assistance” claim. There cannot be a

percentage assigned to any assistance claim such as

40% or 80% assistance. The use of “100%” as a

descriptor in the claim is misleading by implication


the minds of students.

Advertiser provided a copy of their communication

sent to their Franchisee.



advertiser’s response. The CCC concluded that while

the advertiser may be providing placement assistance

to their students for getting jobs in relevant










and Programs as well as Chapters 1.1, 1.4 and 1.5 of


The CCC noted the advertiser’s response that the said

claims will not be repeated in their future

advertisements.

24. @ 2012-C.2226 Krishansai Education Society-

Guntur Engineering College

MEDIUM: EP Andhra Jyoti, Guntur Edition, Main

Issue (Telugu) (14.11.2020)


Claim objected to:

“100% Placement Guarantee”



observed that the advertiser’s college is offering

courses such as B.Tech., M.Tech., Polytechnic,

MBA. The advertiser is claiming to provide

guaranteed placement. Upon careful consideration of

the complaint, and in the absence of response from


“100% Placement Guarantee” was not substantiated





placed through their college in relevant industry










placed class.





















advertisements as well as ChaptersI.1, 1.4 and 1.5 of


25. @ 2012-C.2228 KSRM College of Engineering

(Autonomus)

MEDIUM: Eenadu (*), Cuddapah Edition, Main

Issue (Hindi) (27.10.2020)


Claim objected to:

“100% Placements for all eligible students”

















courses such as B.Tech., M.Tech., Ph.D.Programmes.

The advertiser is claiming to provide placement to

their students who are eligible. Upon careful



the claim, “100% Placements for all eligible

students” was not substantiated with authentic





their college in relevant industry sectors on
















advertisements as well as Chapters1.1, 1.4 and 1.5 of


26. @ 2012-C.2229 Malabar Academy for

Management Studies

MEDIUM: EP Mathrubhumi (*), Kozhikode

Edition, Main Issue (Malayalam) (28.11.2020)


Claim objected to:

“100% Placement Assistance”








advertisement. The advertiser was also offered an

opportunity for a telecon with the ASCI Secretariat,

which they did not avail nor did they submit their

written response. The Consumer Complaints Council

(CCC) noted that no response was received from the


advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this

complaint.



courses such as BBA with Airline Airport,

Hospitality Management, Diploma in Aviation &

hospitality Management and in Airport Management.



CCC concluded that, while the advertiser may be



numerical is not relevant for “Placement assistance”


support or assistance claim such as 40% or 80%

assistance. The use of “100%” as a descriptor in the

claim is misleading by implication and is likely to

lead to widespread disappointment in the minds of

students. The print advertisement contravened ASCI


and Programs and Chapters I.4 and 1.5 of the ASCI


27. @ 2012-C.2230 Rajalaxmi Education Trust-

Mangalore Institute of Technology &

Engineering (MITE)

MEDIUM: Vijay Karnataka (*), Gulbarg Edition,

Main Issue (English) (24.11.2020)


Claim objected to:

“Best Performing College for the Year 2020

Awarded during State Level Annual Student Project

Programme organized by Karnataka State Council for

Science and Technology (KSCST) in September

2020”
















observed that the advertiser’s institute is offering

various courses such as B.E, M.Tech, MBA. The

advertiser has made the said claim on the basis of the

award organized by Karnataka State Council for

Science and Technology (KSCST) in September

2020.



CCC concluded that the claim, “Best Performing

College for the Year 2020 during State Level Annual

Student Project Programme organized by Karnataka

State Council for Science and Technology (KSCST)

in September 2020” was not substantiated with copy

of the award certificate, details of the process for

award selection, criteria for granting the award,

survey methodology, parameters considered,

questionnaires used, names of other similar institutes

that were part of the survey, the outcome of the

survey, and details about the awarding body. The

claim is misleading by exaggeration and is likely to


consumers, especially students. The print



as well as Chapters1.1, 1.4 and 1.5 of the ASCI Code,

and ASCI Guidelines for Usage of Awards/Rankings

in Advertisements. This complaint was UPHELD.

28. @ 2012-C.2231 Mittal Classes

MEDIUM: Rajasthan Patrika(*), Sri G’nagar

Edition, Supplement AartiSangrah (Magazine)

(English) (13.11.2020)


Claim objected to:

“Awarded as best commerce institute”
















The CCC viewed the print advertisement and noted

that the advertiser is running coaching classes for

commerce students for grade XI and XII. The CCC

observed that the advertiser had claimed to be

Awarded as best commerce institute.


the absence of any comments or response from the


“Awarded as best commerce institute’’ was not

substantiated with copy of the award certificate,

details of the process for award selection, criteria for

granting the award, survey methodology, parameters

considered, questionnaires used, names of other

coaching classes, that were part of the survey, the

outcome of the survey, and the details of the

awarding body. The source for the claim was not

indicated in the advertisement

The claim is misleading by exaggeration. The print



Programs, ChaptersI.1, 1.2 and 1.4 of the ASCI

Code, and ASCI Guidelines for Usage of

Awards/Rankings in advertisements. This complaint

was UPHELD.

29. @ 2012-C.2255 Imarticus Learning Inc

MEDIUM: Digital Display (http://eduvark.com)

(English) (29.10.2020)


Claim objected to:















complaint.


(http://eduvark.com) and observed that advertiser is

providing courses and training programs and is

claiming to provide 100% placement assistance.



CCC concluded that while the advertiser may be


getting jobs in relevant industry sectors, the use of

100% numerical is not relevant for “Placement

Assistance” claim. There cannot be a percentage

assigned to any assistance claim such as 40% or 80%




students. The digital display advertisement



Chapters1.4 and 1.5 of the ASCI Code. This


30. @ 2012-C.2367 Shroff S. R. Rotary Institute

of Chemical Technology (SRICT)

MEDIUM: Divya Bhaskar (*), Vadodara Edition,

Main Issue, (English), (25.10.2020)


Claim objected to:

“100% placement (For Eligible Students)”

CCC RECOMMENDATION:






further guidance, which they did not avail but replied

post the due date that they have forwarded ASCI’s

communication to their Management and would

respond shortly. The deadlines stipulated by

Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) procedure

exist keeping in mind the immediate and widespread

impact that advertisements have on the public.

Consequently, any action which is needed to be taken

with respect to the same is required to be prompt and

urgent. It is for this purpose that the deadlines, as

stipulated, are set for advertisers/broadcasters etc.

and the CCC itself makes it a priority to deal with

every complaint before it as expeditiously as

possible. However, as a special gesture the advertiser

was granted an extension of five business days to

submit their reply. Advertiser had a telecon with the

ASCI Secretariat and requested for a further

http://eduvark.com/

http://eduvark.com/


extension of three to four working days to revert back

with their response. As an exceptional case the

advertiser was again granted an additional four

business days to respond.

Advertiser in their response stated that “they have

mentioned 100 % placement for eligible candidates

which clearly indicates that only eligible students are

placed and not the entire batch. To add to it, they

have not restricted themselves to eligible students and

have supported for placement of all the students who

have cleared their final year exams without any

pending backlogs. The words used Eligible means

students who fall under the policy for eligibility for

placement as decided by the management and for

which students are informed well in advance before

the registration process. The Training and Placement

cell takes care of students who have registered

themselves (who are eligible as per the policy). The

cell follows the placement SOP. and contacts

Industries for the Campus Placement. Later the

resumes are forwarded to concerned industries for the

scrutiny of applications. After confirmation from

industries, students appear for the interview process

and get selected/recruited.”


Excel sheet of Placement Detail of Eligible Students,

(2) Excel sheet of Placement Detail of Not Eligible

Students, (3) Eligibility criteria for placement

registration.


considered the advertiser’s response and the

supporting data provided by them.

The CCC observed that Annexure-B - `Placement

Detail of Eligible Students’ is an excel sheet which

showed (1) details of Batch 2014-2018, 2015-2019

giving numbers of total students, eligible students,

registered students, placed students, students opted

for higher study, (2) Details of ME Batch 2014, ME

Batch 2015, EE Batch 2014, EE Batch 2015, CT

Batch 2014, CT Batch 2015, EST Batch 2014, EST

Batch 2015 giving student names, enrolment nos.,

contact nos., institute/college name with place opted

for higher studies, placed industry name.

Annexure-C - `Placement Detail of Not Eligible

Student’ is an excel sheet which showed (1) details of

Batch 2015-2019 giving numbers of total students,

eligible students, registered students, placed students,

students opted for higher study, (2) Details of ME

Batch 2015, CE Batch 2015, EST Batch 2015, EE

Batch 2015 giving student names, enrolment nos.,

contact nos., institute/college name with place opted

for higher studies, placed industry name.

The CCC did not consider the excel sheet as an

authentic and verifiable claim support document to

show the placements achieved by their students. The

data was also not validated by an independent audit

or verification certificate. Furthermore, the




number of students passing out from the placed

class. The CCC concluded that the claim, “100%

placement (For Eligible Students)” was inadequately

substantiated. The claim is misleading by

exaggeration and is likely to lead to grave or


The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1, I.4 and

I.5 of the ASCI Code as well as ASCI Guidelines for


Programs, and ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers

made in supporting, limiting or explaining claims

made in advertisements. This complaint was

UPHELD.

31. @ 2012-C.2396 Sri Gayatri Education

Society-Narasaraopeta Engineering

College

MEDIUM: EP Sakshi, Guntur Edition, Main Issue

(English) (08.11.2020)


Claim objected to:















complaint.


observed that the advertiser is claiming to provide

100% placement assistance to their students.















and Programs as well as Chapters1.4 and 1.5 of the


32. @ 2012-C.2398 National Victor Public School

MEDIUM: Punjab Kesari, New Delhi Edition, Main



Claims objected to:

1. Education Icon Award by Times of India

2. Global International School Award 2019

3. British Council International School Award,

2018-2021
















that the advertiser is running a public school. They

have made the claims on the basis of the awards

received by their school.



advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claims,

“Education Icon Award by Times of India”, “Global

International School Award 2019”, and “British

Council International School Award, 2018-

202’’,were not substantiated with copy of the awards

certificate, details of the process for awards selection,

criteria for granting the awards, survey methodology,

parameters considered, questionnaires used, names of

other schools, that were part of the survey, the


awarding body. The source for the claims was not

indicated in the advertisement

The claims are misleading by exaggeration. The print



Programs, ChaptersI.1, 1.2 and 1.4 of the ASCI


Awards/Rankings in advertisements. This complaint

was UPHELD.

33. @ 2012-C.2401 Pemiya Rishikesh Institute of

Technology

MEDIUM: Dainik Jagran(*), Dhanbad Edition,

Main Issue (Hindi) (18.11.2020)


Claim objected to:


















coaching for diploma courses in various streams of

engineering, and is claiming to provide 100%

placement to their students on completion of their

courses.



concluded that the claim, "100% Placement” was not

























34. @ 2012-C.2403 Prem Prakash Gupta

Charitable Foundation-Prem Prakash Gupta

Institute of Engineering & Management

MEDIUM: EP Dainik Jagran (*), Bareilly Edition,



Claim objected to:















complaint.


observed that advertiser is running an engineering

collage and is claiming to provide 100% placement

assistance to their students.
















35. @ 2012-C.2406 SAM Global University

MEDIUM: Dainik Bhaskar (*), Bhopal Edition,



Claim objected to:

“Awarded as Best Upcoming University of Central

India”
















that the advertiser’s university is providing coaching

in fields like Ayurveda, Journalism, Engineering,

Hotel Management etc, and has made the claim on

the basis of the award received by them.




“Awarded as Best Upcoming University of Central

Indi’’ was not substantiated with copy of the award

certificate, details of the process for award selection,

criteria for granting the award, survey methodology,


other universities providing education in similar

fields, that were part of the survey, the outcome of

the survey, and the details of the awarding body. The


source for the claim was not indicated in the

advertisement


advertisement contravened Chapters 1.1, 1.2 and 1.4

of the ASCI Code, ASCI Guidelines for Advertising

of Educational Institutions and Programs, and ASCI

Guidelines for Usage of Awards/Rankings in

advertisements. This complaint was UPHELD.

36. @ 2012-C.2407 Sanskriti University

MEDIUM: EP Hindustan (*), Meerut Edition, Main



Claim objected to:

“Awarded Most Preferred University with Global

Exposure by ASSOCHAM”

CCC RECOMMENDATION:








Advertiser stated that “For the above claim they are

enclosing herewith following documents. Copy of the

Awards/Awards Certificate. Verifiable details of the

authenticity and credibility of the Awarding

Organization. Details of the Process of Award

Selection and survey methodology used.”

As claim support data, the advertiser provided a copy

of the award certificate.

As this response being inadequate, ASCI Secretariat

requested the advertiser to provide the details of the

survey methodology, details of selection process for

the award, and any financial transaction for

participating and/or receiving such award. Advertiser

did not submit the required information within the

given timelines.



advertiser’s response. The CCC observed that the

advertiser’s university was granted an award by

ASSOCHAM in February 2019 for being `Most

Preferred University with Global Exposure’.

However, the photograph of the award certificate is

by itself not sufficient evidence to support the claim.

Additionally, details on the protocol/process followed

by the awarding organization is required to

substantiate the claim, which was not provided by the

advertiser despite ASCI’s request.


concluded that the claim, “Awarded Most Preferred

University with Global Exposure by ASSOCHAM”,

was not substantiated with supporting data such as

details of the process for award selection, criteria for

granting the award, survey methodology, parameters

considered, questionnaires used, names of other

similar universities that were part of the survey, the



indicated in the advertisement. The claim is

misleading by exaggeration. The print advertisement


Educational Institutions and Programs, Clauses 8 i

ii(ia) ii(a b c) of the ASCI Guidelines for Usage of

Awards/Rankings in Advertisements as well as

Chapters I.1, I.2 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. This


37. @ 2012-C.2409 Shiromani Gurdwara

Parbandhak Committee-Guru Nanak Khalsa

MEDIUM: EP Dainik Jagran (*), Amirtsar Edition,

Supplement Jagran City (Punjabi) (14.10.2020)


Claims objected to:

1. Recipient of the best college award from university

of Mumbai

2. Awarded with potential for excellence by UGC

CCC RECOMMENDATION Exparte















that the advertiser is providing coaching in field of

Arts, Science and Commerce, and has claimed to

receive best college award from University of


Mumbai, and also awarded with potential for

excellence by UGC.




“Recipient of the best college award from university

of Mumbai and Awarded with potential for

excellence by UGC’’ was not substantiated with copy




questionnaires used, names of other collages

providing education in similar fields, that were part

of the survey, the outcome of the survey, and the

details of the awarding body. The source for the

claims was not indicated in the advertisement

The claims are misleading by exaggeration. The

print advertisement contravened Chapters1.1, 1.2 and

1.4 of the ASCI Code, ASCI Guidelines for Usage of

Awards/Rankings in advertisements, and ASCI


and Programs. This complaint was UPHELD.

38. @ 2012-C.2410 S R Group of Institutions

MEDIUM: EP Dainik Jagran (*), Jhansi Edition,



Claim objected to:















complaint.


observed that advertiser is providing training and

coaching in field of management, technology,

pharmacy etc and offering wide variety of courses,

and is claiming that it provides 100% placement

assistance to their students.
















39. @ 2012-C.2411 SRM Group of Institutions-

SRM University

MEDIUM: EP Amar Ujala (*), New Delhi Edition,



Claim objected to:

“100% Placement Opportunity in India as well as

Abroad”














complaint.



training and coaching in the field of hotel

management, hospitality and catering technology,

and is claiming to provide 100% placement

opportunity to their students in India as well as

abroad.




providing placement opportunity to their students for


getting jobs in relevant industry sectors in India as

well as abroad, the use of 100% numerical is not

relevant for “Placement Opportunity in India as well

as Abroad” claim. There cannot be a percentage

assigned to any opportunity claim such as 40% or

80% opportunity. The use of “100%” as a descriptor

in the claim is misleading by implication and is likely






40. @ 2012-C.2412 Data Panacea Pvt Ltd-Data

Panacea School of Management & Analytics

MEDIUM: Divya Bhaskar (*), Ahmedabad

Edition, Main Issue (English) (05.11.2020)


Claim objected to:















complaint.



training and coaching in field of data science and

artificial intelligence, and is claiming to provide

100% placement assistance to their students.
















FSSAI Complaint

41. # 2012-C.2421 Sunraja Oil Industries Pvt. Ltd

MEDIUM: YouTube(*)

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGgBi3xw4Xw

&feature=emb_title )


Claim objected to:

“No.1 Groundnut Oil”

Complaint:

GROUNDS FOR CHALLENGE– There is no

substantiation or reference or geography for the No.1

groundnut oil claim made by brand Mr.Gold

groundnut oil. Whether it is basis any syndicate

research or any consumer panels through which the

claim is made. Blind claim without any substantiation

is misleading public and gives a false impression that

the brand is the no.1 oil in the ground nut oil

segment, which actually is not true.

YouTubeLink:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGgBi3xw4Xw&

feature=emb_title

















The CCC viewed the YouTube advertisement

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGgBi3xw4Xw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGgBi3xw4Xw&feature=emb_title






&feature=emb_title) and observed that the advertiser

is promoting a food product – Mr. Gold groundnut

oil, and is claiming it to be the ‘No. 1 Groundnut

Oil’.



CCC concluded that the claim, “No.1 Groundnut Oil”

was not substantiated with verifiable comparative

data of the advertiser’s product versus other

groundnut oil brands, such as market research survey

or third-party validation to prove that their product is

in leadership position (No.1) than the rest in terms of

value or volume share. The claim is misleading by


disappointment in the minds of consumers. The

YouTube advertisement contravened Chapters 1.1,

1.4 and 1.5 of the ASCI Code. This complaint was

UPHELD.

--------------------------------------------------------------

2101-CCC.27

Complaint for Re-Examination

42. Suo- Motu 2010-C.1608 United

Breweries Limited (Kingfisher Premium

Packaged Drinking Water)

MEDIUM: OTT (Disney Plus Hotstar) (19.10.2020)

YouTube(*)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7bQkAHtfSg


“Kingfisher premium packaged drinking

advertisement shows bottler opener as well as

drinking water in a mug namely “Kingfisher

Premium” brand name is a surrogate advertisement

for promotion of a liquor product – Kingfisher

PremiumBeer”

Objections:

1. “The advertisement appears to be a surrogate ad

for Kingfisher Premium Beer.”

2. “It is a violation of Guidelines for Qualification of

Brand Extension Product or Service.”


“The ASCI had approached the advertiser for its













The CCC viewed the TVC and observed that the

advertiser who is in the business of selling alcoholic

beverages is promoting Kingfisher Beer a liquor

brand through the ad that showcase objects A bottle

opener, Beer mugs, the clinking of beer mugs and

saying cheers are heavily suggestive of liquor cues.

The CCC also noted that the Advertiser did not

provide the annual market sales data of the product

advertised, required licenses and certificates as proof

of their brand extension product being registered with

appropriate Government authorities, proof of the in-

store availability of the product being at least 10% of

the leading brand in the category the product

competes as measured in metro cities where the

product is advertised, and a valid certificate from an

independent organization for distribution and sales

turnover. In the absence of this data, the CCC

concluded that the advertisement depicting the brand

name – Kingfisher Premium Packaged Drinking

Water is a surrogate advertisement for promotion of a

liquor product – KingfisherBeer.

The advertisement contravened Chapter III, 3.6(b) of

the ASCI 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 by this Code.”)

Furthermore, there was no evidence provided to

substantiate product distribution and sales turnover as

per the ASCI guidelines. There was no data

supporting the in-store availability of the product

being at 10% of the leading brand in the category

where the product competes as measured in metro

cities where the product is advertised. Similarly, there

was no CA certificate to show a sales turnover of Rs.

5 cr/annum nationally or Rs. 1cr/annum per state

where distribution has been established. On the basis

of the documents on record, the CCC concluded that

the Advertiser has not been able to adequately

substantiate that it is a genuine line extension

product. The ad contravened the ASCI guidelines for

Qualification of Brand Extension Product or Service.

It was found in violation of Chapter III, clause 3.6 (a)

of the ASCI code. The complaint was UPHELD





EXAMINATION:



complaint. However, in the absence of response prior

to the due date, the matter was examined by the

Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) on the basis of

the materials available then and an exparte decision

was taken. On receiving the CCC’s recommendation,

the advertiser replied requesting for Re-examination

of the CCC recommendation. Further on the

advertiser’s request, they were given an extension of

additional five business days to complete the review

formalities and to submit their response. Advertiser

filed an application for Re-examination in the said

matter, and sought for an opportunity to be heard in

person, which was arranged by the ASCI Secretariat

through Zoom video conference.

Advertiser in their response stated that “the average

sales volume and turnover of the Product during

2013-14 to 2018-19 was more than 11 Million cases

and Rs. 96.40 Crores as is evident from the

certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant dated

09.03.2020. There is clear legal recognition of the

fact that the products “Kingfisher Premium

Packaged Drinking Water” and “Kingfisher

Premium Beer” are two separate and distinct

products, one of which cannot be mistaken for the

other. Apart from such legal recognition, the

purchasing masses are clearly aware of such

distinction and there is nil probability of such masses

mistaking the advertisement of a ‘packaged drinking

water’ as promoting an alcoholic beverage.

Moreover, here is a case where the product being

advertised does exist in the market in reasonably

good quantities which has already garnered

considerable market goodwill and it is a genuine

brandextension.”

Advertiser further confirmed suspension of the said

advertisement.


Annexure A - Images of the Product, (2) Annexure B

- Certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant

dated 09.03.2020, (3) Annexure C - FSSAI license of

UBL and one of its contract manufacturer, (4)

Annexure D - GST Registration Certificate dated

20.09.2017, (5) Annexure E - Latest Trade Mark

Registration Certificate dated 28.09.2015

The CCC viewed the TVC and the YouTube

advertisement

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7bQkAHtfSg)

and considered the advertiser’s response for Re-

examination.

The CCC reviewed the Chartered Accountants

certificate of January 2021 which showed the data for

sales volume (in cases) and gross turnover for the

financial years 2013-14, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18,

2018-19, 2019-20, and 2020-21 of Kingfisher

Premium Packaged drinking water. It was seen that

for the financial year 2020-21 (upto 31/12/2020), for

nine months, the sales volume was 38,12,220 with a

gross turnover of 33,93,87,536. This data was

acceptable by the CCC as it met the requirements as

per ASCI's Guidelines for Qualification of Brand

Extension Product orService.

However, the CCC opined that the advertisement

depicting the “Kingfisher Premium” brand name is a

surrogate advertisement for promotion of a liquor

product – Kingfisher Premium Beer”, as it shows

visuals of a bottle opener, Beer mugs, the clinking of

beer mugs and saying cheers, which are heavily

suggestive of liquor cues. Based on these

observations, the CCC concluded that the TVC and

the YouTube advertisement contravened Chapter III,

3.6(b) of the ASCI 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 law or by this Code.”).

While the advertiser provided adequate substantiation

to qualify as a valid brand extension, the content of

the advertisement displayed strong liquor cues.

Therefore, the earlier CCC recommendation of

complaint being Upheld stands on Re-

examination.


[email protected]

43. # 2011-C.2209 Dabur India Limited (*)

(Dazzl Floor Cleaner)

MEDIUM: Product Packaging


Claim objected to:

1. CLAIM CHALLENGED/ KEY OBJECTION:

“Kills COVID-19Virus*”

2. ASCI CODE PROVISION VIOLATED: Article

1.4 and Article 1.5 of Chapter-I

3. GROUNDS FOR CHALLENGE – The Claim read

with the Disclaimer provided on the Product is






misleading and will deceive the consumers into

believing that the Product is tested against SARS-

CoV-2 virus that causes Covid-19 disease. Refer

Annexure A.

CCC RECOMMENDATION:





to respond to the same. The advertiser was offered an

opportunity to seek an Informal Resolution (IR) of


to seek further guidance, which they did not avail but

submitted their response.

Advertiser stated that “It is submitted that the pack,

inter alia, claims the following: (a) Kills COVID-19

Virus* (b) Kills 99.9%* Germs and Virus#. For the

aforesaid claims, they have by appropriate

disclaimers sufficiently explained and revealed the

basis of their claim. (i) *Based on in-vitro lab study

for undiluted product

(ii) #Tested on H1N1 virus. In respect of the

aforesaid first claim “Kills COVID-19 Virus*” is

supported by the disclaimer “*Based on in-vitro lab

study for undiluted product”. The claim and the

disclaimer are based on a study conducted by an

independent organization, Althea Drf Lifesciences

Ltd.”

As claim support the advertiser provided a copy of

Certificate of Analysis - Disinfectant Floor Cleaner,

and front and back image of the product pack.







opinion.

The advertiser did not opt for an IR but responded to

the queries raised in the expert opinion. Advertiser

provided a copy of the Utah Study report-

Disinfected Floor cleaner, and a copy of the Ad –

image of the complainant’s product. Advertiser

further submitted the following additional data in

support of their response – (1) Utah Study report, (2)

PDS MAGNAFLOC 333, (3) Fare Labs test report,

(4) Clinical Study outline DRDC comments, (5) Anti

Virus Study.

Based on the advertiser’s additional submission, the



The CCC viewed the product packaging and



meeting. The CCC observed that the packaging claim,

“Kills COVID-19 Virus*”, was qualified via

disclaimer to mention “*Based on in-vitro lab study

for undiluted product”. The certificate of analysis of

the product by Institute of antiviral research at Utah

University, Utah, USA supported the claim for

activity against SARS CoV 2virus.

Based on the advertiser’s response with the

supporting data provided, the CCC concluded that the

Packaging claim, “Kills COVID-19 Virus*”, was

substantiated and is not in contravention of Chapter I

of the ASCI Code. This complaint was NOT

UPHELD.

(Being interested in the business being conducted at

this item, Ms. Vinita Dang Mohoni and Mr. V R

Rajesh recused themselves during the deliberation of

the complaint.)

44. Suo Motu 2012-C.2327 Colgate-Palmolive

(India) Ltd (*) (Colgate ZigZag Anti-Bacterial)

MEDIUM: YouTube (*)

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z02k2Qx5MjA)


Claims objected to:

1. Its antibacterial bristles keep the germs away when

outside the mouth

2.100% antibacterial bristles

Kindly substantiate the claims with robust scientific

rationale/ technical test reports to show that the

product has antibacterial efficacy.

CCC RECOMMENDATION:








Advertiser submitted point-wise reply to the

objections raised in the complaint.

http://www.youtube.com/watc


Claim – “Its antibacterial bristles keep the germs

away when outside the mouth” – Advertiser stated

that “the reference “keep the germs away when

outside the mouth” refers to germs (Bacteria) from

the environment like bathrooms, hence referred to as

‘when outside the mouth’. The antibacterial bristles

of the toothbrush prevents the growth of bacteria

when the brush is outside the mouth such as in the

bathroom (i.e. outside mouth environment). All the

bristles are infused with silver ion antimicrobial

agent (Silver ion Zeolites) as per the supplier

certificate, and are tested against the 2 bacteria’s i.e.

E.coli and S.aureus with ≥ 99% results showing

inhibition of the bacterial growth on the bristles and

hence the claim of antibacterial protection is

supported.”

Claim- “100% Antibacterial Bristles” - Advertiser

stated that “the Advertiser is hereby submitting the

document (Annexure A) received from the supplier

confirming the type of nylon bristles used in the New

Zigzag Antibacterial Toothbrush and the statement of

confirmation from the supplier confirming the

presence of antibacterial agents in each of the nylon

bristles. The statement from the supplier supports the

presence of Silver ion antibacterial agent in all the

three (Red, white and yellow) bristles of the

toothbrush. The fact that each and every bristle of

toothbrush is impregnated with silver ion

antibacterial agent supports the claim of 100%

antibacterial Bristles: 100% Bristles are

antibacterial.”

For the objection raised against the use of celebrity in

the advertisement, the advertiser stated that “

necessary due diligence was carried out by the

concerned celebrity featuring in the complained

advertisement and was provided with complete

substantiation and technical explanation for all the

claims before publishing the said advertisement.

Attached herewith is the copy of the certificate

provided to the celebrity. The celebrity was satisfied

with the supporting’s and overall explanation of the

technical facts.”

As claim support data, the advertiser provided - (1)

Annexure A - Supplier Certificate, (2) Annexures B

& C - Lab Test Results for White Bristles, (3)

Annexures D & E - Lab Test Results For Yellow

Bristles, (4) Annexures F & G- Lab Test Results For

Orange Bristles, (5) Annexures H, I, J, K - Scientific

Literature, (6) Annexure L – Pack shot of Oral-B

Antibacterial Pro-Health Toothbrush, (7) Back of

pack of ZigZag Toothbrush, (8) Front of pack ZZ

Anti Bacterial Toothbrush, (9) Copy of the TVC, (10)

Copy of the Storyboard.


claim support data was referred to the independent

technical expert of ASCI. The expert’s opinion was




opinion.

The advertiser did not opt for an IR but requested for

an extension of time to respond to the expert opinion,

and also sought for a meeting with the technical

expert.










before it as expeditiously as possible. However, as a

special gesture, the advertiser was granted an

extension of additional four business days to respond.

In response to the technical expert opinion, the

advertiser submitted the following documents – (1)

ASTM details,(2) Supplier Certificate for the bristles,

(3) External Lab Test Results, (4) Back of the

product pack with instructions for consumers, (5)

Developmental Report of the Anti-Bacterial

toothbrush, (6) Public announcements with 100%

Anti-bacterial bristles claim, (7) Claims Due

Diligence document issued to Celebrity,

Endorsement on satisfaction of the claims Due

Diligence document.

Subsequently, a meeting was arranged with the

technical expert through Zoom video conference.

Post meeting with the advertiser, and based on the

advertiser’s submission, the technical expert

submitted his final opinion for the CCC to consider.

The CCC viewed the YouTube advertisement

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z02k2Qx5MjA)



meeting.

The CCC observed that the test reports from a third-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z02k2Qx5MjA


party test house for assaying the antibacterial activity

of the fibres used in the toothbrushes showed >99%

(> 2 log) reduction compared to media control. These

tests involved microbial tests for anti-bacterial

activity against two bacterial strains E.coli and S.

aureus. In revision a test report was submitted

consisting of an accelerated-use test. This test

appeared to test the mechanical stability of the

bristles and the sustenance of the antibacterial action

from mechanical use. The CCC noted that basis this

data, the claim related to bristles is reasonably well

established that the bristles themselves are anti-

bacterial. However, the CCC felt that the visual of a

blue protection shield around the entire toothbrush

when read in conjunction with the claim could

mislead a consumer that the entire toothbrush

including brush head and the neck are antibacterial,

especially over a period of time. The CCC noted that

the product is efficacious for a period of 90 days and

the back of packaging mentions, “Dentists and

Hygienists recommend replacing your toothbrush

every 3 months”. However, the CCC was of the view

that the time period of the product efficacy unless

specified in the advertisement itself through a

recommendation or disclaimer, could mislead

consumers to believe in its extended time line of

efficacy and prompt usage beyond the recommended

three months.

Based on this assessment, the CCC concluded the

claim, “Its antibacterial bristles keep the germs away

when outside the mouth” is misleading by

implication, and is likely to lead to widespread


YouTube advertisement contravened Chapters I.4

and I.5 of the ASCI Code. This complaint was

UPHELD.

The CCC noted that the advertiser has clarified that

all the bristles of the toothbrush are infused with

silver zeolites which are well known for their

antibacterial properties and that it is not intended to

imply that the bristles will provide total and complete

antibacterial protection as that is not feasible. The

CCC did not consider the claim, “100% Antibacterial

Bristles” to be objectionable, and hence not in

contravention of Chapter I of the ASCI Code. This

complaint was NOT UPHELD.

The CCC observed that for the use of celebrity

(Ayushmaan Khurana) in the advertisement, as

evidence the advertiser submitted an email from the

celebrity’s managing agency. Based on this

document, the CCC concluded that the celebrity has

done due diligence prior to endorsement, to ensure

that all descriptions, claims and comparisons made in

the advertisement are capable of substantiation. This


45. W 2012-C.2424 RGV Innovations Pvt.

Ltd. – (G1 Wonder Mask)

MEDIUM: (Delhi Times (*), December 20, 2020)


Claim objected to:

G 1 Wonder Mask - That instantly kills 99% Covid -

19 Virus.

Complaint:

“This is complaint against a misleading ad which

claims that this mask kills Corona Virus. This is

misleading and also dangerous. The ad was published

in Delhi Times dated December 20.”

Suo motu objection:

World’s First - Corona Killing Graphene – Silver

Nano - Technology.







option to seek Informal Resolution (IR) of the

complaint by modifying or withdrawing the claims

objected to in the advertisement, or alternately to

substantiate the claims with the required supporting

data. The advertiser was also offered an opportunity

for a telecon with the ASCI Secretariat, which they

did not avail nor did they submit their written

response. The Consumer Complaints Council (CCC)

noted that no response was received from the


complaint.


observed that the advertiser is promoting a mask - G1

Wonder mask with Graphene Silver Nano

technology, claiming it to be world’s first corona

killing mask that instantly kills 99% Covid-19 virus.

However, the advertiser did not provide details of

Graphene Silver Nano Technology used in the

product, technical data / lab test reports for efficacy


of the product.



CCC concluded that the claims, “G 1 Wonder Mask -

That instantly kills 99% Covid - 19 Virus” and

“World’s First - Corona Killing Graphene – Silver

Nano – Technology” were not substantiated. The

claims are misleading by exaggeration and are likely


consumers. The print advertisement contravened

Chapters 1.1, 1.4 and 1.5 of the ASCI Code. This


46. W 2012- C.2456 Anhui Huami

Information Technology Co. (Amazfit GTS 2

mini)

MEDIUM: E-commerce portal (Amazon)

advertisement


Claim objected to:

“India’s No. 1 Wearable Watch Brand in 2020H1*”

Complaint:

“Amazon.in banner on 22 Dec 2020, Time 09:46AM

How come this become India's number 1 watch

without even release? Challenge: India's No.1

Wearable watch brand (the product is yet to be

launched)”








complaint by modifying or withdrawing the claim


substantiate the claim with the required supporting




response. However, an auto reply was received which

stated “…… We already forwarded your email to our

team member who is responsible for the Indian

Amazon platform operation, and they will follow up

in self-regulating advertising content. Any update,

will let youknow.”

The Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) noted that

no response was received from the advertiser prior to

the prescribed due date for this complaint.

The CCC viewed the E-commerce portal

advertisement (amazon.in) and observed that the

advertiser is promoting their digital watch brand

“AmazfitGTS 2 mini” claiming to be `India’s No.1

wearable watch brand’. The claim carries an asterisk

(*) which is qualified with a disclaimer to mention

`As per IDC worldwide wearable device tracker, Q2

2020, September Release’.



CCC concluded that the claim, “India’s No. 1

Wearable Watch Brand in 2020H1*” was not


advertiser’s brand and other similar digital watch

brands in India, to prove that they are in leadership

position (No.1), or through an independent third-

party validation. The claim is misleading by

exaggeration. The e-commerce advertisement

contravened Chapters 1.1 and 1.4 of the ASCI Code.




CCC concluded that the claim, “India’s No. 1

Wearable Watch Brand in 2020H1*” was not


advertiser’s brand and other similar digital watch

brands in India, to prove that they are in leadership

position (No.1), or through an independent third-


exaggeration. The e-commerce advertisement



47. OC 2101- C.2458 Amazon Seller Services

Pvt. Ltd. (Amazon)

MEDIUM: Website advertisement


Claim objected to:

“Extra 500 INR cashback as Amazon Pay Balance”

Complaint:

“There was three offer/advertisement by amazon.in

on 18th October,2020. which are as followings.

1. Extra 500 INR cashback as amazon pay balance

(withoutT&C).

2. Flat 1000 Cashback on Redmi 9 Prime -128GB

3. 10% Off with HDFC Bank card. I have attached

screenshot and explanation for further reference.

As per Advertisement / offer displayed i eligible for


03 offers but amazon.in provide partial offer

benefits.as followings i got 02 and 03 number of

above offer one offer is pending and it was declined

by amazon.in. They are telling in the first mail you

are not eligible for 01st offer due to the offer period

was over than why they displayed advertisement after

the over period. as customer i send lots of mails for

getting justice but they are not responding. Kindly

provide justice to customer to misleadings

advertisements / offers.”

















complaint.

The CCC viewed the website advertisement. The

advertiser is offering `Redmi 9 Prime’ at a discounted

price with

anofferof`Extra500INRcashbackasAmazonPayBalan

ce’.The CCC considered the complainant’s grievance

that he was not eligible for the offer as the period of

the offer had ended. As evidence, the Complainant

provided copy of correspondence exchanged with the

advertiser.

The CCC observed that the advertisement did not

carry any disclaimers to mention that terms and

conditions apply, nor was there any link for reference

to the terms and conditions in the advertisement.

Also, the duration of the validity of the said offer was

not mentioned in the advertisement.


the absence of response from the advertiser, and

based on the evidence provided by the complainant,

the CCC concluded that claim offer, “Extra 500 INR

cashback as Amazon Pay Balance” is misleading by

omission and is likely to lead to widespread


website advertisement contravened Chapters 1.4 and

1.5 of the ASCI Code. This complaint was

UPHELD.

48. SPI- Suo Motu 2101-C.2475 GAGA Inc.

(Gaga Lite)

MEDIUM: Mobile Application


“Statements and content in the captioned

advertisement are offensive to generally accepted

standards of public decency”






withdrawing the statements and content in the







complaint.

Given the nature of the complaint with the objections

raised and the advertisement complained against, the

complaint was processed under Suspension Pending

Investigation (SPI)Process.

The CCC viewed the screen shot of the mobile

application advertisement provided by the

complainant and observed that the advertiser is

promoting its social media app – `Gaga Lite’ which

has clips of women with obscene statements. The

advertisement was presented on google play store.

The CCC discussed that the statements made in the

advertisement are offensive to generally acceptable

standards of public decency. Upon careful


any comments or response from the advertiser, the

CCC concluded that the advertisement has indecent

and repulsive content, which in the light of the

generally prevailing standards of decency is likely to

cause grave and widespread offence especially to

women. The mobile application advertisement

contravened Chapter II of the ASCI Code. This


49. W 2012- C.2478 4RABET

MEDIUM: YouTube(*)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=2E

https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=2EHT8j3QTVg



HT8j3QTVg,(between 2:26 to 3:20 minutes)


“Complaint is regarding a online gaming app

“4RABET”. The link of the advertisement is attached

here. The advertisement was shown between 2:26 to

3:20 minutes. In the advertisement the presenter has

shown that she has earned? 6,000 only in 20 second

which is completely misleading. It was also presented

as an alternative employment option. The presenter

has breached many of your recent online gaming

guidelines which was effective from 15th December.

I would request you to take action against this

misleading advertisement.

https://bit.ly/2M6ZGBo".

ASCI observed that in the YouTube Advertisement,

the protagonist (user) has won Rs 6000 in just 30 secs

by playing the 'Book of Santa' online game. The

advertisement content involves the protagonist

(between 2:26 to 3:20 minutes) referring others to

play legal casino 4RABET.com wherein one can earn

money as well as enjoy, giving an impression of an

assured win of large sums and promoting it as an

alternate income opportunity.

















complaint.

The CCC viewed the You Tube advertisement

https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=2E

HT8j3QTVgand observed that the advertiser is

promoting and inviting the viewers to play legal

casino 4RABET.com wherein one can earn money as

well as enjoy, giving an impression of an assured win

of large amount and is promoting it as an alternate

income opportunity. In the advertisement the

protagonist herself is claiming that she has won Rs

6000 in just 30 secs by playing the 'Book of Santa'

online game. The CCC discussed that the advertiser is

encouraging the consumers to play and win amount in

short span of time which is unrealistic and debatable.

The advertisement did not have any disclaimers to

indicate “This game involves an element of financial

risk and may be addictive. Please play responsibly

and at your own risk.”



advertiser, the CCC concluded that the You Tube

advertisement is misleading by exaggeration and is

likely to cause grave and widespread disappointment

in the minds of consumers. The advertisement

contravened Chapters 1.4 and 1.5 of the ASCI Code,

ASCI Guidelines For “Online Gaming For Real

Money Winnings”, and ASCI Guidelines for




50. SPI-Suo motu 2101- C.2480 Face Chat

Inc. (Face Chat)

MEDIUM: Mobile Application


“Visuals and Statements in the captioned

advertisement are offensive to generally accepted

standards of public decency”






withdrawing the visuals and the statements in the







complaint.

Given the nature of the complaint with the objections

raised and the advertisement complained against, the

complaint was processed under Suspension Pending

Investigation (SPI)Process.

The CCC viewed the screen shot of the mobile

application advertisement provided by the

Complainant and observed that the advertiser is

promoting its social media app – `Face Chat’ which

shows a visual of a woman with an obscene


https://bit.ly/2M6ZGBo




statement. The advertisement was presented on

google play store. The CCC discussed that the

statement made in the advertisement is offensive to

generally acceptable standards of public decency.



advertiser, the CCC concluded that the advertisement

has indecent and repulsive content, which in the light

of the generally prevailing standards of decency is

likely to cause grave and widespread offence

especially to women. The mobile application

advertisement contravened Chapter II of the ASCI


NAMS Complaints

51. @ 2011-C.1845 Believe PTE Ltd (Dr.

Rhazes 7 Days Surface Disinfectant

MEDIUM: Kairali (Malayalam) (01.10.2020) (30

Secs) (8:14:45)


Claims objected to:

1. One Spray Kills 99.9% Viruses and Bacteria

Continuously for 7Days

2. 7 days surface disinfectant shield

(Advertisement is in potential violation of Celebrity

guidelines & ASCI Disclaimer guidelines)

CCC RECOMMENDATION:








The advertiser stated that, “Dr Rhazes 7 days Surface

Disinfectant Shield (Dr. Rhazes), is a general

household surface disinfectant spray, containing

Chloroxylenol Solution IP 5% w/w (an acknowledged

disinfectant), which is stabilized with silver ions. Dr.

Rhazes is recommended for disinfecting non-porous

surfaces (like metal objects like door handles etc.,

toilet seats, table tops, granite surfaces etc.,) and it is

required to be sprayed until the surface gets wet.

Upon spraying, it forms a non-visible (transparent)

coat on the surface and the active ingredients of Dr.

Rhazes kills commonly known bacteria & viruses. The

active ingredients of Dr. Rhazes. makes the active

ingredients stick to the non-porous surface strongly;

therefore, when bacteria/viruses fall/comes in contact

with the non-porous surface, the active ingredients,

inactivates/ kills the viruses/bacteria. When someone

touches the coated (cured) surface, because of the

actives contained in Dr. Rhazes, the active

ingredients will not come off/ wear off easily and its

ability to provide protection lasts upto 7 days (in

case, “the coating is abraded due to heavy

usage/cleaning” as clearly given in the directions for

use on the back label of the product, Dr. Rhazes is

required to be sprayed again).”

Advertiser further stated that “they have stopped

airing the Commercial by Octoberend.”

As claim support data, the advertiser submitted the

following documents: (a) Front and back image of

the product label; (b) Copy of TVC (in Malayalam),

(c) Copy of Storyboard, (d) Virus reports, Bacteria

reports, 100 tap reports.








sought for a meeting with the technical expert, which

was arranged by the ASCI Secretariat through Zoom

videoconference.

Post meeting with the Technical expert and the ASCI

Secretariat, the advertiser submitted 3 folders on Lab

Reports, Labs they tested, and Detailed study reports.

Based on the advertiser’s response and the additional

data submitted post meeting, the technical expert

submitted his final opinion for the Consumer

Complaints Council (CCC) to consider.

The CCC viewed the TVC (in Malayalam) and



meeting.

The CCC observed that the product claims made in

the TVC are based on study reports by three

laboratories - FHHL lab, Auriga Research Pvt Ltd,

and Radiant Research Pvt Ltd. However, the

documents submitted by the advertiser, appeared to

be study reports and not test reports.

The CCC noted that the bacterial testing of the

product was performed as per JIS Z 2801 standard in

Auriga Lab, Bangalore, and in Food Health

&Hygiene Lab, Pune, whereas virucidal testing of the

product was performed based on ISO 21702 in

Radiant Research Lab, Bangalore. The CCC opined

that the study protocol and certificate submitted don’t


clearly support the claim as the study has been done

following one application, and tests were carried out

only once and were not done after

7daysasisclaimed.Timeelapsestudyforclaimed

duration is required to substantiate the claim. In view

of the conclusion drawn in the Food Health &

Hygiene Lab study and the research study report

summary given by Radiant Research lab, there is no

additional information to confirm that a time lapse

study has been conducted. Furthermore, the testing

certificate concluding claims for antibacterial,

antiviral activity against a wide range of viruses and

bacteria were not submitted to support the claim of

‘one spray kills 99.9% viruses and bacteria’.

Therefore, the claim “One Spray Kills 99.9% Viruses

and Bacteria Continuously for 7 Days” is

inadequately substantiated.

The CCC noted, that the advertiser has provided

reports on the product efficacy on non-porous and

hard surfaces, however the same was not available

for other surfaces for example non-treated wood to

make a claim of “7 days surface disinfectant shield”.

Therefore, this claim is also inadequately

substantiated.


the claims are misleading by exaggeration and are

likely to cause widespread disappointment in the

minds of consumers. The TVC contravened Chapters

I.1, 1.4 and 1.5 of the ASCI Code. This complaint

was UPHELD.

For the objection against the advertisement being in

violation of Celebrity guidelines, the CCC observed

that the advertiser did not provide any evidence to

show that the celebrity (Sourav Ganguly) had done

due diligence prior to endorsement, to ensure that all

descriptions, claims and comparisons made in the

advertisement are capable of substantiation. This

contravened Clauses (c), (d) of the ASCI Guidelines

for Celebrities in Advertising. This complaint was

UPHELD.

The CCC noted the advertiser’s response that the said

TVC has been discontinued since end October 2020.

52. @ 2012-C.2225 Pune Institute of Business

Management

MEDIUM: Digital

Display(http://auntyflo.com)(English)(06.10.2020)


Claims objected to:

1. 100% Placement in Top MNC

2. 100% Placements
















(http://auntyflo.com) and observed that the

advertiser’s institute is claiming to provide 100%

placements to their students.



CCC concluded that the claims, “100% Placement in

Top MNC” and “100% Placements” were not





students who were placed through their Institute in

Top MNCs and relevant industries on completion of

their courses, their appointment letters, list of students

who were not placed and the reason for their non-


certificate. Furthermore, the advertisement did

not have any disclaimers to indicate “Past record is

no guarantee of future job prospects” nor did it have a








Chapters 1.1, 1.4 and 1.5 of the ASCI Code and


limiting or explaining claims made in advertisements.


53. @ 2012-C.2315 Aster RV Hospital

MEDIUM: Bangalore Mirror (*), Bangalore


http://auntyflo.com/



Claim objected to:

“Painless Deliveries”




The advertiser was offered an option to seek

Informal Resolution (IR) of the complaint by





telecon with the ASCI Secretariat, which they did

not avail nor did they submit their written response.

The Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) noted

that no response was received from the advertiser

prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint.


observed that the advertiser’s hospital is offering

maternity services and is claiming to provide

‘painless deliveries.’

The CCC discussed that the said treatment is

commonly used treatment for child delivery, and

generally such deliveries are done by giving

Epidural anesthesia to the patients for pain relief

during labour. In this context, the CCC concluded

that the claim, “Painless Deliveries” was not

objectionable. The print advertisement is not in



54. @ 2012-C.2316 Baba Hospital & IVF

Centre (Baba Hospital & Research Centre)

MEDIUM: EP Dainik Jagran(*), Ranchi Edition,

Main Issue(Hindi)(29.11.2020)


Claim objected to:

“Painless Delivery”
















observed that the advertiser’s hospital is providing

maternity services. The advertiser has claimed in the

advertisement that the child delivery procedure

followed by their hospital is painless.



generally such deliveries are done by giving Epidural

anesthesia to the patients for pain relief during

labour. In this context, the CCC concluded that the

claim, “Painless Delivery” was not objectionable.



NOT UPHELD.

55. @ 2012-C.2355 Pooja Nursing Home

&Hospital

MEDIUM: Dainik Bhaskar (*), Bilaspur Edition,

Supplement Bilaspur Bhaskar(Hindi)(14.11.2020)


Claim objected to:

“Facility of Painless Normal Delivery”


The ASCI approached the concerned Media (Dainik

Bhaskar) for their assistance in providing the contact

details of the advertiser, or to forward the complaint

to the advertiser. The Consumer Complaints Council


advertiser or from the concerned media prior to the

due date for this complaint.



maternity services. The advertiser has claimed that

they are providing facility of painless normal

delivery.






claim, “Painless Normal Delivery” was not

objectionable. The print advertisement is not in




56. @ 2012-C.2362 Sai Shraddha

Hospital

MEDIUM: EP Daily Sakal (*), Aurangabad Edition,

Supplement Deepotsav (Hindi)(16.11.2020)


Claim objected to:

















observed that the advertiser is providing maternity

services. The advertiser has claimed that the child

delivery procedure followed by their hospital is

painless.









NOT UPHELD.

57. @ 2012-C.2383 Dhanvantari Super

Specialty Hospital

MEDIUM: EP Amar Ujala (*), Kanpur Edition,

Supplement My City (Hindi)(08.11.2020)


Claim objected to:

“Facility of Painless Normal Delivery Available”
















observed that the advertiser is offering treatment for

various diseases such as Heart, Cancer, and maternity

problems, etc. They are also providing facility of

painless normal delivery.






claim, “Facility of Painless Normal Delivery

Available” was not objectionable. The print


the ASCI Code. This complaint was NOT UPHELD.

58. @ 2012-C.2384 Dr. Deepak Chaudhary

Hospital

MEDIUM: Rajasthan Patrika (*), Sri G’Nagar

Edition, Supplement Aarti Sangrah (Magazine)

(Hindi) (13.11.2020)


Claim objected to:

“Facility of Painless Delivery (with Advance

Technique)”

















observed that the advertiser’s hospital is offering

treatment for maternity problems, and is claiming to

provide facility of painless delivery.






claim, “Facility of Painless Delivery (with Advance

Technique)”, was not objectionable. The print


the ASCI Code. This complaint was NOT UPHELD.

59. @ 2012-C.2428 Aakash Educational

Services Ltd (Aakash Hybrid)

MEDIUM: EP Prabhat Khabar, Deoghar Edition,

Main Issue (Hindi), (26.11.2020)


Claim objected to:

“Best of Classroom & Online Learning”

CCC RECOMMENDATION:





by modifying or withdrawing the claim objected to in

the advertisement. The advertiser was also offered an


seek further guidance, which they did not avail but


In response to the claim objected, the advertiser

stated that "the advertisement in question has a

reference to Aakash Hybrid, which is a program

offered by Aakash Education Services Ltd. The

program description as “Best of Classroom & Online

Learning” refers to the fact that Aakash Hybrid is the

best of Aakash Classroom and Aakash Digital

programs, both of which are offered by their

company. They are not making any claim or

reference to any external entity or competition.”



advertiser’s response. The CCC discussed that the

term, “Best” gives a connotation of being the best,

which is a superlative claim and such claims are

required to be adequately substantiated with

verifiable comparative data. Considering the

advertiser’s response, the CCC deliberated that the

claim made by the advertiser in the advertisement

needs to be reframed, if the sole purpose of the

advertisement is to promote their program “Aakash

Hybrid” which provides both offline and

onlineLearning.


the claim, “Best of Classroom & Online Learning” is

misleading by ambiguity, and is likely to cause


The print advertisement contravened the ASCI




60. @ 2012-C.2429 Anil Neerukonda

Educational Society-Anil Neerukonda Institute of

Technology & Sciences.

MEDIUM: EP Sakshi, Vizag Edition, Main Issue

(English), (08.11.2020)


Claim objected to:

“The Best Engineering College in Andhra Pradesh

with 724 Placements in 2019-2020”

CCC RECOMMENDATION:






the advertisement. The advertiser was also offered an


seek further guidance, which they availed and also


Advertiser stated that the claim was based on their

placement data from the previous year where a total

of 754 students were placed. A list of the names of

students was attached for reference.

As claim support data, the advertiser submitted

summary list of campus selections for 2020 batch of

students.

As this response being inadequate, the advertiser was

requested to provide verifiable comparative data or

market survey data in support of the claim.

Advertiser did not respond within the given

timelines.




advertiser’s response. The CCC was of the view that

the advertiser has relied on their placement data of

2019-20 to claim themselves to be the “best in

Andhra Pradesh”. This data was not considered

relevant for a superlative claim made. As per the

CCC the advertiser ought to have provided market

survey data or verifiable comparative data of the

advertiser’s college versus other engineering colleges

in Andhra Pradesh, to prove that they are better than

the rest, nor the claim was backed by a third-party

validation.


concluded that the claim “The Best Engineering

College in Andhra Pradesh with 724 Placements in

2019-2020” was not substantiated. The claim is






the ASCI Code. This complaint was UPHELD

61. @ 2012-C.2430 Creative Techno College

MEDIUM: Sambad, Angul Edition, Main Issue

(Oriya) (18.11.2020)


Claims objected to:

1. 100% Placement Support

2. Highest Placement in Angul District

3. Awarded the best professional college of Odisha

in2019
















observed that the advertiser’s college is providing

coaching for B.Sc. Comp. Sc. (Hons.). The advertiser

is claiming to provide 100% Placement support to

their students and is claiming to be awarded the best

professional college of Odisha in 2019, and with a

Highest Placement in Angul District Upon careful

consideration of the complaint and in the absence of

any response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded

that while the advertiser may be providing placement

support to their students for getting jobs in relevant

industry, the use of 100% numerical is not relevant

for “Placement Support” claim. There cannot be a

percentage assigned to any support claim such as

40% or 80% support. The use of “100%” as a




The CCC also concluded that the claim, “Highest

Placement in Angul District” was not substantiated

with verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s

college versus other similar colleges in Angul

District, to prove that they have provided highest

placement than the others. The claim was not backed

by an independent third-party validation. The claim is


The claim, “Awarded the best professional college of

Odisha in 2019” was also not substantiated with copy




questionnaires used, names of other similar colleges

in Odisha that were part of the survey, the outcome of

the survey, and details about the awarding body. The

claim is misleading by exaggeration. The source for

the claim was not mentioned in the advertisement.



and Programs as well as Chapters 1.1, 1.2, and 1.4 of

the ASCI Code, and ASCI Guidelines for Usage of

Awards/Rankings in Advertisements. This complaint

was UPHELD.

62. @ 2012-C.2431 Garg College of Nursing

& Paramedical Science

MEDIUM: EP Dainik Jagran (*), Gorakhpur

Edition, Main Issue (Hindi) (22.11.2020)


Claim objected to:

“100% Guarantee Job”


















courses such as DMLT, DDT, DOT, DPT, ICU Tech,

CMS & ED. The advertiser is claiming to provide

100% job guarantee to their students.



CCC concluded that the claim, “100% Guarantee

Job” was not substantiated with authentic supporting

data such as batch size of students per year, detailed

list of students and evidence to support their

enrolment, contact details of students for verification,

list of students who were placed in relevant industries

on completion of their courses, their appointment

letters, list of students who were not placed and the

reason for their non-placement, or independent audit

or verification certificate.





placed class.






Programs, as well as ChaptersI.1, 1.4 and 1.5 of the

ASCI Code, and ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers

made in supporting, limiting or explaining claims

made in advertisements. This complaint was

UPHELD.

63. @ 2012-C.2433 KC Group of Institutions

MEDIUM: EP Dainik Jagran (*), Dhanbad Edition,



Claim objected to:

“Assured Job Placement”

















courses such as MBA, B.Pharmacy, D.Pharmacy,

B.Tech, Polytechnic, BHM and B.Ed. The advertiser

is assuring to provide job placement to their students.



CCC concluded that the claim, “Assured Job

Placement” was not substantiated with authentic





their Institute in relevant industries on completion of

their courses, their appointment letters, list of

students who were not placed and the reason for their

non- placement, nor any independent audit or

verification certificate.





placed class.






the ASCI Code, and ASCI Guidelines for




64. @ 2012-C.2435 Making Doctors

Organization


MEDIUM: Divya Bhaskar (*), Ahmedabad Edition,

Main Issue (English)(27.11.2020)


Claim objected to:

“Gujarat's No.1 making Doctor's Organization”
















observed that the advertiser’s organisation is

providing coaching for MBBS in India and Abroad.

The advertiser is claiming that they are No.1 in

Gujarat.



CCC concluded that the claim, “Gujarat's No.1

making Doctor's Organization” was not substantiated


organisation and other similar organisations in

Gujarat, to prove that they are in leadership position

(No.1), or through an independent third-party

validation.




advertisement contravened Chapters 1.1, 1.4, and 1.5

of the ASCI Code, and ASCI Guidelines for


Programs. This complaint was UPHELD.

65. @ 2012-C.2437 Narayana Group-

Narayana Coaching Centre

MEDIUM: EP Dainik Jagran (*) Aligarh Edition,



Claim objected to:

“Trust the Leader”

















IIT JEE advance. The advertiser is claiming to be the

leader in providing coaching for Medical NEET/ IIT-

JEE/Foundation courses.



CCC concluded that the claim, “Trust the Leader”


data of the advertiser’s coaching centre and other

similar coaching centres, to prove that they are in

leadership position, or through an independent third-

party validation.





of the ASCI Code, and ASCI Guidelines for


Programs. This complaint was UPHELD.

66. @ 2012-C.2438 Made Easy

MEDIUM: Hindu (*), New Delhi Edition, Main



Claim objected to:

“India’s Best Institute for IES, GATE& PSUs”


















IES, GATE and PSU’s exams. The advertiser is

claiming to be `India’s best institute’ for these

courses.



CCC concluded that the claim, “India’s Best Institute

for IES, GATE & PSUs”, was not substantiated with

any market survey data or with verifiable

comparative data of the advertiser’s coaching classes

versus other similar coaching classes in India, to

prove that they are better than the rest, nor the claim

was backed by a third-party validation.







67. @ 2012-C.2442 R.G. Modern Institute of

Business School

MEDIUM: Daily Thanthi, Cuddalore Edition, Main



Claim objected to:

“100% Job”
















observed that the advertiser is offering courses such

as MBA and BBA. The advertiser is claiming to

provide 100% jobs to their students.



CCC concluded that the claim, “100% Job” was not





students who were placed through their Institute in

relevant industries on completion of their courses,

their appointment letters, list of students who were

not placed and the reason for their non-placement,

nor any independent audit or verification certificate.





placed class.

68. @ 2012-C.2444 PNS Reading Room –

Shubhra Ranjan IAS Study

MEDIUM: Times of India (*), Nagpur Edition, Main



Claim objected to:

“India's best IAS Coaching”

















IAS as well as other courses. The advertiser is

claiming to be the best in India for IAS coaching.




CCC concluded that the claim, “India's best IAS

Coaching” was not substantiated with any market

survey data or with verifiable comparative data of the

advertiser’s coaching classes versus other similar

coaching classes, to prove that they are better than

the rest for IAS coaching, nor the claim was backed

by a third-party validation.



students. The print advertisement contravened

Chapters 1.1, 1.4 and 1.5 of the ASCI Code and

ASCI Guidelines for Advertising of Educational

Institutions and Programs. This complaint was

UPHELD.

69. @ 2012-C.2445 Sri Maniya International

Institute of Hotel Management

MEDIUM: Daily Thanthi, Nagercoil Edition,

Supplement Guru Payarchi Raasi Palangal (Mag)

(English) (02.11.2020)


Claim objected to:

“100% Job Opportunity”




Given the nature of the claim, the advertiser was

offered an option to seek Informal Resolution (IR) of

the complaint by modifying or withdrawing the claim

objected to in the advertisement. The advertiser was








observed that the advertiser is offering courses such

as B.sc in Hotel Management (3 Years), diploma in

Hotel Management (3 Years), diploma in Hotel

Management (2 Years And 1 Year), and diploma in

Hotel Management (2 Years And 1 Year)

government Certificate (yearly Exams). The

advertiser is claiming to provide job opportunity to

their students.




providing job opportunity to their students, the use of

100% numerical is not relevant for “job opportunity”


opportunity claim such as 40% or 80% opportunity.

The use of “100%” as a descriptor in the claim is







70. @ 2012-C.2448 WEEXPOINDIA

MEDIUM: EP Hindu (*), Coimbatore Edition, Main



Claim objected to:

“India’s Largest Virtual Education Show”
















observed that the advertiser is promoting a virtual

education show comprising 23 sessions, 7 workshops

and 4 keynotes. The advertiser is claiming that this

virtual education show is the largest in India.



advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “India’s

Largest Virtual Education Show” was not


advertiser’s virtual education show versus other

similar shows conducted in India, to prove that they

are largest than all the rest, nor the claim was backed

by a third-party validation. The claim is misleading

by exaggeration. The print advertisement contravened


Institutions and Programs as well as Chapters 1.1 and


1.4 of the ASCI Code. This complaint was

UPHELD.

71. @ 2012-C.2462 Shree Bhagwati Hospital

& Research Center

MEDIUM: Rajasthan Patrika (*), Sikar Edition,

Supplement Sikar Patrika (Hindi) (13.11.2020)


Claim objected to:

“24x7 Facility of Painless Normal Delivery with

Delivery Specialist”
















observed that advertiser is offering treatment for

Kidney stone, Appendix, Hernia, and various other

diseases, and is also offering maternity services. They

are claiming to provide `Facility of Painless Normal

Delivery’.






claim, “24x7 Facility of Painless Normal Delivery

with Delivery Specialist” was not objectionable. The

print advertisement is not in contravention of Chapter

I of the ASCI Code. This complaint was NOT

UPHELD.

72. @ 2012-C.2463 PS Group - Aurus

MEDIUM: Times of India (*), Bhubaneshwar



Claims objected to:

1.11th Estate Awards- Luxury Project of the Year

(East)

2. Credai Bengal Realty Awards- Best Upcoming

Residential Project

3. RealtyPlusAwards (East)- DesignProjectoftheYear
















observed that the advertiser is promoting residential

apartments – `Aurus’ and have made the claims on

the basis of the awards received for their project.

The CCC discussed that the advertiser did not

provide copy of the awards certificates, details of the

process for awards selection, criteria for granting the

awards, survey methodology, parameters considered,

questionnaires used, names of other similar projects

that were part of the surveys, the outcome of the

surveys, and details about the awarding bodies. Upon

careful consideration of the complaint, and in the

absence of response from the advertiser, the CCC

concluded that the claims, “11th Estate Awards-

Luxury Project of the Year (East)”, “CredaiBengal

Realty Awards- Best Upcoming Residential Project”,

and “Realty Plus Awards (East)- Design Project of

the Year”, were not substantiated with supporting

ranking data. The source for the claims was not

mentioned in the advertisement.



minds of consumers. The print advertisement

contravened Chapters 1.1, I.2, 1.4 and 1.5 of the

ASCI Code, and ASCI Guidelines for Usage of


was UPHELD.

73. @ 2012-C.2464 American Oncology

Institute

MEDIUM: EP Mathrubhumi (*), Kozhikode


Edition, Main Issue (Malayalam) (05.11.2020)


Claim objected to:

“Award Received For Its Competitive Strategy,

Innovation and Leadership at 2020 India Best

Practices Awards Ceremony Held At Hyderabad”
















observed that the advertiser has made the claim on

the basis of the award received by them.


provide copy of the award certificate, details of the

process for award selection, criteria for granting the

award, survey methodology, parameters considered,

questionnaires used, names of other similar institutes


survey, and details about the awarding body. Upon



concluded that the claim, “Award Received For Its

Competitive Strategy, Innovation and Leadership at

2020 India Best Practices Awards Ceremony Held At

Hyderabad”, was not substantiated with supporting

ranking data. The source for the claim was not

mentioned in the advertisement. The claim is


contravened Chapters I.1, I.2, and 1.4 of the ASCI



was UPHELD.

74. @ 2012-C.2465 Life Line Neuro Trauma

Center (Dr. Satish Kumar)

MEDIUM: EP Hindustan (*), Bareilly Edition, Main

Issue (Hindi) (29.11.2020)


Claim objected to:

“Honored with International Glory of India Award in

Singapore”
















observed that the advertiser is providing treatment for

headache, backache, brain tumour, migraine etc. and

has claimed to be ‘Honored with International Glory

of India Award in Singapore.’


provide copy of the award certificate, details of the

process for award selection, criteria for granting the

award, survey methodology, parameters considered,

questionnaires used, names of other similar centres


survey, and details about the awarding body. Upon



concluded that the claim, “Honored with International

Glory of India Award in Singapore”, was not

substantiated with supporting ranking data. The

source for the claim was not mentioned in the

advertisement. The claim is misleading by

exaggeration. The print advertisement contravened

Chapters I.1, I.2 and 1.4 of the ASCI Code, and ASCI

Guidelines for Usage of Awards/Rankings in


75. @ 2012-C.2466 Garg Maternity &

Surgical Hospital

MEDIUM: Dainik Bhaskar (*), Ambala Edition,

Supplement Ambala Bhaskar (English) (04.11.2020)


Claim objected to:



















maternity problems and is claiming to provide

`painless delivery’.









NOT UPHELD.

76. @ 2012-C.2467 Dawar Advance Dentals-

DAD's Clinic

MEDIUM: Times of India (*), Chandigarh Edition,

Supplement Times of Chandigarh (English)

(08.11.2020)


Claim objected to:

“We Promise you the Best, Most Advance Painless

and Most Economical Dental Treatment”

















dental problems and claiming to provide the `best,

most advance painless and most economical dental

treatment’.



CCC concluded that the claim, “We Promise you the

Best, Most Advance Painless and Most Economical

Dental Treatment” was not substantiated with market

survey data or with verifiable comparative data of the

advertiser’s dental clinic versus other dental clinics,

to prove that their treatment is better, more advanced,

painless and more economical than all the rest, nor

the claim was backed by a third-party validation.






AYUSH Complaint:

77. W 2012-C.2457 Kadaknath Agro World

(Kadaknath Black Vigor Powder)

MEDIUM: Facebook advertisements


Claims objected to:

1.For Power Stamina Vitality

2. 100% Organic Power Booster for Men!

“Looking like misleading advertising providing by

kadaknath...social media marketing”

CCC RECOMMENDATION:












did not avail but replied requesting for an extension

of date for closing the complaint under IR

mechanism. ASCI Secretariat offered them an


extension of two business days for IR or to provide

their exhaustive response within the timelines

provided for response.

Advertiser responded seeking time of two weeks for

submission of scientific studies in support of the

claims. The deadlines stipulated by Consumer

Complaints Council (CCC) procedure exist keeping

in mind the immediate and widespread impact that







before it as expeditiously as possible. Hence the

advertiser was not granted any furtherextension.

As the advertiser did not submit their response within

the given timelines, the complaint was processed for

CCC deliberations.

The CCC viewed the Facebook advertisement and

observed that the advertiser is promoting a power

product for men. However, the advertiser did not

submit any product specific details such as

composition, licence, pack artwork or samples, and

evidence of the ingredients present in the product.



concluded that the claims, “For Power Stamina

Vitality” and “For Power Stamina Vitality” were not

substantiated with product efficacy data. The claims

are misleading by exaggeration and are likely to lead

to widespread disappointment in the minds of

consumers. The Facebook advertisement contravened

Chapters 1.1, 1.4, and 1.5 of the ASCI Code. This


FSSAI Complaints:

78. @ 2012-C.2317 Phalada Agro Research

Foundations Pvt. Ltd – Phalada Pure & Sure

MEDIUM: Times of India (*), Chandigarh Edition,



Claims objected to:

1. India's Largest Range of Clean Food Products

2. 100% Certified Organic

3. 100% Organic Food Products

CCC RECOMMENDATION:






further guidance, which they availed and submitted

their written response.

For the claim, “India's Largest Range of Clean Food

Products”, the advertiser stated that “For the above

claim, the comparative data / analysis was done by

their internal team & while they do have the largest

range of product offerings compared to other similar

organic brands in the market, they do understand

that having a market survey data or a verifiable

independent 3rd party report is important to make

such a claim & they are willing to withdraw this

claim and make necessary corrections in all their

Ads.”

For the claims, “100% Certified Organic” and “100%

Organic Food Products”, the advertiser “enclosed

(NOP – Processing and NPOP – Processing) organic

certificates issued by LACON Quality Certification

Pvt Ltd which is a Government accredited agency for

organic products certification, and (FSSAI –

PhaladaAgro – 2019-2024) licence document issued

by FSSAI.”

Advertiser further provided NOP Processing and

NPOP Processing certificates with annexures.







opinion.

The advertiser did not opt for an IR but sought for a

meeting with the technical expert, which was

arranged by the ASCI Secretariat through Zoom

video conference.

Post meeting with the ASCI Secretariat and the

technical expert, the advertiser submitted the

following data - Central FSSAI Licensing &

Registration System-acknowledgment, 152K Form B

signed, NPOP–POCP, FSSAI– POCP, Gazette-

Notification-Organic-Food.

Based on the advertiser’s response and the additional

data submitted post meeting, the technical expert

submitted his final opinion for the Consumer

Complaints Council (CCC) to consider. The CCC

viewed the print advertisement and considered the


Technical expert presented at the meeting.



concluded that the claim, “India's Largest Range of

Clean Food Products” was not substantiated with

verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s range

of food products versus other similar organic food

products in India, to prove that their products are

larger than all the rest. The claim was also not backed

by an independent third-party report. The claim is


The CCC noted that the advertiser has agreed to

withdraw the said claim from their future

advertisements.

The CCC noted that the advertiser has agreed to

withdraw the said claim from their future

advertisements.


the advertiser did not provide any organic

certification for their product as per FSSAI

requirements. In the absence of evidence of their

product qualified to be produced organically, by a

certifying body, the claims, “100% Certified Organic”

and “100% Organic Food Products” were

inadequately substantiated and are misleading by

exaggeration.

The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4


79. OC 2012-C.2387 Hindustan Unilever

Ltd.(*)(Kissan Peanut Butter Creamy)

MEDIUM: Vijayavani, Bangalore edition

(04.10.2020)

Product Packaging

YouTube(*) (https://www.youtube.com/watc

h?v=L5mkjQyNnoE)(https://www.youtube.com/watc

h?v=fSbruznK4g)(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v

=Nti7zWriOFg)

ADVERTISING AGENCY: Lowe Lintas (*)


Claim objected to:

“With 100% Real Peanuts”

Complaint:

1. I have recently (in/around October 2020) come

across audio-visual advertisements for a product

namely ‘Kissan Peanut Butter Creamy’ (hereinafter

referred to as the impugned product) marketed by

HUL on YouTube, India. The video advertisements

of the impugned product are available on YouTube in

Kannada

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5mkjQyNnoE)

, Tamil (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-

SbruznK4g) and Malayalam

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nti7zWriOFg).

The impugned product is also being advertised in

dailies. Screenshots and pictures of the

aforementioned advertisements are marked and

attached as Annexure A. The advertisements show

that the impugned product claims to contain ‘100%

Real Peanuts’ (at the end of the audio- visual

advertisements), with the packaging of the product

(as depicted in the video and daily) containing the

claim ‘With 100% Real Peanuts’, which is displayed

prominently on the front side of the impugned

product.

2. Intrigued by the said advertisements and hoardings,

during my visit to Bangalore, I purchased the

impugned product (photographs attached) at the store

‘Peekay Mart’, in Benson Town, Bangalore, under

the impression that the product actually contains

100% Real Peanuts. The images of the product as

purchased are marked and attached as Annexure B.

Surprisingly, a perusal of the back side of the

impugned product, under the section ‘ingredients’

states the first ingredient to be ‘Roasted Peanuts

(90%)’. There is no additional information as to why

the impugned product is ‘With 100% RealPeanuts’.

3. It is beyond comprehension as to how HUL can

claim its impugned product to be ‘100% Real’ when

it is its admission that only the same contains only

‘90% Roasted Peanuts’. In fact, HUL has not

provided any justification for its use of the claim

‘100% Real’ and the same would in fact, cause a

consumer of average intelligence such as myself, to

purchase the product under the impression that the

impugned product is ‘100% real’ and ‘with 100% real

peanuts’. It is submitted that the impugned product’s

advertisements and packaging is highly misleading,

deceptive and amounts to unfair trade practices,

which not only causes confusion but also misleads the

consuming y A towards a wrong choice of selecting

and consuming a food article, which is in violation of

and contravention to the Code of Self- Regulation

prescribed by the Advertising Standards Council of

India (ASCI) in addition to the laws of Food Safety

and Standards.

4. I have studied ‘The Code of Advertising content in

India’ as prescribed by ASCI (hereinafter referred to

as ‘Code’) and Self-Regulation Guidelines on

Advertising of Foods & Beverages (hereinafter

referred to as ‘Guidelines’) and wish to rely on the

same:

a) Chapter 1 of the code provides for:

https://www.youtube.com/watc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSbruznK4g)(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nti7zWriOFg)



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5mkjQyNnoE)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5mkjQyNnoE)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-SbruznK4g)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-SbruznK4g)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nti7zWriOFg)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nti7zWriOFg)


“1.1. Advertisements to be truthful. All descriptions,

claims and comparisons which relate to matters of

objectively ascertainable fact should be capable of

substantiation.

1.4. Advertisements shall neither distort facts nor

mislead the consumer by means of implications or

omissions. Advertisements shall not contain

statements or visual presentation which directly or by

implication or by omission or by ambiguity or by

exaggeration are likely to mislead the consumer

about the product advertised or the advertiser or

about any product or advertiser.

1.5 Advertisements shall not be so framed as to abuse

the trust of consumers or exploit their lack of

experience or knowledge. No advertisement shall be

permitted to contain any claim so exaggerated as to

lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the

minds of the consumers.

1.6. Obvious untruths or exaggerations intended to

amuse or to catch the eye of the consumer are

permissible provided that they are clearly to be seen

as humorous or hyperbolic and not likely to be

understood as making literal or misleading claims for

the advertised product.”

b) The Guidelines provide that:

“8) Claims in advertisements should not be

consistent with information on the label or packaging

of the food or beverage.”

5. Additionally, I recently came across the press

release of ASCI regarding complaints that have been

adjudicated on during the months of June and July

2020. The Press Release is dated September 30, 2020

wherein I have found that an advertisement was held

to be in violation of the ASCI Code. Relevant extract

of the press release is as follows:

“For the claim, “100% Natural”, the advertiser

makes reference to 100 % natural origin. The said

product “RajatBhasma” is metallic in preparation.

Therefore, the CCC opined that using a metallic

perpetration to qualify a natural claim was incorrect.

Further, the advertiser also makes a reference to the

use of artificial fragrances.”

The abovementioned case substantiates that making a

claim of ‘100% Natural’, while in reality metallic and

artificial substances have been used for

manufacturing a product, is incorrect. The aforesaid

issue adjudicated upon is very similar to the present

case wherein the impugned product claims to have

‘100% Real Peanuts’ while the ingredient list

mentions that the product contains only 90% Roasted

Peanuts.

6. All in all, it is clear from the aforesaid that the

misleading advertisements of the impugned product

falsely representing the product to have ‘100% Real

Peanuts’ gives an impression of a superior quality

product which cannot be the case on account of the

factors mentioned above. Not only is the said act in

violation of the ASCI Code and Guidelines, but

would also constitute as misleading advertisement

under Section 24 of the Food and Safety Standards

Act which is punishable with a penalty of 3 lakh

rupees and10 Lakh Rupees, as provided under

Section 52 and Section 53 of the Act respectively.

7. It is by means of the abovementioned submissions

that the packaging of the impugned product is

misleading and is in clear violation of the Guidelines

and Code. In light of the abovementioned facts and

provisions of law, it is humbly prayed that:

i. All advertisements including audio/visual

advertisements in relation to HUL’s impugned

product claiming to have ‘100% Real Peanuts’ be

withdrawn;

ii. The term ‘100% Real’ is deleted/removed from the

packaging/label of the impugned product;

iii. All of such HUL’s impugned products reflecting

the misleading packaging/label be taken down from

the market;

iv. Pending proceeding, HUL may be directed to

suspend all advertisements as the same is against

public health and interest;

v. Cost of the proceedings be awarded tome;

vi. Any other relief may be granted as the Consumer

Complaints Council (CCC) of ASCI deem fit and

appropriate

CCC RECOMMENDATION:




complaint verbatim to the advertiser with a request to

respond to the same. The advertiser was offered an





Advertiser stated that “Made with” is essentially to

confirm the content of the product and to reassure the

consumer that only real peanuts are used in the

product and there are no faux nuts or other

substitutes used therein. It is essential and genuine

information to provide as a responsible company to

the prospective consumer and especially when the

product qualifies to use the phrase real for roasted

pea nuts in accordance with FSSAI claims


regulations. The term ‘with’ does not denote that the

product’s sole content is peanuts but rather only

informs that the product contains/has peanut. The

ingredient listing clearly shows the various

ingredients that are used in the product being:

Roasted Peanuts (90%), sugar, edible vegetable fat

and iodised salt which are necessary additives for

making peanut butter and hence, there is no

contradiction in the claim and ingredient

declarations made in relation to the product or in any

manner whatsoever. The term ‘with’ used in the

claim means and should be interpreted as something

that is in the product and does not mean that the

whole of it is comprised in the product.”

Advertiser provided copy of the Key visual for

`Kissan Peanut Butter’ that is used for print/outdoor

advertisements. The Consumer Complaints

Council (CCC) viewed the YouTube

advertisements in Kannada

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5mkjQyNnoE)

,Tamil (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-

SbruznK4g),and Malayalam

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nti7zWriOFg),

print advertisement, and product packaging, and

considered the advertiser’s response. The CCC

observed that the front of the pack claims, “With

100% Real* Peanuts” and the ingredients listed on

the back of pack are `Roasted Peanuts* (90%), sugar,

edible vegetable fat, iodisedsalt’. The CCC was of the

view that it is clear that the said claim in the

advertisement is only intended to communicate to

consumers that Peanuts are the main and essential

ingredients in Kissan Peanut Butter and does not in

any manner indicate that the product is made only of

Peanuts. The claim is connected to ingredient list and

the product makes a transparent declaration about

both the presence and quantity of peanuts in the

product. There is no contradiction in the claim and

ingredient declarations made in relation to the

product. The explanation given by advertiser with

regard to (*) mark on the product packaging was

acceptable to demonstrate the fact that all (100%) of

the peanuts used in the product are“real”.


the voice over claim in the YouTube advertisements,

“ 100% Real Peanuts”, pack shot claim, “With 100%

Real* Peanuts” in the print advertisement, and the

Product Packaging claim, “With 100% Real*

Peanuts”, is not objectionable, and hence not in


complaint was NOTUPHELD.

----------------------------------------------------------------

2101-CCC.28


[email protected]

80. $ 2012-C.2419 Dabur India Ltd(*) (Dabur

Sanitize Plus Antiseptic Liquid)

MEDIUM: ABP Maza (09.12.2020) (8:00 pm)


Claim objected to:

“Kills COVID-19 Virus*”

Complaint:

“Mamata Athalye, Volunteer, Mumbai Grahak

Panchayat. Dabur 3 in 1 sanitizer ad on TV channel

ABP Maza, seen on 9/12/2020 at 8.00pm Ad shows

in bold letters on screen that this sanitizer kills

Covid19 virus. How can they make such a claim

when the entire world is waiting for the vaccine?

Totally misleading ad for consumers. The ad shown

in your mail is the same against which I made the

complaint.”

CCC RECOMMENDATION:










In response to the complaint the advertiser stated that,

“the product complained against was tested to check

the virucidal in-vitro activity against SARS CoV- 2

virus which is responsible for Covid-19. The test

was carried out by an internationally renowned Virus

testing lab at the University of Utah, USA.”

As claim support data, the advertiser submitted the

test report of University of Utah, USA, copy of TVC,

and front and back image of the product packaging.


claim support data were referred to an independent



submissions, if any.

In response to the expert opinion, the advertiser

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5mkjQyNnoE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-SbruznK4g

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-SbruznK4g

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nti7zWriOFg



further submitted copy of manufacturing license of

the product issued by the Drug Authorities, list of

chemical compounds that are effective against Covid-

19 as the CDC, and original test report of Utah

University.

Based on the advertiser’s additional response with the

claim support data, the technical expert submitted his

final opinion for the Consumer Complaints Council

(CCC) to consider.

The CCC viewed the TVC (in Marathi) and



meeting.

The CCC observed that the product - `Dabur Sanitize

Plus’ has been tested at the Institute of Antiviral

Research, Utah State University, USA, to check the

virucidal in-vitro activity against SARS CoV- 2

virus, which is responsible for causingCovid-19.

According to test reports submitted, the product was

found to be effective in killing the SARS CoV- 2

Virus. The CCC also noted that the manufacturing

license of the product issued by FDA classified

Dabur Sanitize Plus as a ‘Drug’. Furthermore, the

ingredients used in the formula are a combination of

Chlorxylenol, Terpeniol and Alcohol, which are

known to provide germ protection, disinfection, and

antiseptic benefits.

The CCC discussed that the product is an antiseptic,

disinfectant liquid, which is meant for external use.

The liquid is supposed to be used either as a surface

disinfectant or for first aid/ personal hygiene

purposes, and the same has no relation with the

Covid-19 Vaccine as was being linked by the

complainant.

Based on the advertiser’s response with the

supporting data provided, the CCC concluded that the

claim, “Kills COVID-19 Virus*”, was adequately

substantiated. The TVC is not in contravention of


NOT UPHELD.

81. W 2012-C.2450 Shivom Industries –(Nova

Cream)

MEDIUM: Zee Cinema(*), (17.12.2020)(8:48PM)


"Nova cream is using the corona virus in ad. Which

makes no sense. Watched on Zee Cinema (Telugu)

8:48PM, 17 Dec 2020.

Challenge: Irrelevant usage of CORONA in the

advertisement, makes the people connect between

Nova and Corona. Misleading the COVID-19

advisory.”

















The CCC viewed the TVC (in Hindi) which depicts a

girl using the product advertised - `Nova cream’ and

the doorbell rings. The girl opens the door and sees

that her mother has returned, and she hugs her

mother. Towards the end of the advertisement an

image of a Coronavirus is shown with a message that

reads, “Corona par jeet haasilkarnekeliyebadhaai ho

Maa”. The end frame of the advertisement shows

the pack shot of the product.

The CCC observed that the advertiser is promoting a

skin cream, which has no relation with COVID-19.


the absence of response from the advertiser, and

given the current pandemic situation, the CCC was of

the view that the advertisement is likely to mislead

consumers that the product advertised is used for

treating patients infected with Coronavirus (COVID-

19). There was no disclaimer in the advertisement to

mention that “Claim not applicable to coronavirus

(COVID-19)” or a similar message, to convey that

the product is not related to Coronavirus diseases

(COVID-19). The CCC concluded that the TVC is


widespread disappointment in the minds of

consumers. The TVC contravened the Chapters 1.4

and 1.5 of the ASCI Code, and ASCI’S Advisory for

Advertisers On Covid-19 Claims. This complaint was

UPHELD.

82. $ 2012-C.2451 Nissan Motors India

Pvt.Ltd (Nissan Magnite)

MEDIUM: Brochure


Hindustan Times(*), Delhi, (04.12.2020),


“This is to bring to your kind notice that “Nissan

Motor India Pvt. Ltd.” has recently released a print

advertisement in Hindustan Times Newspaper dated

4th December 2020, in their Delhi edition (attached

for your reference) where they have showcased their

new automobile by the name Magnite. In the

advertisement, there are certain claims which I feel

are misleading. In fact, it’s quite remarkable that they

went through with it. Not just their print

advertisement, this was circulated across other

mediums as well like brochures and websites. As an

automobile enthusiast, I keep a track of new car

launches and the features they offer to make the right

choice, however, the claim which Nissan is making

with Magnite is preposterous. This is completely

unacceptable and we would like some explanation for

this. It gives us a sense that such companies don’t

have any conscience and want to take undue

advantage of the lack of knowledge the customer

might have.

The claims being:

1. Best-in-class Wireless Connectivity to Android

Auto & Apple CarPlay

There is no explanation for how their wireless

connectivity is Best-in-class. The UI and overall

experience of other brands can be better.

Exaggeration is not a way to make your way in the

market. Hence this claim is without any measured

basis and is misleading.

2.Best-in-class Fuel Economy (20 kmpl*)

In their advertisement, the company has claimed the

fuel economy to be the best, but there is no validation

of who has certified this 20 kmpl mileage. Is it

through internal testing or through the Automotive

Research Authority of India? Also, it is not clear that

this mileage is for which engine type. Even their

claim of being best-in-class has no measurable basis.

Hence this claim seems to be false and misleading.

It’s so easy for a naïve customer to fall into this hole

Nissan has created.

3.Best-in-class Rear Knee Room (593 mm):

There is no T&C for the claim and no class definition

so it leaves a lot for the imagination.

4. Best-in-class LED Headlamps, DRLs & Fog

Lamps:

How can they make a claim for bestin class

performance of the headlamps as other brands like

Brezza and Sonet have LED headlamps? Are they

saying they are illuminating more light? The

absurdity is quite concerning.

Due to such miscommunication, consumers like us

who keep a track of the automotive industry get

misinformed and it is quite sad that companies like

Nissan Motors India Pvt. Ltd keeps its customers in

the dark and is not transparent with them at all.

Such advertisements should be removed from all

mediums and the company should give a written

explanation on what basis these claims have been

made".

CCC RECOMMENDATION:









replied seeking extension of a week’s time to submit

their written response to the complaint.










before it as expeditiously as possible.

However, as a special gesture, the advertiser was

granted the desired extension.

The advertiser in their response submitted point-wise

reply to the objections raised in the complaint. In

response to the claim, “Best-in-class Wireless

Connectivity to Android Auto & Apple CarPlay”, the

advertiser stated that “the current competition offers

Android Auto and Apple CarPlay only via USB

connectivity, i.e., mobiles connected through wire to

the USB port in the car, however, Nissan Magnite

offers wireless connectivity to Android Auto & Apple

CarPlay in select models and hence makes it hassle

free for the customer. Except Kia Sonet, no other

competitor offers wireless connectivity to Android

Auto and Apple CarPlay.”

In reference to the claim, “Best-in-class Fuel

Economy (20 kmpl*)” the advertiser stated that,

“Nissan Magnite’s 20Kmpl fuel economy is on the

1.0L Turbo Manual variant and this is certified by

ARAI as well.” The advertiser further mentioned fuel


economy of other competition brands.

In response to the claim, “Best-in-class Rear Knee

Room (593 mm)”, the advertiser stated “that the

claim is made by Nissan for B SUV segment in which

the said model operates” and mentioned details of

competition brands. Inresponse to the claim, “Best-

in-class LED Headlamps, DRLs & Fog Lamps”, the

advertiser stated that “Nissan Magnite has B-

Projector LED Headlamp, a Separate L shaped LED

Day-time running lamp on bumper and LED fog

lamps. The combination of all three LED (Bi-

functional Projector Headlamps + DRLs + Fog

Lamps) is not present in competitors currently and

hence, Magnite is best in the segment.” The

advertiser mentioned competition data for reference.

As claim support data, the advertiser submitted - (1)

SIAM Fuel Economy Consumer Information (Test

result of rule 115 of CMVR), (2) Copy of print

advertisement, (3) Copy of the car brochure.


requested the advertiser to provide verifiable third-

party comparative data to show that they were the

'Best-in-class' among their competitors.

Advertiser responded that the comparison was done

based on the declarations made by the respective

manufacturers/ OEMs. The advertiser had taken the

data from auto portals like Team BHP which are

independent third parties, for claims whose details

were not available on their competitor’s website or

their social media platform.

Advertiser further stated that “regarding the claim

'Best-in-class Fuel Economy (20 kmpl*)' the ARAI

certificate has already attached. Regarding the data

relating to Kia Sonet for "Best-in-class Rear Knee

Room (593 mm)", appended below are the link for

third-party comparative comment & analysis, where

it is mentioned clearly that the rear space for Kia

Sonet is lesser than Nissan Magnite -

https://mynewcar.in/blog/buying-advice/nissan-

magnite-rear-seat-comparison-with-venue-and-sonet,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoI3z4jtic8.”

The CCC viewed the print advertisement and the Ad

– brochure and considered the advertiser’s response.

The CCC observed that the advertiser had collated

data of their competitors in the market and compared

the same with their product. However, an

independent third-party validation was not provided

in substantiation of the claims.

The CCC also observed that the brochure promoted

all the variants of the Nissan Magnite. The CCC was

of the view that since the advertisement was for all

variants, features could differ for all the models in the

segment. With respect to the claim, 'Best-in-class

Fuel Economy (20 kmpl*)' the ARAI certificate was

viewed by the CCC. It was noted that for the claim,

"Best-in-class Rear Knee Room (593 mm)",the

advertiser did not provide data for `Kia Sonet’, but

referred to links of online reviews

(https://mynewcar.in/blog/buying-advice/nissan-

magnite-rear-seat-comparison-with-venue-and-sonet,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoI3z4jtic8)

which stated that the rear space for Kia Sonet was

less than that of the Nissan Magnite. The CCC

opined that online reviews cannot be construed as

third-party data and the same cannot be relied upon

for making such claims.

There was no comparative data by an official testing

authority to show that tests were done under certain

test conditions. The advertiser has selectively chosen

few model variants, and the claims are not consistent

with the data provided.


the claims, “Best-in-class Wireless Connectivity to

Android Auto & Apple Car Play”, “Best-in-class

Fuel Economy (20 kmpl*)”, “Best-in-class Rear

Knee Room (593 mm)”, and “Best-in-class LED

Headlamps, DRLs & Fog Lamps”, were inadequately

substantiated. The claims are misleading by

exaggeration.

The print advertisement and the Ad – Brochure



83. Suo motu 2101-C.2484 Anveya Living

Private Limited (ThriveCo Hair Growth Serum)

MEDIUM: Instagram advertisement


Claims objected to:

1. Upto 50% more density

2. Upto 30% less shedding

3. Get the WORLD’s most advance biotech for HAIR

growth, now in India










https://mynewcar.in/blog/buying-advice/nissan-magnite-rear-seat-comparison-with-venue-and-sonet


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoI3z4jtic8



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoI3z4jtic8







The CCC viewed the Instagram advertisement and

observed that the advertiser is promoting a hair care

product- `ThriveCo Hair Growth Serum’ for hair

growth. Advertiser did not provide copy of the

product label, copy of Product approval license, and

Product composition details.



advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claims, “Upto

50% more density” and “Upto 30% less shedding”

were not substantiated with product efficacy data.

The claim, “Get the WORLD’s most advance biotech

for HAIR growth, now in India” was not


advertiser’s product versus similar hair growth serum

products in the world, to prove that their product is

most advance biotech for hair growth than all the

rest. The claim was also not backed by a third-party

validation.



minds of consumers particularly people suffering

from various hair thinning issues. The Instagram



NAMS Complaints:

84. @ 2101-C.2052 Aappearance Salon &

Academy

MEDIUM: EP Prabhat Khabar, Siliguri Edition,

Main Issue(English)(01.12.2020)


Claim objected to:

“100% placement guarantee for 5 month courses”
















observed that the advertiser is offering coaching for

basic diploma and advanced diploma beauty courses.



concluded that the claim, "100% placement guarantee

for 5 month courses” was not substantiated with





placed through their academy in beauty industry on


















85. @ 2101-C.2059 Alard Charitable Trust-

Alard Group of Institutes

MEDIUM: Times of India(*), Pune Edition,Main



Claim objected to:
















complaint.


observed that the advertiser is claiming that it

provides placement assistance to their students. Upon

careful consideration of the complaint and in the

absence of any response from the advertiser, the CCC

concluded that while the advertiser may be providing

placement assistance to their students for getting jobs

in relevant industries, the use of 100% numerical is

not relevant for “Placement Assistance” claim. There

cannot be a percentage assigned to any assistance

claim such as 40% or 80% assistance. The use of

“100%” as a descriptor in the claim is misleading by

implication and is likely to lead to widespread

disappointment in the minds of students. The print



as well as Chapters 1.4 and 1.5 of the ASCI Code.


86. @ 2012-C.2089 L-1 Coaching

MEDIUM: EP Hindustan(*), Varanasi Edition, Main

Issue,(English),(06.10.2020)


Claim objected to:

“First see free YouTube videos of best faculty in

India then join it”
















observed that the advertiser’s coaching centre is

providing coaching for IIT-JEE and NEET exams.



CCC concluded that the claim, “First see free

YouTube videos of best faculty in India then join it”

was not substantiated with any market survey data or


faculty versus faculties of other coaching centres in

India, to prove that their faculty is better than the rest.

The claim was also not backed by a third-party



the minds of consumers. The print advertisement

contravened Chapters 1.1, 1.4, and 1.5 of the ASCI


87. @ 2101-C.2109 Bharat Ratna Indira

Gandhi College of Engineering (BIGCE)

MEDIUM: EP Lokmat, Solapur Edition, Main Issue

(Marathi)(10.12.2020)


Claims objected to:

1. Best university results

2. 100% Placement Support for Employment

















courses such as M.Tech, B.Tech, and diploma. The

advertiser is claiming that their university’s results

are best and also that they provide 100% placement

support to their students. Upon careful consideration

of the complaint and in the absence of any response

from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the

claim, “Best university results” was not substantiated

with any market survey data or with verifiable

comparative data of the advertiser’s college’s results


versus other results of other colleges, to prove that

they have their results are better than the rest. The

claim was also not backed by a third-party validation.

Further, the CCC deliberated that while the advertiser

may be providing placement support to their students

for getting jobs in relevant industries, the use of


Support for Employment” claim. There cannot be a

percentage assigned to any support claim such as









88. @ 2101-C.2113 Adarsh Hospital

MEDIUM:EP Dainik Jagran(*), Kanpur Edition,



Claim objected to:

“The best center for women and pregnancy care”
















observed that the advertiser is claiming their hospital

to be best centre for women and pregnancy care.



CCC concluded that the claim, “The best center for

women and pregnancy care” was not substantiated

with any market survey data or with verifiable

comparative data of the advertiser’s centre versus

other similar centres, to prove that they are better

than the rest. The claim was also not backed by a

third-party validation. The claim is misleading by





89. @ 2101-C.2128 Jamshedpur Women's

College

MEDIUM: Dainik Bhaskar(*), Jamshedpur Edition,



Claim objected to:















complaint.



various courses such as M.B.A, M.Sc., B.Sc., etc.

The advertiser is also claiming that it provides

placement assistance to their students. Upon careful



that while the advertiser may be providing placement

assistance to their students for getting jobs in relevant







the minds of students. The print advertisement



Chapters 1.4 and 1.5 of the ASCI Code. This



90. @ 2101-C.2131 KLE Society-KLE

College of Engineering &Technology

MEDIUM: Vijay Karnataka(*), Gulbarg Edition,

Supplement NammaGulbarg (English) (13.12.2020)


Claims objected to:

1. Learn with the Leader to become a Leader


















various courses such as Civil Engineering,

Mechanical Engineering, Electronics and

Communication Engineering etc. The advertiser is

also claiming their college to be a leader and that it

provides placement assistance to their students. Upon



concluded that the claim, “Learn with the Leader to

become a Leader” was not substantiated with

verifiable comparative data, of the advertiser’s

college versus similar colleges, to prove that they are

in leadership position than the others. The claim was

also not backed by a third-party validation. The

claim is misleading by exaggeration and is likely to


students.

The CCC deliberated that while the advertiser may be



numerical is not relevant for “Placement Assistance”


assistance claim such as 40% or 80% assistance. The

use of “100%” as a descriptor in the claim is





and Programs as well as Chapters1.1, 1.4 and 1.5 of


91. @ 2101-C.2227 Regency College Hotel

Management & Catering Technology

MEDIUM:EP Lokmat, Aurangabad Edition,

Supplement Hello Aurangabad (English)

(13.12.2020)


Claim objected to:

“100% Placements”
















observed that the advertiser is guaranteeing

placement to their students on completion of their

hotel management courses. Upon careful



the claim, “100% Placements” was not substantiated





placed through their college in Hotel industry on



















92. @ 2101-C.2402 Sumitra Institute of

Nursing and Paramedical Sciences

MEDIUM: EP Dainik Jagran (*),New Delhi Edition,



Claim objected to:

"100% Placement Assured"
















observed that the advertiser is offering coaching for

B,Sc. Nursing, GNM and ANM courses. Upon



concluded that the claim, "100% Placement Assured”

was not substantiated with authentic supporting data

such as batch size of students per year, detailed list of




Heathcare industry on completion of their courses,

their appointment letters, list of students who were

not placed and the reason for their non-placement,

nor any independent audit or verification certificate.





placed class.










93. @ 2101-C.2404 The Digital Space

MEDIUM: Mathrubhumi(*), Alappuzha Edition,



Claim objected to:

"100% job assistance"


The ASCI approached the concerned Media

(Mathrubhumi) for their assistance in providing the

contact details of the advertiser, or to forward the

complaint to the advertiser. The Consumer


was received from the advertiser or from the

concerned media prior to the prescribed due date for

this complaint.



online digital marketing training course. The

advertiser is also claiming that it provides job

assistance to their students. Upon careful



that while the advertiser may be providing job

assistance to their students for getting jobs in relevant


for “Job Assistance” claim. There cannot be a





the minds of students. The print advertisement



Chapters 1.4 and 1.5 of the ASCI Code. This


94. @ 2101-C.2427 Ashoka Medicover

Hospitals

MEDIUM: EP Daily Sakal(*), Nasik Edition, Main


Issue(Marathi)(13.12.2020)


Claim objected to:

1. The Best Doctors

2. The most advanced sophisticated intensive care

unit in North Maharashtra
















observed that the advertiser is claiming that they have

the best doctors and most advanced sophisticated

intensive care unit in North Maharashtra. Upon



concluded that the claims, “The Best Doctors” and

“The most advanced sophisticated intensive care unit

in North Maharashtra” were not substantiated with


comparative data of the advertiser’s hospital versus

other similar hospitals in North Maharashtra, to prove

that they have better doctors and that their intensive

care unit is more advanced than all the rest. The

claims were also not backed by third-party validation.






95. @ 2101-C.2432 Divya Diagnostic

MEDIUM: EP Amar Ujala(*), Moradabad Edition,

Main Issue Hindi) (13.12.2020)


Claim objected to:

“Moradabad's most reputed diagnostic centre”
















observed that the advertiser’s diagnostic centre is

providing facilities such as C.T. Scan, Ultrasound,

Digital X-ray, Pathology and O.P.G. The CCC

observed that the advertiser is claiming to be

Moradabad's leading and most reputed diagnostic

centre. Upon careful consideration of the complaint

and in the absence of any response from the


“Moradabad's most reputed diagnostic centre” was

not substantiated with any market survey data or with


diagnostic centre versus other similar diagnostic

centres in Moradabad, to prove that they are more

reputed than the rest. The claim was also not backed

by third-party validation. The claim is misleading by





96. @ 2021- C.2434 Elation Hair & Skin

Clinic

MEDIUM:EP Ananda Bazar Patrika, Kolkata

Edition, Supplement Rabibasariya (Bengali)

(13.12.2020)


Claim objected to:

“Most advance hair regrowth, plastic surgery and

cosmetic skin treatment clinic”

















observed that the advertiser’s clinic is providing

treatment for skin, hair regrowth, plastic surgery.



CCC concluded that the claim, “Most advance hair

regrowth, plastic surgery and cosmetic skin treatment

clinic” was not substantiated with verifiable

comparative data of the advertiser’s clinic versus

other similar clinics providing similar type of

treatments, to prove that they are more advanced than

the rest. The claim was also not backed by third-party



the minds of consumers, especially those suffering

from hair and skin problems. The print advertisement



97. @ 2101-C.2439 Farmson Enviro Care Pvt

Ltd

MEDIUM: Divya Bhaskar(*), Vadodara Edition,

Main Issue (Gujarati) (05.12.2020)


Claim objected to:

“Gujarat's most trusted solar rooftop & water heater

company since 17 years”
















observed that the advertiser is promoting solar

rooftops and water heaters. Upon careful



that the claim, “Gujarat's most trusted solar rooftop &

water heater company since 17 years” was not

substantiated with any market survey data or with

verifiable comparative data on year on year basis for

17 years as claimed, of the advertiser’s company

versus other similar companies providing solar

rooftops and water heaters in Gujarat, to prove that

their company is more trusted than the others, nor the

claim was backed by a third-party validation.






98. @ 2101-C.2447 Jaipur National

University Hospital

MEDIUM: Times of India (*), Jaipur Edition, Main



Claim objected to:

“Experience the best of diagnostic and treatment

services at every step”

















various treatment services in the field of cardiac

science, neuro science, pediatric surgery, cancer,

urologyetc. Upon careful consideration of the

complaint and in the absence of any response from



“Experience the best of diagnostic and treatment

services at every step” was not substantiated with any

market survey data or with verifiable comparative

data of the advertiser’s hospital versus other hospitals

to prove that their diagnostic and treatment services

are better than the rest, nor the claim was backed by a

third-party validation.






99. @ 2012-C.2469 Nucleus Mother and

Child Super Speciality Hospital

MEDIUM: Dainik Bhaskar(*), Nagpur Edition,

Supplement Nagpur Bhaskar (English) (08.11.2020)


Claim objected to:

“Painless Labor”

















facilities like pediatric services, fertility care and

comprehensive gynecology set up etc.

The CCC discussed that the painless labor is





claim, “Painless Labor” was not objectionable. The

print advertisement is not in contravention of Chapter

I of the ASCI Code. This complaint was NOT

UPHELD.

100. @ 2012-C.2470 Sarex Power Solution (P)

Ltd (SPS) - Sarex Range of Products

MEDIUM: EP Amar Ujala(*), Aligarh Edition,



Claim objected to:

“Brand Icon Award by Times of India – Winner of

2018-19”

CCC RECOMMENDATION:









telecon with the ASCI Secretariat to seek further

guidance, which they did not avail but submitted their

written response.

In response to the objection raised in the complaint,

the advertiser stated that they are manufacturers of

Batteries and had won the award as claimed, twice in

2018and in 2019 from TOI (Times of India).

As claim support data, the advertiser provided a

photograph of the award, photograph of the award

function, and copy of a press article related of Brand

Icons 2018 titled `Recognising Excellence in

Industry’.


requested the advertiser to provide the details of the

survey methodology, details of selection process for

the award, and any financial transaction for

participating and/or receiving such award. Advertiser

did not submit the required information within the

given timelines.


considered the advertiser’s response. The CCC

observed that the advertiser was granted `Brand Icon’

awards by Times of India in 2018 and 2019.

Advertiser provided photograph of the Brand Icon

award which they had won in 2019 for being

`Excellence in Business’. However, the photograph

of the award is by itself not sufficient evidence to

support the claim. Additionally, details on the

protocol/process followed by the awarding

organization is required to substantiate the claim,

which was not provided by the advertiser despite

ASCI’s request.



concluded that the claim, “Brand Icon Award by

Times of India – Winner of 2018-19”, was not

substantiated with supporting data for 2018 and 2019

such as details of the process for selection of the

award, criteria for granting the award, survey

methodology, parameters considered, questionnaires

used, names of other manufacturers of batteries that

were part of the survey, the outcome of the survey,

and details about the awarding body. The claim is


contravened Chapters I1.1 and 1.4 of the ASCI Code,

and ASCI Guidelines for Usage of Awards//Rankings

in Advertisements. This complaint was UPHELD.

101. @ 2012-C.2471 Chhajed Buildwell Pvt.

Ltd - Aashirwad City

MEDIUM: Rajasthan Patrika(*), Ajmer Edition,

Main Issue(Hindi) (14.11.2020)


Claim objected to:

“No.1 Affordable Housing Project of Beawar

(Rajasthan)”
















observed that the advertiser is promoting their

housing project – ‘Aashirwad City’ claiming it to be

`No.1 Affordable housing project of Beawar’. Upon



concluded that the leadership claim, “No.1

Affordable Housing Project of Beawar (Rajasthan)”


data of the advertiser’s housing project and other

housing projects in Beawar, Rajasthan, to prove that

the advertiser’s project is in leadership position (No.

1). The claim was not backed by a third-party



the minds of consumers. The print advertisement



102. @ 2012-C.2473 Manglam Aadhar

(Mangalam-Aadhar Prime)

MEDIUM: Dainik Bhaskar(*), Jaipur Edition,

Supplement Jaipur Realty (Hindi) (12.11.2020)


Claim objected to:

“No.1 project, builder, quality, location investment

and facility management”

















housing project - `Aadhar Prime’ claiming it to be

No.1 project. Upon careful consideration of the


the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the leadership

claim, “No.1 project, builder, quality, location

investment and facility management” was not


advertiser’s project and other similar projects of other

real estate builders, to prove that they are in

leadership position (No.1) in terms of project,

builder, quality, location, investment, and facility

management. The claim was not backed by a third-




advertisement contravened Chapters1.1, 1.4 and 1.5



103. @ 2021-C.2485 Ramraj Cotton Mills-

(Ramraj Dhotis & Shirts)

MEDIUM: Ramraj Cotton Mills- (Ramraj Dhotis &

Shirts)


Claims objected to:

1. 99.94% effective against virus

2. Anti-Viral Dhotis, Shirts

















product - shirts and dhotis claiming it to be `Anti-

viral’ and `99.94% effective against viruses’. Upon


absence of any comments or response from the

advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claims,

“99.94% effective against virus” and “Anti-Viral

Dhotis, Shirts” were not substantiated with technical

data / test reports for the product efficacy claims.






104. @ 2101-C.2486 Rathi Women's Hospital

MEDIUM: Times of India(*), Ahmedabad Edition,

Supplement AhmedabadTimes (English)

(13.12.2020)


Claim objected to:

“Awarded 94.3 my fm award for excellence in

pregnancy care”
















observed that the advertiser’s hospital is a pregnancy

care centre and is providing 24 hours delivery

facility, infertility treatment, menopause treatments

etc. The advertiser is claiming to be awarded 94.3 my

fm award for excellence in pregnancy care. Upon



concluded that the claim, “Awarded 94.3 my fm

award for excellence in pregnancy care” was not

substantiated with copy of the award certificate,

details of the process for selection for award, criteria

for granting the award, survey methodology,


other hospitals that were part of the survey, the

outcome of the survey, and details about the


mentioned in the advertisement.




Chapters 1.1, 1.2, 1.4 and 1.5 of the ASCI Code, and

ASCI Guidelines for Usage of Awards/ Rankings in


105. @ 2101-C.2487 Waaree Energies Ltd.-

Soham Solar Solutions

MEDIUM: Divya Bhaskar (*), Vadodara Edition,

Main Issue (Gujarati) (05.12.2020)


Claim objected to:

“The most reliable brand”

















observed that the advertiser is promoting their solar

products. Upon careful consideration of the



“The most reliable brand” was not substantiated with


comparative data of the advertiser’s product versus

other solar products, to prove that they are more

reliable than the others, nor the claim was backed by

a third-party validation. The claim is misleading by





106. @ 2101-C.2488 Sahu Palace-(Sahu Range

of Products)

MEDIUM: EP Dainik Jagran(*), Gorakhpur Edition,



Claim objected to:

“No.1 export quality”


The ASCI approached the concerned Media (Dainik

Jagran) for their assistance in providing the contact

details of the advertiser, or to forward the complaint

to the advertiser. The Consumer Complaints Council


advertiser or from the concerned media prior to the

due date for this complaint.


observed that the advertiser is promoting various

products such as metal laundry, sewing machine, heat

blocker etc. Upon careful consideration of the

complaint, and in the absence of any response from

the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the leadership

claim, “No.1 export quality” was not substantiated


product versus other similar products, to prove that

they are in leadership position (No.1) for their export

quality. The claim was also not backed by a third-






107. @ 2101-C.2489 ADCC Academy Pvt. Ltd

MEDIUM: EP Lokmat, Nagpur Edition, Supplement

Hello Nagpur (English) (27.12.2020)


Claim objected to:

“100% Job Assistance”














complaint.



health care sector skill council courses and is

claiming to provide 100% Job Assistance to their

students.




job assistance to their students for getting jobs in

relevant industries, the use of 100% numerical is not

relevant for “100% Job Assistance” claim. There





disappointment in the minds of students.



and Programs, as well as Chapters 1.4 and 1.5 of the



108. @ 2101-C.2490 Signoraware Appliances -

Signora Rice Dispenser

MEDIUM: Times of India (*), Chennai Edition,



Claim objected to:

“India's No.1 Brand since 40 years”















observed that the advertiser is promoting rice

dispenser and is claiming `India's No.1 Brand since

40 years’.



CCC concluded that the claim, “India's No.1 Brand

since 40 years” was not substantiated with verifiable

comparative data year wise for 40 years as claimed,

of the advertiser’s product versus other brands of rice

dispensers in India, to prove that it is in leadership

position (No.1) than the rest in terms of value or

volume share. The claim was not backed by a third-


exaggeration. The print advertisement contravened

the Chapters 1.1 and 1.4 of the ASCI Code. This


109. @ 2101-C.2492 The Happy Living

Imperia

MEDIUM: Sandesh, Ahmedabad Edition, Main

Issue (Gujarati) (04.12.2020)


Claim objected to:

“World's best laser hair removal technology”














The CCC viewed the print advertisement (in

Gujrathi) and observed that the advertiser is

providing laser hair removal treatment and other

beauty treatments. The advertiser is claiming that it

uses `World's best laser hair removal technology’.



CCC concluded that the claim, “World's best laser

hair removal technology” was not substantiated with


comparative data of the advertiser versus other

beauty salons/clinics worldwide to prove that their

laser hair removal technology is better than the rest,

nor the claim was backed by a third-party validation.


advertisement contravened Chapters 1.1 and 1.4 of


110. @ 2101-C.2505 Headmasters Salon Pvt

Ltd

MEDIUM: Dainik Bhaskar(*), Chandigarh Edition,

Supplement Chandigarh Bhaskar (Hindi)

(20.12.2020)


Claim objected to:

“100% Job Guarantee”

















observed that the advertiser is offering beauty and

nail art diploma courses and claiming 100% job

guarantee to its students.



concluded that the claim, “100% Job Guarantee” was

not substantiated with authentic supporting data, such

as batch size of students per year, detailed list of

















Institutions and Programs as well as Chapters 1.1, 1.4

and 1.5 of the ASCI Code, and ASCI Guidelines for




111. @ 2101-C.2507 Maheswari Group of

Institution

MEDIUM: Sambad, Rourkela Edition, Main Issue

(English) (08.12.2020)


Claim objected to:















complaint.



training in various fields like nursing, pharma, allied

medical services courses etc,. and is claiming to

provide 100% Placement Assistance to their students.
















112. @ 2101-C.2508 Meridian Nursing &

Paramedical College

MEDIUM: EP Dainik Jagran(*), Varanasi Edition,



Claim objected to:

“100% Job Placement”

















observed that the advertiser is providing nursing and

para medical courses and is claiming to provide

100% job placement to its students.



concluded that the claim, “100% Job Placement” was

not substantiated with authentic supporting data, such

as batch size of students per year, detailed list of



students who were placed through their college in
















Code, and ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers made in



113. @ 2021-C.2509 Raghunath Girl’s Post

Graduate College

MEDIUM: EP Dainik Jagran(*), Meerut Edition,



Claim objected to:














complaint.


observed that the advertiser is providing post

graduate diploma in geoinformatics and is claiming

to provide 100% Placement Support to their students.




placement support to their students for getting jobs in


relevant for “Placement Support” claim. There cannot

be a percentage assigned to any support claim such as









114. @ 2101-C.2510 Rajas Institute of Allied

Health Sciences

MEDIUM: Daily Thanthi, Tirunelveli Edition, Main

Issue (Hindi) (19.12.2020)


Claim objected to:


















B.Sc. education and training courses in the field of

health science and claiming to provide 100%

Placement to their students.




concluded that the claim, “100% Placement” was not

substantiated with authentic supporting data, such as























115. @ 2101-C.2511 Rebonding Junction

Academy

MEDIUM: EP Amar Ujala(*), Nainital Edition,

Supplement My City (English) (23.12.2020)


Claim objected to:

“100% Job Assistance”














complaint.


observed that the advertiser is providing training for

beauty courses for hair, skin, makeup, etc. and is

claiming to provide 100% job assistance to their

students.




job assistance to their students for getting jobs in


relevant for “Job Assistance” claim. There cannot be

a percentage assigned to any assistance claim such as









116. @ 2101-C.2512 Padmashri Sumatibai

Vidyapeeth Trust- Seth Ratanchand Sakharam

Shah Industrial Training Institute

MEDIUM: EP Lokmat, Solapur Edition, Main Issue

(Marathi) (27.12.2020)


Claim objected to:

“100% Employment to Students”
















observed that the advertiser is providing industrial

education and training for mechanic, electrician,

welder, etc, and is claiming to provide 100%

employment to students.



concluded that the claim, “100% employment to

students” was not substantiated with authentic


supporting data, such as batch size of students per






















117. @ 2101-C.2513 Siliguri Terai B.ED

College & Siliguri Primary Teachers Training

College

MEDIUM: EP Dainik Jagran(*), Siliguri Edition,



Claim objected to:


















B.Ed. and teachers training to students and is

claiming to provide 100% Placement to their

students.



concluded that the claim, “100% Placement” was not





students who were placed through their college in



















118. @ 2102-C.2516 Saint Soldier Public

School

MEDIUM: Rajasthan Patrika(*), Jaipur Edition,



Claim objected to:

“Job Guarantee”

















observed that the advertiser’s school is offering

training and education in varied fields like BA, B.Sc.,

Pharma, Physics, etc. and is claiming job guarantee to

their students.



concluded that the claim, “Job Guarantee” was not





students who were placed through their school in



















119. @ 2101-C.2517 Bhabha Institute of

Education

MEDIUM: EP Dainik Jagran(*), Patna Edition,



Claim objected to:















complaint.



coaching for B.Ed., D.EI.Ed., and M.Ed. courses and

is claiming to provide 100% placement assistance to

their students.
















FSSAI Complaint:

OC 2012-C.2479 Poncho Hospitality Pvt. Ltd

(Itminaan Biryani)

MEDIUM: Flyer, Mobile App and Website

(https://itminaanbiryani.in/)


"A flyer which says FLAT 50% OFF.But while

applying the discount it only offers a maximum of

Rs.150.Even on their mobile app, there's a code for

FLAT 50% OFF but that also offers a maximum

discount of 150.

Yes, I was ordering for the first time on the Itminaan

Biryani App”.


















The CCC viewed the Ad - Flyer, screen shots of the

Mobile App shared by the complainant, and the

website advertisement (https://itminaanbiryani.in/).

The advertiser is offering a discount offer of flat 50%

off per user on purchase of their biryani – `Itminaan

Biryani’ which is to be ordered directly on their

Itminaan App. They have provided a code for

availing this offer. The CCC considered the

Complainant’s grievances that on applying the 50%

off coupon code, he was not offered flat 50% off on

his order. The complainant provided proof of his

payment made as evidence that we was not offered

the discount as claimed. The CCC noted that the

complainant was ordering for the first time on the

`Itminaan Biryani App’ as mentioned in his

complaint.

The CCC observed that the advertiser did not provide

evidence of their customers/purchasers who had

availed and were benefitted by this offer. The

advertisement also did not carry any disclaimers to

mention that terms and conditions apply, nor was

there any link for reference to the terms and

conditions in the advertisement.



concluded that the claim offer, “Flat 50% off”, “50%

off” was not substantiated. The claim offer is

misleading by omission and is likely to cause grave

disappointment in the minds of consumers. The Ad -

flyer, Mobile App, and the Website advertisement



IRPRECOMMENDATION

1. 2101-IRP.09 (2011-C.1955)Colgate-

Palmolive (India) Ltd

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

“It is an advertisement for Vedashakthi Mouth Spray.

In the advertisement a child asks her father to use

Mouth

Spray. but in the warning that too in small letters, in

the screen bottom, they have written for adults only

use

and keep out of reach of children. when it is not

meant for children they should not have used a kid to

promote

the product. or this warning message should be made

in full screen at least for 2 seconds. This

advertisement

was telecasted in Star Sports Tamil during IPL. The

YouTube link you have shared is correct. ”

CCC RECOMMENDATION:










Advertiser stated that “the said Advertisement is a

creative and dramatic representation of the brand

story

relating to a mouth spray which protects from the

mouth germs on contact. The overall narrative of the

said advertisement requires the presence of a kid to

deliver the message, “Aa karo, germs ko na karo”-

open your mouth and say no to germs in a very

playful manner. They would also like to highlight

that the product has been kept at a distance when the

child is pointing towards the product and also she has

not been shown in the frame when the father is using

the product. The child is not handling the product

during the entire duration of the TVC. The said

Advertisement has displayed adequate safety and

usage instructions in the form of disclaimers which

are easily readable.”

In support of their response, the advertiser provided a

copy of the Hindi TVC, copy of the storyboard,

Packshot of the Product, and Confirmation of their

Advertising Agency on Disclaimer Size and

Duration.


the TVC and the YouTube advertisement

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6qJcP7qHYg)

in Tamil, and also the Hindi version of the same

advertisement. The CCC observed that the advertiser

is promoting a mouth spray product - Colgate

Vedshakti mouth protect spray, which is specifically

not meant for children, as there is a disclaimer which

says, “Sirfbadoonkeistemaalkeliye.

Bachchoankipahunch se door rake……..” (For adult

use only. Keep out of reach of children).

https://itminaanbiryani.in/


The CCC was of the view that though the girl

(daughter) in the advertisement is not shown handling

the product, it is incorrect to show a child when the

product is prohibited for children. While the CCC

noted the disclaimer, it was considered inadequate in

the context of the situation depicted in the

advertisement. The CCC felt that if the product is not

safe for children to use, than by featuring a child they

are encouraging an unsafe practice, which is likely to

encourage children to try using the product which

would involve risk and could cause harm to them.

This was compounded by the fact that the product

format was attractive and easy to use, and thus could

tempt children into trying it out.

Based on these observations, by majority, the CCC

concluded that the TVC and the YouTube

advertisement contravened Chapters III.2 (b) and

III.3 of the ASCI Code. This complaint was

UPHELD.

IRP RECOMMENDATION:

1. The Review Application is filed by Colgate-

Palmolive (India) Pvt. Ltd. (the advertiser) against

Consumer Complaints Council (CCC)

Recommendation dated December 14, 2020

upholding the complaint filed by a complainant

against the Television Commercial and YouTube

advertisement (the TVC) of Colgate Vedshakti

Mouth Protect Spray (the Product) which appeared

on Star Sports Tamil and YouTube.

2. The complainant filed the complaint with the

Advertising Standard Council of India (ASCI)

against the TVC of the advertiser showing a father

using the Product which is not recommended / meant

to be used by children, in the presence of a child. The

complainant raised the following objection:

"It is an advertisement for Vedashakthi Mouth Spray.

In the advertisement a child asks her father to use

Mouth Spray but in the warning that too in small

letters, in the screen bottom, they have written for

adults only use and keep out of reach of children.

When it is not meant for children, they should not

have used a kid to promote the product or this

warning message should be made in full screen

atleast for 2 seconds. This advertisement was telecast

in Star Sports Tamil during IPL. The YouTube link

you have shared is correct.”

3. By an email dated November 12, 2020, ASCI

sought response from the advertiser to the specific

objection raised by the complainant.

4. By email dated November 20, 2020, the advertiser

filed a reply to the objection raised by the

complainant.

The advertiser submitted that the said advertisement

is a creative and dramatic representation of the brand

story relating to a mouth spray which protects from

the mouth germs on contact. The overall narrative of

the said advertisement requires the presence of a kid

to deliver the message, “Aa karo, germs ko na karo”-

open your mouth and say no to germs in a very

playful manner. Further the product has been kept at

a distance when the child is pointing towards the

product and also the child has not been shown in the

frame when the father is using the product. The child

is not handling the product during the entire duration

of the TVC. The said Advertisement has displayed

adequate safety and usage instructions in the form of

disclaimers which are easily readable.”

5. CCC in its recommendation dated December 14,

2020 observed that though the girl (daughter) in the

advertisement is not shown handling the product, it is

incorrect to show a child when the product is

prohibited for children. While the CCC noted the

disclaimer, it was considered inadequate in the

context of the situation depicted in the advertisement.

The CCC felt that if the product is not safe for

children to use, then by featuring a child they are

encouraging an unsafe practice, which is likely to

encourage children to try using the product which

would involve risk and could cause harm to them.

This was compounded by the fact that the product

format was attractive and easy to use, and thus could

tempt children into trying it out.

Based on these observations, by majority, the CCC

concluded that the TVC and the YouTube

advertisement contravened Chapters III.2 (b) and

III.3 of the ASCI Code. Accordingly, the complaint

was UPHELD.

6. Aggrieved by the CCC Recommendation, the

advertiser filed the IRP review application on the

following grounds:

(i) Chapters III.2(b) and III.3 of the ASCI Code are

not applicable to the present TVC. The provision of

Chapter III.2 relates to an advertisement which is

addressed to minors. The present advertisement is not

addressed to minors, but is directed at adults i.e. the

father depicted in the advertisement who is urged to

carry the product whilst going to office. Chapter

III.2(b) states that an advertisement ought not to

feature dangerous or hazardous acts which minors are

likely to emulate resulting in harm or injury. The

product in question is an ayurvedic mouth spray and


neither the product nor its ingredients have been

designated as dangerous nor hazardous under any

statute in force. Chapter III thus has no application.

Chapter III.3 makes a reference to showing or

referring to a dangerous practice or manifestation of a

disregard to safety or encouragement of negligence.

The advertisement in question, however shows no

dangerous practice or activity nor does it encourage

any practice which is unsafe nor does it encourage

negligence. No reasons have been provided in the

CCC decision nor did any instance in the

advertisement point out which falls within the

parameters of Chapter III.3.

(ji) That the appearance of kids not barred in

advertisements for the products which are not meant

for children. It is standard industry practice to use

child actors/ models in advertisement of products

which are not meant to be used by children. There is

no prohibition in law with respect to the use of such

actors/models especially in the context of the product

in question i.e. an ayurvedic mouth spray. It is

pertinent to mention that products like mosquito

repellent sprays and devices often use child artists/

actors/ models - these products are in fact chemicals

which may be harmful to children and yet have been

commonly broadcast across various media. The

Advertiser relied upon various instances of various

TVCs having child actors in advertisement of

products not intended to be used or handled by

children.

On the contrary, the TVC is light hearted and

sensitive. The said Advertisement, demonstrates the

emotional

caring relationship of a father-daughter duo where the

daughter who is concerned about the father’s oral

hygiene is merely reminding him that he is forgetting

to carry the Product. The child is far from the Product

and is not even once shown to be handling the

Product or using the Product nor is it shown as

wanting to use the Product.

The child only contributes an emotional component

/connect for the audience in line with standard

industry

practice.

7. At the hearing held by videoconferencing on

January 11, 2021, no one was present for the

complainant. The Advertiser was represented by Mr.

Abhijit Yadav (Legal team), Mr. Akash Parekh

(Marketing team) and Ms. NeelimaUlgkar

(Marketing R&D). At the hearing by

videoconferencing, the 10 second TVC in Hindi was

run on the screen.

8. At the hearing the representatives of the Advertiser

reiterated the submissions contained in the review

application. On a specific query being put about the

disclaimer in the TVC, from the video of the TVC,

the

representatives pointed out that the disclaimer

"Sirfbadoonkeistemaalkeliye. Bachchoankipahunch

se door rake........(For adult use only. Keep out of

reach of children).” runs for about 7 seconds of total

length of 10 seconds of the TVC and that the

disclaimer is in compliance with the ASCI Guidelines

on disclaimers.

9. At the hearing it was stated that the product is sold

in a package indicating the following ingredients in

theproduct:

It is clear from the above ingredients that the

advertiser appears to be justified in contending that

the product is not inherently unsafe or dangerous and

that it is being marketed as an ayurvedic medicine.

10. Having looked into the complaint, the reply

submitted by the advertiser, CCC Recommendation,

grounds urged by the advertiser in the review

application and the representation made on behalf of

the advertiser at the oral hearing today and after a

thorough consideration of the TVC, I am of the

opinion that the TVC does not advertise any

dangerous or hazardous product.

11. TVC does not propagate any dangerous practice

nor does it manifest a disregard for safety of children.

The advertiser is justified in contending that the

complaint which the advertiser was called upon to

respond to did not make any allegation that the

product was dangerous or hazardous. The

Advertiser’s case is that out of abundant caution they

have put the disclaimer to keep the product out of the

reach of children so that children do not spray the

product in their eyes while trying to spray in their


mouth; the product itself is not inherently dangerous

or unsafe.

12. Having seen the ingredients of the product and

noticing that the child herself is not shown handling

the product or near the product, I find considerable

substance in the advertiser’s case that the advertiser

is

promoting a mouth spray product which by itself is

not unsafe or dangerous and that TVC is a creative

and dramatic representation of a brand story

demonstrating in a playful manner the emotional

caring relationship of father-daughter duo where the

daughter, who is concerned about the father’s oral

health, is reminding him that he forgetting to carry

the product.

13. Moreover, having heard the learned Secretary

General of ASCI, I find that the disclaimer in the

advertisement is in compliance with ASCI guidelines

and runs for 7 seconds in a 10 second TVC.

14. For the above reasons, the review application is

allowed and recommendation dated December 14,

2020 is set aside.

2. 2101-IRP.10 (2011-C.1921) Blue Star

Limited


“As per the ASCI Guidelines for Celebrities in

Advertising, a Celebrity should do due diligence to

ensure that all description, claims and comparisons

made in the advertisements they appear in or endorse

are capable of being objectively ascertained and

capable of substantiation and should not mislead or

appear deceptive.

Before placing this complaint for the Consumer

Complaints Council (CCC) deliberation, may we

seek your response specific to the objection raised as

mentioned below:

Claim objected to: "Want to be as relaxed as Virat?

Get a Blue Star AC with a special filter that

deactivates microbes and viruses in the air that passes

through it."

“1. Misleading advertisement.

2. It shows a picture which resembles Coronavirus

under which they have written as "virus deactivation

technology". This is misleading, as the consumer will

relate to the picture and with Corona virus and will

think that the AC has technology to deactivate

Coronavirus.

Celebrity appearance in the ad is highly

objectionable.”

ASCI observes in the current Covid-19 pandemic

situation, the visual resembling Coronavirus and the

audio in the TVC viz. "Get a Blue Star AC with a

special filter that deactivates microbes & viruses in

the air that passes through it”, would make the

viewers think that the AC has technology to

deactivate Coronavirus ”

CCC RECOMMENDATION:

The ASCI had approached the advertiser for

itsresponse in addressing the objections raised in the

complaint.The advertiser was offered an opportunity


and a telecom with the ASCI Secretariat to seek

further guidance, which they did not avail and


Advertiser stated that “The air conditioner products

which are sought to be advertised in the TV

Commercial are a range of air conditioners with

filters that contain fabrics which are treated with

Livinguard Technology i.e. coating HEFM 47.

Livinguard Technology is a proprietary technology

created by Livinguard AG a company from

Switzerland. This technology is used for treating

fabrics such that the treated fabrics become capable

of inactivating microorganisms including bacteria,

viruses, and several types of fungi. Livinguard has

also obtained patents for the Livinguard Technology

in multiple jurisdictions and a patent application for

the same is pending in India and is referred to in the

TV Advertisement. The fabrics treated with

Livinguard

Technology have been scientifically tested to

neutralize HCOV- 229E (“Human Coronavirus”), a

generally accepted surrogate for SARSCOV-2 (the

virus that causes COVID-19). In this regard, enclosed

latest report dated 4 May 2020 from the Water &

Energy Sustainable Technology Center of the

University of Arizona (“Arizona Report”) to

substantiate Livinguard's claim.

BioDetek Laboratory in Mesa, Arizona has also

issued a report dated 27 July 2020 in which Dr.Absar

Alum has concluded that Uhelon fabric treated with

Livinguard Technology is efficacious against the

Human Coronavirus. It is submitted that Fabrics

treated with Livinguard Technology have also been

scientifically tested to inactivate SARSCOV-2. In

this regard, the Institute for Animal Hygiene and


Environmental Health at the Free University of

Berlin has also issued a test report dated 30 July 2020

to substantiate Livinguard's claim. The Berlin Report

captures the results of the test which is also in

accordance with the ISO standard 18184 and

concludes that fabric treated with Livinguard

Technology has the ability to efficiently inactivate

SARS-CoV-2 with a reduction rate up to 99.9%.

The claims made in the advertisements are supported

by studies and cogent material. The material has been

reviewed and brought to the attention of the celebrity

endorser Mr Virat Kohli prior to the creation of the

advertisement and at the time of his engagement and

hence the celebrity appearance in the advertisement

cannot be regarded as objectionable at all.

All viruses have always and for many years been

visually depicted in a similar manner and shape i.e.,

circular or oval shape with blunt spikes whereas

bacteria are represented in oblong/ capsule shapes

with spikes. This is evident from a plethora of

material that is available on the internet that depicts a

virus in a similar circular shape even prior to the

discovery of the COVID-19 / Corona virus. It is

submitted that no special visual representation has

been given to the corona virus which is different from

other virus representations used in the past.”

As claim support data, the advertiser provided – 1)

Test report from the Water & Energy Sustainable

Technology Center of the University of Arizona, 2)

Copy of BioDetek Report, 3) Copy of Berlin Report,

4) Copy of Livinguard declaration, 5) Copy of

Storyboard, 6) Copy of TVC.







opinion.

In response to the technical opinion, the advertiser

did not opt for an IR but sought for a meeting with

the technical expert, which was arranged by the ASCI

Secretariat through Zoom video conference.


technical expert, the advertiser responded and made

the following submissions – 1) Test reports for

testing carried out by Bacterial Filtration Efficiency

test as per ASTM F 2101- 19 standard by Biotech

Testing Services, 2) Email approval from celebrity's

(Mr. Virat Kohli) manager.

Based on the advertiser’s additional response, the



The CCC viewed the TVC, Website advertisement,

and the YouTube advertisement

(https://youtu.be/HI6ldMxlIrM) and considered the


Technical expert presented at the meeting.

Complaints 1 and 2: 1. Misleading advertisement.

and 2. It shows a picture which resembles

Coronavirus under which they have written as "virus

deactivation technology". This is misleading, as the

consumer will relate to the picture and with Corona

virus and will think that the AC has technology to

deactivate Coronavirus.

Test reports submitted as per Annexures I, II and III

involve tests in which a fabric was wetted with drops

of a test liquid containing various microbes including

viruses surrogate to SARS-CoV-2, and assayed for

microbe/virus activity thereafter. The tests showed

antimicrobial and antiviral activity for liquids

containing these and contacting the fabric for some

period of time. In Annexure III the virus used was not

mentioned anywhere in the `methods’ or `material’

section of the report, but conclusions drawn

mentioned SARS-CoV-2 inactivation, thereby casting

doubt on whether the test was in fact done with

SARS-CoV-2, or with something else and merely

extrapolated to this while stating the conclusion.

Annexure IV was a declaration and assertion and not

a test report.

Subsequently, test reports were submitted with

flowing air laden with aerosol droplets containing

bacteria (but not virus) that passes through the fabric

as would happen in an air conditioner. These showed

79.65% and 89.65% aerosol bacterial filtration

efficiency for one and two layers of the filter fabric.

During the online discussion the advertiser clarified

that one layer is used in domestic and two in

industrial air conditioners. Thus the claim is

substantiated to the extent of 79/89% for bacteria

(though not virus of any sort). The advertisement has

a loud callout for virus including a virus graphic, so

this part of the claim remains unsubstantiated or

weakly substantiated via indirect tests that did not

involve aerosols; the latter are known to be important

for the current pandemic.

The visual in the middle of the storyboard wrongly


creates a illusion that the virus particle is bigger than

the fabric gaps and would always get trapped.

Moreover, the shape of the virus particle with its

mushroom type of spike proteins closely resembles

the SARS-CoV-2 virus giving scope for concluding

that the alleged generic virus could indeed be the

virus responsible for Covid-19. The function of an air

conditioner is to process room air by passing it

through the appliance, with the main intent to cool

and/or dehumidify the air; the appliance thereby

cools the room and makes its occupants comfortable.

Therefore, any claim of anti-viral action will be

perceived by the average consumer as such, i.e., what

it does to purify the room air when may be laden with

virus. However, although it was substantiated that

bacteria were removed to the extent of 79/89%, there

was no direct evidence presented of antiviral effects

on virus laden air/aerosol passing through such an

appliance.

The CCC noted that the test was not done with a

typical room situation in which only part of the air

passes through. There could be regions in the room

where there is stagnant air which never passes

through the AC and there could also be a case where

the AC is not run long enough so that substantial

parts of the air passes through, the timing and the

duration, all these issues were not addressed. The test

was not carried out on actual filter in the actual

machine, but on an actual filter in another condition.

The CCC felt that the advertisement is misleading as

it gives a feeling that it takes care of all viruses and

one can relax freely without any concern.


the claim, “…..Get a Blue Star AC with a special

filter that deactivates microbes and viruses in the air

that passes through it” was inadequately

substantiated. The CCC was of the view that in the

current Covid-19 pandemic situation, the images

shown resemble Coronavirus and when read along

with the claim of "virus deactivation technology", is

likely to mislead consumers who may relate the

picture with Coronavirus to believe that the AC has

technology to deactivate Coronavirus.



minds of consumers.

The TVC, YouTube advertisement and the Website

advertisement Chapters I.1, I.4 and I.5 of the ASCI


Complaint 3. Celebrity appearance in the ad is highly

objectionable.

ASCI Celebrity Guidelines require signed statements

from celebrity or his/her manager endorsing the

claims even if he/she merely appears as him/herself,

or as likeness thereof, or in a role-play in the

advertisement, even without explicitly endorsing the

claims in the advertisement. The CCC observed that

the advertiser has provided a copy of an email

communication (purportedly from the manager of the

celebrity). However, the advertiser did not provide

any evidence to show that the celebrity had done due

diligence prior to endorsement, to ensure that all

description, claims and comparisons made in the

advertisement are capable of substantiation, nor any

Testimonials, or any evidence of the consent of the

celebrity for the product efficacy claims. This

contravenes Clauses (c), (d) of the ASCI Guidelines

for Celebrities in Advertising. This complaint was

UPHELD.

IRP RECOMMENDATION:

Heard the Learned Representatives of ‘Blue Star

Limited’ represented by Mr. Sumit Thakur - General

Manager & Head – Legal, Ms. R.S. Priya - General

Manager- Corporate Communications & Marketing

Services and Mr. S.M. Kulkarni - Senior General

Manager - R&D (Commercial AC &

Refrigeration)(Advertisers) who are the

manufacturers of ‘Blue Star Air Conditioner’ and

Ms.Archana Sabnis (Complainant) at length. I was

assisted by the independent technical expert, Prof

(Dr.)Jayesh Bellare.

The above IRP proceedings were conducted on 19th

January, 2021, and on 29th January 2021 at 11:00 am

through the Zoom video conference.

Heard the Representatives of the Advertiser at length.

Heard the Complainant also. The Technical Expert

Prof. (Dr.)Jayesh Bellare was also present.

Visually saw the Advertisement which was telecast

on NDTV News Channel. Perused the latest reply of

the Advertiser dated 25th January 2021.

The Advertiser has filed this IRP proceedings,

aggrieved by the Order of Recommendations dated

18th December, 2020, passed by The Consumer

Complaints Council (CCC) whereby two complaints,

were upheld viz. 1) Misleading Advertisement and 2)

It shows a picture which resembles Corona Virus

under which they have written as “Virus Deactivation


Technology”. CCC also upheld Complaint 3 i.e.

Celebrity Guidelines were not followed.

The Advertiser strongly relied upon its Reply dated

25th January, 2021. Two Test Reports, both dated

20.08.2020, Various Research Reports from Berlin,

Germany and U.S.A., pointing out the Antiviral

Efficacy of Urelon Fabric Fine Mesh against Human

Corona Virus.

The main contention of the Advertiser is that Test

Report dated 20.08.2020, clearly establishes efficacy

of stopping 79% of Bacteria known as

“Staphylococcus”, in a Room Air-conditioner used at

Residence with One Filter. Another Report relied

upon is also 20.08.2020, clearly establishes efficacy

of stopping 89% of the same Bacteria mentioned

hereinabove, in the case of an Air-conditioner used in

commercial premises with Two Filters. The

Advertiser also relied upon various Research Reports

from abroad as mentioned hereinabove, to justify the

above claim.

The Complainant fully justifies the Order of CCC.

After hearing both the sides, the following picture

clearly emerges: - The Advertisement very boldly

indicates that the above Blue Star Airconditioner uses

“Virus Deactivation Technology”. Corona Virus is

shown in Red Colour.

In the Disclaimer of the Advertisement, it is stated as

under: - “Under standard test conditions in a third-

party lab, for antiviral and anti-microbial efficacy

using Lifeguard Filtration Technology, when the

microbes and viruses come in contact with the filter.”

Admittedly, in both the above Laboratory Reports,

tests were conducted using mesh fabric, only for one

bacteria – Staphylococcus.

The Advertiser clearly concedes no lab test was

conducted with regard to any Virus.

In this context, it is relevant to quote the following

from the above-mentioned Reply of the Advertiser

dated 25.01.2021: -

“There is no standard / protocol available test virus

filtration of an air conditioner. The test with virus in

the air requires lab setup complying with Bio Safety

Regulation. This infrastructure is also not available in

India.”

Admittedly, the efficacy of a Room Airconditioner or

Commercial Airconditioner was never tested

actually, neither for Bacteria nor Virus.

It is also admitted that even under Laboratory

Condition, no test was conducted for any Virus

whatsoever.

Whereas false claim of testing Virus in lab condition

is mentioned in the Disclaimer, the Advertisement

boldly states that “Virus Deactivation Technology” is

used in Blue Star Airconditioner, without any

scientific substantiation.

Hence, Complaints 1 & 2 are upheld.

As far as Complaint No. 3 with regard to Celebrity

Endorsement, in view of Technical Expert’s opinion

dated 1st December, 2020, it can be construed as

Celebrity Guidelines were complied with.

As suggested by the Learned Technical Expert Dr.

Jayesh Bellare in his Opinion, it would be appropriate

for ASCI should formulate the “Celebrity

Guidelines”, as suggested by the Technical Expert,

for more precision and clarity.

The above IRP proceedings stands disposed of

accordingly.

3. 2101-IRP.11 (2010-C.1568) United

Breweries Limited(*)


“Kingfisher calendar advertisement shows

communicating a tagline of Kingfisher’ “Divided by

teams, united by kingfisher”

Objections:


for Kingfisher.”

“It is a violation of Guidelines for Qualification of


CCC RECOMMENDATION:





and a telecom with the ASCI Secretariat to seek



In order to prepare for a comprehensive response to

the complaint against the advertisement with tagline

Divided by teams, united by kingfisher that appears

to be a surrogate ad for Kingfisher, the Advertiser

requested for a time extension, which was granted by

ASCI. In their response the Advertiser provided

several assertions to establish that Kingfisher

Calendar is a separate property and not a surrogate


property. Further in their response the Advertiser

mentioned, “Kingfisher is a lifestyle brand associated

with beverages, music, style, sports, fashion,

glamour, etc. Kingfisher Calendar was launched by

UBL in 2003 and since then thisproduct is one of the

premium and highly acclaimed calendar in its

category uninterruptedly…It is a showcase for the

Indian fashion and glamour industry. This product

has reached out to many homes in India and other

countries over several years through print and

electronic media (TV Channels) viz., NDTV Good

Times, FTV, Zoom TV, etc. Kingfisher Calendar has

won several awards for its creativity and lifestyle”

The Advertiser also added that Kingfisher Calendar is

a registered trademark and submitted a copy of the

trademarkcertificate in support of the same.

The Advertiser also provided the following

documents as claim support data: 1) copies of TVC:

a) Master Film, b) 15 second edits playing during IPL

– 5 versions, 2) copy of a CA certificate stating “The

Company granted a license to use the Artistic Work

in 'Kingfisher Calendar’ for its editions of 2017,201g

and 2019 to M/s Hungama Digital Media

Entertainment Private Limited. M/s Hungama Digital

Media EntertainmentPrivate Limited has agreed to

p.y a fixed sum of Rs. 7 lakhs for each year to the

Company along with applicable service tax,

swachbharatcess, krushi kalian cess or GST on the

same for grant of above said license i.e., for the

Year2QL7,2018and 2019. ln addition, M/s Hungama

Digital Media Entertainment Private Limited shall

incur media spends worth of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees

Five Lakhs) for Kingfisher Brand promotion on

Hungama.com for each above said years”, 3) copy of

the trademark certificate. The Advertiser’s response

along with all documents provided as substantiation

to challenge to objection were presented before the


The CCC viewed the YouTubeadvertisement and

examined the claim support data at the meeting.

The CCC carefully considered all submissions made

and found that there are no overt liquor cues in

theadvertisement and thus content is acceptable.

The CCC observed that the advertiser submitted the

required licenses and certificates as proof of their

brand extension product being registered with

appropriate Government authorities. However, there

was no evidence provided that Kingfisher Calendar

was a genuine commercial product that could be

purchased from a store. The claim support data

submitted failed to substantiate product distribution

and sales turnover as per the ASCI guidelines. There

was no data supporting the in-store availability of the

product being at 10% of the leading brand in the

category where the product competes as measured in

metro cities where the product is advertised. The

calendar also did not come with an MRP and the CA

certificate attached did not show a sales turnover of

Rs. 5 cr/annum nationally or Rs. 1cr/annum per state

where distribution has been established. On the basis

of the documents on record, the CCC concluded that

the Advertiser has not been able to adequately

substantiate that it is a genuine line extension

product. The ad contravened the ASCI guidelines for


It was found in violation of Chapter III, clause 3.6(a)

of the ASCI code.

The objection to “The advertisement appears to be a

surrogate ad for Kingfisher” was UPHELD.

IRP RECOMMENDATION:

Heard the Learned Representatives of United

Breweries Limited (Advertiser) represented by

Govind Iyengar – Senior Vice President – Legal &

Company Secretary and Vijay Bahuguna - General

Manager – Legal.

This Review Application has been filed by the

Advertiser against the Order passed by the Consumer

Complaints Council (CCC). The Order was passed by

the CCC on a Suo- Motu Complaint registered

against the OTT advertisement of “United Breweries

Limited - Kingfisher Calendar”, which appeared on

OTT Platform-Disney Plus Hotstar dated October 15,

2020 at10:09 p.m. during IPL (OTT Advert). This

OTT Advert had a tagline ‘DIVIDED BY TEAMS

UNITED BY KINGFISHER’.

Suo moto cognizance was taken as the OTT Advert

appeared to be a surrogate ad for Kingfisher Beer and

because the guidelines for Qualification of Brand

Extension Product or Service had been violated.

The Advertiser contended that the OTT Advert

pertained to the ‘Kingfisher Calendar’ (Product) and

not the ‘Kingfisher Beer’ sold by the Advertiser. The

Advertiser attempted to assert that ‘Kingfisher

Calendar’ is a separate property and not a surrogate

property. It further contended, “Kingfisher is a

lifestyle brand associated with beverages, music,

style, sports, fashion, glamour, etc. Kingfisher


Calendar was launched by UBL in 2003 and since

then this product is one of the premium and highly

acclaimed calendar in its category uninterruptedly…”

The Advertiser also stated that the Product is a

registered trademark with documentation to that

effect. The Advertiser also placed reliance on other

documentation to demonstrate that the Product

complied with the relevant Clauses of the Code for

Self-Regulation of Advertising Content in India

(ASCI Code) and the Guideline.

After going through the documentation on record,

the CCC held that the OTT Advert appears to be a

surrogate ad for Kingfisher since the OTT Advert

contravenes the guidelines of ASCI - Qualification of

Brand Extension Product or Service. The OTT advert

violated Chapter III, Clause 3.6 (a) of the ASCI

Code. The CCC arrived at the conclusion since the

Advertiser was unable to substantiate the claim that

the Product distribution and sales turnover as per the

ASCI Guidelines, the CCC upheld the objection – the

Advertisement appears to be a surrogate ad for

Kingfisher’.

The Advertiser has filed this Review on the ground

that the complaint has been Upheld though the CCC

observed that the contents of the OTT Advert have no

overt liquor cues, therefore the advertisement is not

in violation of ASCI Guidelines and that the

Advertiser was is possession of the required

certifications / credentials for brand extension as

stipulated under the ASCI Guidelines. The Advertiser

through its Review Application and Additional

Submissions has placed on record that the Product

was available only in a digital medium on

“www.kingfishercalendar.com”. The Advertiser

further contended that the OTT Advert did not distort

facts or mislead the consumer by means of

implications or omissions to promote beer. The

Advertiser further contended that the OTT Advert

was not inclined to connect the Product with

promotion or production, sale and / or consumption

of beer. In its Additional Submissions, the Advertiser

has admitted that the turnover for their other

products, i.e. Calendars, Diaries, Key Chains, etc.,

does not have a ₹5 crore p. a. turnover nationally or 1

crore p.a. turnover in a state that they are distributing

in. The certificate of the Chartered Accountant 18th

February 2021 showing the expenses incurred on the

production of the calendar and the revenue generated

has been filed today by the advertiser, after the matter

was closed for orders. Therefore, the Advertiser

contended that it was an incorrect and unjust

conclusion that the OTT Advert was to promote the

liquor brand.

Before going through the contentions of the

Advertiser, I have watched the OTT Advert which

has been submitted along with the Review

Application. I have also considered the grounds

raised in the review petition as well as the additional

submissions filed on 12th February 2021.

Clause 3.6 (a) of Chapter III of the ASCI Code

stipulates that the advertising of products which are

prohibited by law or by the ASCI Code to be

advertised, cannot be advertised by circumventing the

restrictions or bans by purporting to be

advertisements of products for which advertising is

permitted. While ascertaining whether advertising for

such permitted products is genuine, the Code

stipulates that the advertiser must establish that the

unrestricted product is genuinely produced and

distributed in reasonable quantities. The Guidelines

for Qualification of Brand Extension Product or

Service specify certain criteria for evaluating the

genuineness of an unrestricted product or service

brand extension of a product which cannot be

advertised by law. One of the criteria is that the sales

turnover of the product should exceed ₹ 5 crores per

annum nationally or ₹ 1 crore per state where

distribution has been established.

The Advertiser was unable to substantiate the claim

that the Product distribution and sales turnover is as

per the ASCI Guidelines. Merely because the

advertiser has incurred expenses for producing the

calendar and has generated revenue of ₹ 7,00,000/- it

does not establish that the advertisement is acceptable

under the ASCI Guidelines. I am, therefore, of the

considered opinion that the OTT Advert is in

violation of Chapter III, Clause 3.6 (a) of the ASCI

Code and the Guidelines for Qualification of Brand

Extension Product or Service.

In view of the above, the findings of the CCC are

upheld and the present Review Application is

dismissed.

FTCP RECOMMENDATION

1. 2101-FTC.25 CIPLA HEALTH LTD(*) –

Cofsils Lozenges


NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT: Procter &

Gamble Hygiene and Healthcare Limited(*)

MEDIUM: UTV Movies


Fast Track Complaint received against the TV

Commercial of “Cipla Health Ltd – Cofsils” which

appeared on UTV Movies, from Procter & Gamble

Hygiene and Healthcare Limited.

Brief particulars of the impugned advertisement: The

Advertisement begins with a voice over that claims

that ‘Aamkarashkigoliyan’ (which per the disclaimer

refers to all other lozenges which do not contain

‘Amylmetacresol&Dichlorobenzyl alcohol’

(hereinafter “Cough Drops”), do not kill bacteria or

viruses. The voice over goes on to claim that Cofsils

kills the virus and bacteria in one’s throat. The

Advertisement simultaneously depicts visual images

claiming Cofsils as ‘Anti-bacterial’ and ‘Anti-viral’.

Publication/broadcast details of the impugned

advertisement: Please find attached a video recording

of the Hindi version of the Advertisement (Annexure

1) as seen on ‘UTV Movies’. The advertisement was

also observed on various tv channels across certain

states (a full list of the TV channels such

advertisement was seen on is attached for your ease

of reference as Annexure 2). A storyboard of the

Impugned advertisement is also attached as Annexure

3 herewith. Issues:

The claims made in the Advertisement are not

truthful, nor are capable of being substantiated. The

advertisement claims that Cofsils are an Anti-Viral

and also heavily implies that Cofsils kill 99.9%

viruses in a patient’s throat (along with bacteria).

This is also depicted visually without any meaningful

disclaimers. The claims therefore are conveyed in an

absolute manner in so far as an average consumer is

concerned. In the place of any meaningful or

consumer relevant information, the Advertisement

quotes two studies ostensibly to reinforce the

impression to an average consumer that the studies

form the basis of the Claims made in the

Advertisement. This is false. A perusal of the first

study quoted (this can be accessed here:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7202

229/) shows that the study merely analyzed the

analgesic properties of amylmetacresol/2,4-

dichlorobenzyl alcohol against non-medicated

lozenges. That is to say, the study did not

demonstrate the anti-viral effects of such lozenges at

all, nor does it demonstrate that such lozenges kill

viruses in vivo. Moreover, the study makes it

abundantly clear that the same was an observation of

comparative relief in sore throat versus non-

medicated placebo lozenges. While the

Advertisement acknowledges this factum by means

of a ‘disclaimer’, it also brazenly makes a

comparative claim of anti-viral and anti-bacterial

properties against all Cough Drops i.e. the claim is

against even medicated lozenges that may contain

different formulations and approved for sore throat

relief by the drug regulators in India and not just

against ‘non-medicated placebos’ (which the first of

the studies was admittedly limited to). A perusal of

the second study quoted (this can be accessed here:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6276

617/) further demonstrates that the claims in the

Advertisement are not truthful. This study talks about

in vitro antibacterial effect and does not demonstrate

the anti-viral action of Cofsils. Even the two

references cited within this study, were conducted in

vitro and therefore, are not conclusive enough to

substantiate the “anti-viral” claim as they are purely

based on theoretical presumption of in vitro - in vivo

correlation and lack of any in human clinical data.

That is to say, the study does not support the anti-

viral claims made in the Advertisement, but even in

relation to antibacterial effects of such lozenges it is

limited in that it was merely conducted in vitro. In

any case, acute pharyngitis is caused by a viral

infection, and only occasionally, it can be caused by a

bacterial infection. However, there is lack of

evidence in the study to show Cofsils’ effectiveness

as an anti-viral, in vivo i.e. the study admittedly

acknowledges its limitations on account of the lack of

any human clinical data. It is of interest to note that

the second study was commissioned by Reckitt

Benckiser (manufacture of Strepsils) who do not

appear to have seen the study as sufficient basis for

making such claims themselves. The Advertisement

misleads the consumers by means of omissions and

implications, and has been framed to abuse the lack

of experience or knowledge of the consumers. In

addition to the above, the Advertisement is also

misleading and has been deliberately framed to abuse

the lack of experience or knowledge of consumers.

To repeat, the claims ostensibly have been made on

the basis of the two studies quoted above, and the

same in any case do not support the anti-viral claims

made. For instance, common cold and the associated

symptom of sore throat, can be caused by more than

200 types of viruses, but the most common one is the

rhinovirus, which is thought to be responsible for as

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7202229/





high as 50% of colds. Other viruses that can cause

colds include coronavirus, respiratory syncytial virus,

influenza and parainfluenza viruses. The above

studies do not demonstrate the effectiveness of these

two drug actives against the most common

rhinovirus. However, the advertisement not only

claims that Cofsils are an anti-viral but goes on to

convey the impression that it can kill 99.9% germs.

This is wrong, highly misleading to consumers and

contravenes the advertisement guidelines of ASCI.

Additionally, to reiterate, the studies are limited in

their scope and confined in the first case to

observation of relief against non-medicated placebo

lozenges and in the second case to in vitro studies

alone, and also using it to substantiate a numerical

claim. For context, as you are no doubt aware,

observations performed in vitro cannot fully reflect

the environment of the throat. For example, the throat

may contain multiple microorganisms whereas this

study tested the bactericidal activity against

organisms in isolation. The role of the patient’s

immune system, concomitant medical conditions,

other medications, variable viral load, presence of

other microorganisms in mouth and throat, intake of

other foods/liquids, residence time in mouth/throat

(sucking or chewing may vary between consumers)

on the antimicrobial activity of the lozenge or active

ingredients in vivo cannot be accurately ascertained

without in vivo testing. Furthermore, only about 5-

15% of sore throats in adults is caused by a bacterial

infection, therefore, the bactericidal effect of

AMC/DCBA only reflects a smaller portion of

problem whereas most throat infections are viral in

origin. In view of the above, making an anti-viral

claim is factually incorrect and extremely misleading.

The Advertisement is not fair in competition, and the

comparisons are not factual, accurate or capable of

substantiation, and the advertisement unfairly attacks,

denigrates and discredits all other lozenges or cough

drops that do not contain Amylmetacresol &

Dichlorobenzyl alcohol, both directly and by

implication. To repeat, the Advertisement refers to all

cough drops, lozenges (irrespective of their

formulation) that do not contain ‘Amylmetacresol &

Dichlorobenzyl alcohol’ - ‘Ordinary cough drops’

and goes on to claim that such Cough Drops do not

kill any virus or bacteria. The implication being that

such Cough Drops do not solve the ‘actual problem’

and ostensibly the same is addressed only by the

alleged ‘anti-bacterial’ or ‘anti-viral’ properties of

Cofsils. However, as noted above the anti-viral

properties of Cofsils are by no means established or

substantiated. To reiterate, the first study quoted was

limited to non- medicated placebo lozenges. While

the Advertisement also acknowledges this factum by

means of a ‘disclaimer’ it also brazenly makes a

comparison of the alleged anti-viral and anti-bacterial

properties of Cofsils against all Cough Drops i.e., the

claim is against even medicated lozenges that may

contain different formulations and approved for such

relief by the drug regulators in India and not just

against ‘non-medicated’ lozenges. The comparison,

in any event is not an apples-to-apples comparison

and merely seeks to use the average consumer’s lack

of knowledge on such issues to their commercial

advantage. There is no basis for such a claim nor is

any offered, and it is clear that the intention is to

mislead the consumer. Further, in terms of relief, the

Advertisement discounts the fact that Cough Drops

containing different formulations including those

approved for relief in relation to sore throat which is

its intended purpose. For instance, Demulcents are

commonly known and medically well-established

treatment for management of sore throat. Common

ingredients like sugar and honey are well known

demulcents, and together with aromatic herbal

ingredients like menthol have been proven to relieve

throat irritation due to local analgesic effect.

Therefore, not only are the Claims made in the

Advertisement without any robust scientific

evidence, the comparison is also not fair by just

making a blanket statement regarding all other Cough

Drops (that irrespective of their formulation, they do

not kill bacteria or viruses) without any technical

basis or any clinical data to support such a

comparison. The claim also unfairly denigrates,

attacks and discredits all other Cough Drops without

regard to their approved & licensed uses under the

applicable drugs & cosmetics laws in India. It is

therefore clear that the comparisons are not factual,

accurate or capable of being substantiated. It is clear

therefore that the (a) the claims made in the

Advertisement are not truthful, nor are capable of

being substantiated, (b) the Advertisement misleads

the consumers by means of omissions and

implications, and has been framed to abuse the lack

of experience or knowledge of the consumers, and (c)

is not fair in competition as it is disparaging to all

other lozenges or throat drops that do not contain

Amylmetacresol & Dichlorobenzyl alcohol. The

Advertisement therefore not only violates the ASCI

Code but also the principles of fairness in advertising

as propagated by ASCI from time to time. ”

FTCC RECOMMENDATION:


The Fast-Track Complaints Panel (FTCP), through a

personal hearing, heard the arguments of both the

complainant

and the advertiser. The expert, Prof. Neeta

Khanolkar, who reviewed all the technical evidence

provided to the FTCP was also present during the

deliberations.

The complainants submitted that the claim “99.9%

Germ Kill” is objectionable. While they accepted that

the advertiser did show efficacy of 99.9% on the anti-

bacterial activity, the same could not be established

for the anti-viral claim. The advertisement clearly

stated that the product had anti-viral efficacy

simultaneously when the voice over was “99.9%

Germ Kill”. This implied that the product provided

99.9% efficacy against both bacteria and virus and is

considered to be misleading. The evidence referred to

in the disclaimer was insufficient to prove the

efficacy of the product in the context of viruses. The

complainant added that because the said product is an

ingestible, hence an in-vitro study is insufficient, as

without a host body, viruses would not survive under

any circumstances. The complainant also asserted

that the claim made in the advertisement is not

merely about inactivating, but killing of germs

including bacteria and viruses, and the sources cited

by the advertiser did not support the same.

The advertiser in their submission, disputed the same.

They referred to a study published by Mathew et. al.,

titled “Spectrum of bactericidal action of

amylmetacresol/2,4-dichlorobenzyl alcohollozenges

against oropharyngeal organisms implicated in

pharyngitis” and pointed to the conclusion of this

study which showed that the combination of

amylmetacresol and dichlorobenzyl alcohol was

effective in providing 99.9% anti-bacterial action in

in-vitro conditions. This was the basis on which the

“99.9% Germ Kill” claim was made. The advertiser

also submitted, that the study, referred to earlier

studies which demonstrated the anti-viral effect of

amylmetacresol and dichlorobenzyl alcohol. Hence,

the advertiser asserted, the anti-viral benefits of the

product have been well established for many years.

The advertiser also explained to the FTCP that the

“99.9% Germ Kill” did not refer to the anti-viral

action, but only the anti-bacterial action. The

advertiser argued that “germs” was a common word

that consumers understood, rather than bacteria, and

hence based on the anti-bacterial activity evidence,

this was not misleading.

The FTCP noted that in the advertisement the claim

“99.9% Germ Kill” appears immediately after the

visual depicting both virus and bacteria in the throat,

along with a call out showing “Anti-Viral” and

“Anti-Bacterial”. Hence, any consumer viewing this

advertisement is likely to conclude that the “99.9%

Germ Kill” refers to both bacteria and viruses. The

FTCP also noted that the word “germs” and “virus”

were used in a generic manner and in the current

pandemic situation this could cause confusion about

which germs and viruses the product was effective

against. The FTCP felt it was incorrect of the

advertiser to assume that consumers don’t know the

difference between germs, bacteria and virus, given

the current pandemic where consumers are much

more aware as well as sensitive to claims made in

relation to viruses. Furthermore, the expert present at

the meeting pointed that the term ‘germ’ constitutes

various species belonging to families of micro-

organisms like bacteria, virus, fungi, protozoa, algae

and their spores. The advertiser confirmed that the

product formulation efficacy was not tested against

any other forms of germs besides bacteria and virus.

The FTCP also noted that as per the ASCI Covid

advisory issued, advertisers are required to specify

which virus the product provides protection against.

The FTCP raised a concern that the advertiser had not

submitted any laboratory study report/s of their

product and its efficacy to substantiate their claim

“99.9% Germ Kill”. The literature submitted were

based on studies in different geographies with very

different environmental conditions, where the general

flora of a country like ours is not considered. In their

response, the advertiser asserted that their product

adheres to recommended dosages of amylmetacresol

and dichlorobenzyl alcohol, and the strength and

formulation of the same is approved by the Drug

Controller General of India. In such cases where

known and approved formulations are used, a fresh

product study is not mandated.

In spite of repeated requests by the FTCP to the

advertiser to provide evidence for substantiation of

the 99.9% efficacy for anti-viral claim, the advertiser

was unable to do so. The claim of 99.9% germ kill

was proven only for bacterial activity whereas the

advertisement clearly refers both to anti-bacterial and

anti-viral efficacy of the product. Using a generic

word like “germ kill” along with a numeric 99.9%

would give an impression to the consumer that the

product is 99.9% effective against a range of germs

including bacteria and virus which are both called out

in the ad. While the FTCP accepted that the product

has established anti-viral efficacy, it was not proven


at a level of 99.9% and hence the claim “Kills 99.9%

germs was misleading.

The FTCP also noted, that the advertiser failed to

substantiate that non-

amylmetacresol+dichlorobenzylalcohol-based

formulations do not have a germ kill action, as no

comparative tests were provided.

The FTCP found the advertisement to be misleading

by implication, omissions and ambiguity. In light of

no comparative tests provided, the advertisement was

also considered to be discrediting other non-

amylmetacresol+dichlorobenzyl alcohol formulation-

based lozenges.

The advertisement contravened Chapter I – 1.1, 1.4,

1.5 and Chapter IV – 4.1(e). The complaint was

UPHELD.

2. 2101-FTCP.26 GODREJ CONSUMER

PRODUCTS LTD(*) – Godrej Aer Power Pocket

NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT: Dabur India

Limited(*)

MEDIUM: Product Packaging

ADVERTISING AGENCY: Creative Land Asia


Fast Track Complaint received against the Product

Packaging of “Godrej Consumer Products Ltd –

Godrej Aer Power Pocket”, from Dabur india

Limited.

KEY OBJECTION: The Advertiser’s claim “+ Germ

Protection” on the packaging/box of its product

“AER Power Pocket – Bathroom Fragrance”. ASCI

CODE VIOLATED: Articles 1.1, 1.4 and 1.5 of

Chapter-I and Covid-19 advertising advisory dated

20th October 2020 GROUNDS FOR CHALLENGE:

We, Dabur, are constrained to file the present

complaint since Godrej is misleading innocent

consumers through a misleading claim. Godrej is the

manufacturer and seller of the product – bathroom

fragrance” under the brand “AER Power Pocket”

(hereinafter the “Product”). The Product is a sealed

sachet and is used in the sealed condition (without

opening the sachet). However, on the packaging/box

of Godrej claims that the Product, which is a

bathroom fragrance, protects one from “Germ” and

also uses the sign of the “Red Cross” implying that it

is a medicated product. The misleading claim on the

pack of the product reads as under: “+ Germ

Protection~” (hereinafter the “Claim”)

~Disclaimer: Basis lab study data The Air Freshener

pack advertised with GERM PROTECTION claim is

scientifically erroneous, misleading and out rightly

irresponsible claim placed for Godrej Air Freshener

Pocket gel. This Claim is challenged for following

and explained in details: Product format technical

constraint Vague disclaimer Use of + sign – Drug/

Medical indication Regulatory non-compliance

Absence of Ingredient list Product format technical

constraint: The product is an Air Freshener Gel

supposed to be hanged in bathroom for Air freshness.

A person skilled in art will clearly understand that the

product format is a drawback and cannot deliver any

Germ Protection/Kill in air. The mode of action of

the product is diffusion of fragrance through a

breathable membrane in air. The product is placed in

a sealed breathable sachet. At no point of time the

product comes in direct contact with the outside

environment to provide Germ Kill. Hence place the

advertiser to strict proof to provide lab data and

substantiate Germ Kill in AIR. Disclaimer is vague:

~Disclaimer: Basis lab study data There is no

mention of type of germs from which protection is

provided, duration of germ protection (24 hrs for 30

days), room size for best results, percentage germ

protection + Sign - Unauthorized Usage of Regd

Cross “+” – The manufacturer has grossly violated

the Chapter 1.3 & 4.2 of ASCI code by using Red

Cross “+” which is used by medical fraternity like

doctors, Indian Medical association, Drug products

etc. to depict the common consumer that their

product is certified by the doctors or medical

institutions. This is very alarming and abstruse that

how manufacturer can use such sign just in order to

confuse the consumers and to take artificial

advantage on the competition, which is again

violation of chapter 4.1.b of ASCI code. Germ

Protection – Tall Regulatory Claim: Germ protection

for Air Freshener is a tall claim. Products like Toilet

cleaner provides same claim and falls under Drug

License. Godrej Product Pocket Aer which is an Air

Freshener is not under any license. Thus advertiser is

exaggerating the claim for gaining mileage in market

place. This is a claim derived in Covid period and

this is exploitation of the existing pandemic situation

for their business benefit without having suitable

claims substantiation. Absence of Ingredient added

for Germ protection The INCI list is missing which is

present in the old pack (perfume and Gellant). It does

not give a clear picture to consumer as what is

helping for germ protection. In the light of the above,

it is submitted that the Claim is in contravention of


Articles 1.1, 1.4 and 1.5 of Chapter-I of the ASCI

Code and the recent Covid-19 advertising advisory

dated 20th October 2020. Therefore,

Godrej/Advertiser should be immediately

refrained/restrained from using the Claim through

packaging/box or otherwise, in respect of its

Product.”




complainant and the advertiser. The expert, Prof.

Anurag Mehra, who reviewed all the technical

evidence provided to the FTCP was also present

during the deliberations.

The FTCP noted the following arguments made by

the complainant:

The complainant submitted that the advertiser’s

product format is a technical constraint in making the

“Germ Protection” claim. In their submission to the

FTCP they reiterated that the advertiser’s product is

concealed in a gel pouch and at no point in time

comes in direct contact with the external environment

to provide germ kill. The complainant added that a

bathroom environment has several types of germs,

and the advertiser’s product packaging does not

specify which germs the product provided protection

against. The complainant also argued that even if the

advertiser was able to prove “Germ protection” in a

lab, that was not adequate to offer a genuine

consumer benefit in a real-life situation, as in a

bathroom, there are several types of germs. The

complainant raised doubts on the product

performance with respect to germ protection for 30

days, 24 X7.

The complainant further added that the use of the “+”

sign in red is a violation of the Indian Parliaments

Geneva Convention Act 1960, Section 12, which

prohibits the use of Red Cross and other allied

emblem for any purpose whatsoever without

approval of the Government of India. Moreover, the

product, an air freshener is not a drug, therefore the

use of the “+” sign appeared to be taking advantage

of the current pandemic situation.

Finally, the complainant pointed out that the absence

of the ingredient list in the new pack of Godrej Aer

was misleading as there was no information on the

active ingredient that provided germ protection.

The FTCP noted the following arguments from the

advertiser:

The advertiser in their submission, disputed the

above objections. The advertiser provided evidence

that the product was tested in a lab using the standard

protocols followed for testing air hygiene products.

The test was conducted in a 150 cubic feet room,

replicating a washroom environment, with flora

representing a typical washroom over a period of

time. The test results showed a significant reduction

in the micro flora in the test room. The advertiser

confirmed that they had also done a similar test on a

product that was aged for 25 days, and that test also

showed a significant reduction in micro flora. The

Advertiser contended that air flora in the chosen

environment would comprise thousands of micro-

organisms, and provided examples of microbes

studied in this test. The advertiser asserted that the

ingredients used in the product were a mix of

chemicals and essential oils that have anti-microbial

properties.

Hence the advertiser argued that they were able to

substantiate the claim of “Germ protection” via these

independent tests, conducted in NABL accredited

laboratories, using standardised testing protocols. The

expert agreed that the testing methodology and

protocols were standardised and used in different

spaces including eg., spaces in operation theatres as

and by a way of measuring microbial load.

With regard to the complainant’s objection on germ

kill and the product being a drug, the advertiser

clarified that they are only projecting germ protection

and not germ kill. Therefore, the complainant’s

objection that this product is like a drug is not valid.

The product in question is a hygiene product and not

a drug.

With reference to the use of the “+” sign, the

advertiser added that the sign refers to the additional

attributes of the product, in this case, long lasting

bathroom fragrance + germ protection and was by no

means an effort to cue that the product is a drug. The

previous variant of the product had no germ

protection; the plus sign here is put to show that it

had an extra benefit. There are three different colours

used across variants to represent the additional aspect

through the “+” sign, and that was used in a

mathematical sense. The advertiser also submitted

that using of plus sign is a very common practice and

is used by a lot of brands across categories, and

shared some examples.

In their response to the objections raised on the

disclaimer, the advertiser submitted that specification

of test methods in the disclaimer would have been

beyond the comprehension of the common man.

Therefore, the disclaimer “based on lab tests” is not

vague, and is adequate from a packaging perspective,


especially given that the pack size is only around

three inches.

Finally, the advertiser concluded their submissions by

saying that the ingredient list is mandatory for

products that fall under the drugs and cosmetics

category and not in respect of air hygiene products

such as theirs. They were not in violation of any law

governing such a category.

The FTCP views:

The FTCP noted that the complainant’s objection to

the product format is not valid. The complainant

accepted that any molecule or compound that is

volatile can come out of the enclosed pouch and

disperse into the external environment. With regard

to product efficacy the FTCP noted that the test

methods used by the advertiser followed standard test

protocols and techniques, as used in operation

theatres and clean rooms to test air quality. The settle

plate method used by the advertiser shows that, for 5

different locations of the settle plate, placed at

different heights, a reduction of air flora ranging from

80-87% was observed, in 120 hours. Even in 24

hours a reduction of 32 to 63% was seen. As per the

advertiser’s submissions, the FTCP noted that Annex

2 provided similar data for an “aged” product.

Further, the FTCP observed that aroma chemicals

present in the product are known to have microbial

activity, as presented in Annex 3 and 4. Therefore,

based on the documents submitted by the advertiser

and the opinion of the expert present at the

deliberation the FTCP was of the view that the

efficacy of the product for “germ protection” was

adequately substantiated.

The FTCP noted that ingredient list is not required to

be indicated for this category. Though it may be

desirable from a consumer point of view, it is beyond

ASCI’s jurisdiction. The FTCP also considered the

advertiser’s submissions on the use of the disclaimer

“basis lab study data”, and agreed that more

information in a small three-inch pouch would only

further complicate things and make it unintelligible

for consumers. In its current form it was providing

adequate information about the basis of the claim and

was not considered to be vague.

The FTCP deliberated on the usage of the “+” sign

and was of the opinion that it had similar

characteristics with that of the Red Cross, in a

manner where ordinary consumers are likely to

mistake it for the Red Cross which is meant for

medical and related products, and whose use is

governed by the Geneva Convention Act 1960. The

panel agreed, that whilst the intent might not have

been to use it to cue a product that is a drug or to

mislead consumers, however,

in its current form a quick glance could mislead the

consumer with respect to a few variants where the

cross sign is a red coloured one.

Furthermore, the FTCP was not convinced with the

argument of the advertiser that the plus sign was only

meant to convey an additional benefit as the

placement of the sign appeared before the claim

rather than between the two claims.

The FTCP concluded that the claim “Germ

Protection” was adequately substantiated and not

found to be misleading or in contravention to Chapter

I of the ASCI code. This complaint was NOT

UPHELD.

However, the use of the “+” sign in the claim was

found to be misleading by implication and ambiguity

and in contravention of Chapter I, 1.1, 1.4 of the

ASCI code. This complaint was UPHELD.

3. 2101-FTCP.27 RECKITT BENCKISER

(INDIA) PVT. LTD(*) –Lizol Floor Cleaner

NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT: Hindustan

Unilever Limited(*)

MEDIUM: YouTube(*)

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcULzo_FlJI )

ADVERTISING AGENCY: McCann Worldgroup

India(*)


Fast Track Complaint received against the YouTube

advertisement

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcULzo_FlJI) of

“Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt. Ltd – Lizol Floor

Cleaner”, from Hindustan Unilever Limited.

1. The said Advertisement has been published by the

Advertiser on 7th Jan 2021 on its official YouTube

Channel and can the said Advertisement is also

available across TV channels and on other digital

pages.

The claim made by the Advertiser regarding the

Product “Lizol Kills Coronavirus that causes

COVID-19 in 30 Seconds” and the depiction in the

Advertisement is misleading and false. The key

objections are as follows:

3.1. The claim statement has been made in the

Advertisement that “ye mare 99.9% germs aur

COVID-19 phailanewale coronavirus ko sirf 30

second main”. Coupled with such statement, the

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcULzo_FlJI


super “Lizol Kills Coronavirus that causes COVID-

19” and the mnemonic “30 seconds” is being added

in the Advertisement thereby clearly giving the

impression that Lizol kills COVID-19 Coronavirus in

30 seconds. It is submitted that the said claim is false

and the Advertiser shall be called upon to

substantiate the same.

3.2. It is submitted that till about end of last year, the

Advertiser was making the claim for its Product

“Lizol” that “It kills coronavirus which spreads

COVID-19” and/or “Tested/Proven effective against

COVID-19 Virus” and the disclaimer associated with

the same was “Upon 5 minutes contact time as per

usage instructions on pack”. It is pertinent to mention

that the erstwhile claim was put to scrutiny in one of

the complaints bearing number 2010-C.1419 and the

CCC’s recommendations are attached herewith as

Annexure “B”. It may be noted that the Advertiser

has introduced a new claim i.e. “Lizol kills COVID-

19 Coronavirus in 30 seconds” and added a new

disclaimer, i.e. “When used neat on non-porous

surfaces as mentioned on the pack. Rinse and wipe

off after use.” in the Advertisement. It is submitted

that the Advertiser shall be asked to substantiate the

same fully and independently as the claim in question

under this complaint, i.e., “Lizol kills COVID-19

Coronavirus in 30 seconds” is distinct from the claim

which was under consideration in the earlier

complaint bearing number 2010-C.1419.

3.3. It is submitted that the disclaimer added by the

Advertiser in support of the claim is “When used neat

on non-porous surfaces as mentioned on the pack.

Rinse and wipe off after use.” Thus, it is clear that

Lizol kills COVID-19 Coronavirus in 30 seconds

only when used neat or undiluted and that to only on

non-porous surfaces – as more particularly mentioned

on the pack. However, as per usage instructions

mentioned on Lizol pack, the same shall be used

undiluted only on kitchen surfaces and that too in the

particular manner described on the pack, i.e., apply

on dirty area, leave for 10 minutes and rinse. Thus,

the claim and depiction in the Advertisement which

creates an impression that the Product is capable of

killing COVID-19 Coronavirus in 30 seconds while

used for floor cleaning and surface cleaning is

misleading. The Product label (as available on

Amazon India website) is annexed herewith and

marked as Annexure “C”.

3.4. Basis the dilution and usage of the Product

depicted by the Advertiser in the Advertisement, it

can be ascertained that the Product is used on floor

and other surfaces but not on kitchen surfaces (as on

kitchen surfaces, the Product shall be used undiluted

for 10 mins). This is clear from the sequences in the

Advertisement in question which is depicted as

under:

Thus it is clear that the Advertiser is clearly intending

to mislead consumers by portraying that the Product

kills COVID-19 Coronavirus in 30 seconds when

used for floor cleaning and surface cleaning.

3.5. Before concluding, it is also important to

highlight two important and relevant facts. The

Advertiser has challenged certain claims being made

by the complainant herein for its product “DOMEX”

by way of the CCC complaint bearing number 2012-

C.1626. 3.5.1.The technical expert, while considering

the above mentioned complaint, has opined as under:

“The instructions for use on Lizol pack have clearly

instructed that the same should be diluted for

cleaning floor and bathroom surfaces. Therefore, it is

not practically correct to claim that Lizol kills SARS-

COV-2 in 30 seconds when Lizol is tested

UNDILUTED.”;

3.5.2.It is also relevant to reiterate a paragraph from

the complaint highlighting that the Product in

question is being classified as “Floor Cleaner” which

is clear from the paragraph in the complaint 2012-

C.1626 which states as under: “The Advertiser while

comparing its Product with the other floor cleaners

mentions, “did you know your floor cleaner could

take upto 5 minutes to kill corona virus”, which is

incorrect and misleading. RB’s product, Lizol

Disinfectant Surface Cleaner (“Lizol”) is the No. 1

brand in India for disinfectant floor cleaners, basis

the value market share and the same has been

certified and confirmed by Nielsen (India) Private

Limited (“Nielsen”). A copy the certificate by

Nielsen confirming Lizol’s No.1 rank in value shares

in India is being attached and marked as Annexure-

B…..”

The Complaint bearing number 2012-C.1626 filed by

the Advertiser herein and the opinion of the technical

expert in the same is annexed herewith as Annexure

“D”.


3.6. Thus, is it clear the Product in question is used

and categorised as Disinfectant Floor Cleaner by

consumers as well as the Advertiser and the claim

“Lizol kills COVID-19 Coronavirus in 30 seconds” is

misleading as the same is admittedly not true for

floor cleaning.”




complainant

and the advertiser. The expert, Prof. Abhay

Chowdhary, who reviewed all the technical evidence

provided to the FTCP was also present during the

deliberations.


the complainant:

The complainant challenged the claim in the

advertisement “ye mare 99.9% germs aur COVID-19

phailanewale coronavirus ko sirf 30 second main”.

According to the complainant, this statement,

coupled with the super “Lizol Kills Coronavirus that

causes COVID-19” and the mnemonic “30 seconds”

gave the impression that Lizol kills COVID-19

Coronavirus in 30 seconds. The disclaimer added by

the Advertiser in support of the claim “When used

neat on non-porous surfaces as mentioned on the

pack. Rinse and wipe off after use” meant that Lizol

kills COVID-19 Coronavirus in 30 seconds only

when used neat or undiluted and that too only on

non-porous surfaces – as more particularly mentioned

on the pack. Hence the complainant argued that the

claim and depiction in the Advertisement creates an

impression that the product is capable of killing

COVID-19 Coronavirus in 30 seconds while used for

floor cleaning and surface cleaning both, and the

same is misleading. The possible usage of the product

as a floor cleaner means that it is used in a diluted

form, which is also as per pack usage instructions.

There is no evidence to suggest that in such a diluted

form, it would be effective against the COVID-19

Coronavirus, especially in 30 seconds as is being

claimed.

The FTCP noted the following arguments from the

advertiser:

The advertiser argued that their product is a multi-

surface disinfectant, which is how it is registered, as

well as sold. And hence, their advertisement shows

multiple uses of the product. This includes floor

cleaning, but is not restricted to this use. Disinfecting

multiple surfaces is an important part of precaution

against the COVID-19 Coronavirus, and the product

was useful to consumers in this context. It was

important to educate consumers on the correct usage

of the product.

The advertiser argued that there was no claim of

efficacy against the COVID-19 Coronavirus in 30

seconds, when the floor cleaning situation was

visually being depicted. This claim was mentioned

and shown only when the visual pertained to the kind

of surfaces where the product is recommended be

used in its undiluted form and the claim was

technically capable of substantiation. Hence, the

advertiser argued that the advertisement was not

misleading.

The FTCP ruling:

The FTC Panel carefully considered the submissions

of both the advertiser and the complainant, and

deliberated upon the matters raised.

The FTCP felt that, technically, the claim vis-a-vis

the COVID-19 virus was substantiated through the

test results submitted by the advertiser and the

expert’s opinion. However, the discussion with the

complainant and the advertiser also raised a question

whether the advertisement created an impression that

the “30 seconds" claim was applicable to the usage

for floor cleaning as well.

The FTCP debated whether adequate care had been

taken by the advertiser to ensure that consumers are

well informed about the efficacy of the product

against the COVID-19 virus for the different surfaces

the product was used for, from the advertisement,

voice over and disclaimers all taken together.

On viewing the advertisement several times, the

FTCP opined that the advertiser has ensured that the

claim pertaining to killing of "COVID-19 virus in 30

seconds" was made only in the visual frames where

the product was recommended to be used in an

undiluted form.

In an advertisement which shows multiple uses, at

different dilution levels, in the same advertisement,

the FTCP felt that though overlaps existed while

viewing the advertisement, the advertiser has

managed to separate out the claim of killing COVID-

19 virus and to restrict it to those parts of the usage

depiction where such a claim could be substantiated.

The disclaimer further clarified that the claim of

killing COVID-19 virus in 30 seconds was only there

when the product was used in an undiluted form.

The FTC panel concluded that the advertiser had

taken enough steps to substantiate their claim in the

advertisement, in the manner presented. Hence, the



4. 2101-FTCP.28 DABUR INDIA LTD(*) –

Dabur Odomos mosquito repellant cream

NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT:Godrej

Consumer Products Limited(*)

MEDIUM:Ad-Instagram post

(https://www.instagram.com/p/CH2ud4ThwS0/) and

YouTube(*)

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXCenst9Kys)

ADVERTISING AGENCY: McCann Erickson

(India) Pvt. Ltd(*)


Fast Track Complaint received against the Ad-

Instagrampost(https://www.instagram.com/p/CH2ud4

ThwS0/) and

YouTube advertisement

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXCenst9Kys)

of “Dabur India Ltd – Dabur Odomos mosquito

repellant cream”, from Godrej Consumer Products

Limited.

It has come to our notice that Dabur (advertiser) has

modified its advertisement/disclaimer after the CCC

Review- Recommendation of 2008-CCC-R.08 of

2007-CCC-R.07 - (2006-FTC.04) on a. Instagram:

wherein an image of Liquid Vaporizer machines v/s

Dabur Odomos cream and on top of the

advertisement, it is shown “Which gives better

protection from Mosquitoes?” Below the image

“Choose Odomos Protection. Now get 99.9%

protection from mosquitoes as compared to Liquid

Machines!” With a disclaimer, “this has been tested

as per WHO Field Trial Guidance Document for

efficacy testing of household insecticides for 1st

30minutes. The test was designed to assess instant

mosquito bite protection when compared with

0.88%Transfluthrin Vaporizer Product”.

b. Instagram

https://www.instagram.com/p/CH2ud4ThwS0/: lot of

mosquitoes are around the liquid vaporizer with the

claim “Odomos gives 99.9% protection from

Mosquitoes as compared to LVP” with a disclaimer,

“this has been tested as per WHO Field Trial

Guidance Document for efficacy testing of household

insecticides for 1st 30minutes. The test was designed

to assess instant mosquito bite protection when

compared with 0.88% Transfluthrin Vaporizer

Product”

c. YouTube Advertisement: The advertisement starts

with “patalagatemaccharo se behtar protection

kyahai,liquid machine se milisirf 66% aurodomos se

mili 99.9% protection” with a disclaimer “this has

been tested as per WHO Field Trial Guidance

Document for efficacy testing of household

insecticides for 1st 30minutes. The test was designed

to assess instant mosquito bite protection when

compared with 0.88% Transfluthrin Vaporizer

Product”.

I. Contravention of ASCI Code:

The advertiser is misleading the consumers, as the

advertisement is not truthful and not an honest

representation. The claim, “Now get 99.9%


Machines with a disclaimer “this has been tested as

per WHO Field Trial Guidance Document for

efficacy testing of household insecticides for 1st 30

minutes. The test was designed to assess instant

mosquito bite protection when compared with 0.88%

Transfluthrin Vaporizer Product” is a misleading

absolute claim disparaging the entire Liquid

Vaporiser category. Through this, it also can be

affirmed that the advertiser is distorting the facts.

There are other higher concentrated Transfluthrin

formulations available in the market with more

advanced technologies in the liquid machine

destroyer. However, the advertiser is restricting its

claim only to one set of lowest concentrated

Transfluthrin formula in the disclaimer and

conveniently forgot to present the study of the higher

concentration formulation such as 1.2% and 1.6%

Transfluthrin, which may not even register in the

minds of the consumers as the advertisement is

framed in such a manner that consumers would think

that Dabur Odomos is better as compared with the

entire liquid machine category and the consumers

would blindly believe that Dabur Odomos is better

than liquid vaporizer since the claims in the

advertisement are so exaggerated.

The claim “Choose Odomos Protection. Now get

99.9% protection from mosquitoes as compared to

Liquid Machines” becomes factually incorrect and

we herewith submit the below data extracted from the

AC Nielsen for the November 2020:

https://www.instagram.com/p/CH2ud4ThwS0/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXCenst9Kys



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXCenst9Kys


It is to be inferred that the market share of 0.88

Transfluthrin products is 27%, while the 1.6

Transfluthrin category is at 71 %, out of which Good

knight holds 54.4% market share with Good Knight

Flash having 25% market share. From the above, it

can be understood that the advertiser is comparing

the product “Dabur Odomos” with liquid vaporizer,

which holds only 27% market share (and all these

27% formulations operate on the dual operating

modemachines by their respective manufactures),

making a claim “Choose Odomos Protection. Now

get 99.9%protection from mosquitoes as compared to

Liquid Machines” is disparaging the entire liquid

vaporizer category. In addition, we would like to

share the salient working data for last two

(2)financial years along with estimate working data

for July-November 21. The data is extracted from

Nielsen

Ideally, the advertiser should have conducted the

testing for all the available liquid vaporizers available

in the market that too on the highest mode in their

respect machines to arrive at such tall claim in

relation to the their product ‘Dabur Odomos cream’

that too, comparing only with the lowest concentrated

formulation i.e. 0.88 % Transfluthrin liquid vaporizer

product operated with a single mode machine) is a

baseless and misleading claim and is being

deliberately used by the Advertiser to deceive the

large section of the consumers who does not use

thesingle mode machines with the 0.88% liquid

vaporizer concentration and discrediting the entire

category of liquid vapouriser machines so as to claim

that Dabur Odomos cream gives ‘better protection

than liquid vaporizer category’.

The advertiser has chosen the subject matter in such a

way that it confers an artificial advantage upon

theadvertisement. The comparison by the advertiser

between a non-existent 0.88 Transfluthrin and Dabur

Odomosisnot factual, accurate and capable of

substantiation as the testing methodologies under

WHO guidelines (mentioned below) are completely

different. The claim “Choose Odomos Protection.

Now get 99.9% protection from mosquitoes as

compared to Liquid Machines” misleads the

consumers by this wrongful comparison, which is

disparaging the liquid vaporizer category. The

consumers will start believing that it is better to use

Dabur Odomos than liquid vaporizers by the claim

and this in turn denigrates attacks and discredits the

entire liquid vaporizer category.

The advertiser is distorting the facts about the entire

range of liquid vaporizer machines and is misleading

the consumers by making them believe that (i) all the

liquid vaporizer products available in the market are

not effective and (ii) Dabur Odomos cream is the

only effective product as compared to all the liquid

vaporizer products available in the market. This sort

of advertising by Dabur is nothing but disparagement

of the entire liquid vaporizer category with incorrect

data and basis a 0.88% Transfluthrin liquid machine

comparison that with a single mode operating

machine in the liquid vaporizer category. The

statement “Choose Odomos Protection. Now get


Liquid Machines” clearly projects out on to the

minds of the consumers, a completely falsified

impression that all the liquid vaporizer available in

the market are inferior products, not effective at all

against dengue-causing mosquitoes and only the

Dabur Odomos cream is a superior product providing

the best results. Such a projection of the Dabur

Odomos cream in comparison with all liquid

vaporizer machines is not true at all and is a complete

disparagement of the entire category of liquid

machines.

II. Contravention of ASCI Guidelines on

Disclaimers: The advertiser while making absolute

claim of superiority over the liquid vaporizer

category is hiding material information in the

disclaimer by mentioning the self-limiting disclaimer

and deliberately omitting the tests againstthe highly

concentrated and highly efficacious liquid vaporizer

category of 1.2% and 1.6% Transfluthrin that too

performing the tests on an outdated single mode

machine, which is currently not offered by any of the

leading manufactures of the liquid vaporizers. The

disclaimer is also hiding the material information,

which is deceptive and misguiding the naïve

consumers who may just buy seeing the statement

“Choose Odomos Protection. Now get 99.9%


Machines” and not see the disclaimer “The test was

designed to assess instant mosquito bite protection


when compared with 0.88% Transfluthrin Vaporizer

Product”.

III. Testing Methodologies:

We iterate that there are three distinct testing

methods for testing the mosquito repellent products,

viz:-

1. WHO guidelines for Household insecticides

2. WHO guidelines for skin repellents

3. WHO guidelines for spatial repellents

The Household Insecticides include mosquito coils,

liquid vaporizer, vaporizer mats, ambient emanators

and aerosols and all these products are registered and

approved as per the provision of the insecticide Act,

1968 read with Insecticide Rules, 1971. The Skin

repellants come under Topical repellants which

includes products which can be applied on skin such

as creams, lotions, gel etc and all such repellants are

approved as per the provisions of the Drugs &

Cosmetics Act, 1940 & Rules 1945.

Mosquito repellent creams are tested by Household

Insecticides protocol and not by protocol for skin

repellents. The advertiser in the disclaimer mentions

that “WHO Field Trial Guidance Document for

efficacy testing of household insecticides”, which is

meant for only liquid vaporizer products and not for

mosquito repellant creams as they fall under WHO

guidelines for skin repellents.

The advertiser is mixing the guidelines/protocols, is

creating a misconception and we believe, the

advertiser generated a scientifically false report to

affirm that the advertiser’s products are better than

the liquid vaporizer products with a specific

disclaimer as to comparative having been made as to

0.88% Transfluthrin formulated liquid vaporizer by

showing anon existing single mode machine.

IV. Reports:

GCPL has tested the 1.6% Transfluthrin liquid

vaporizer samples as per the Field Trial method on

both normal as well as in active/flash mode aslaid

down under the WHO protocol for Household

Insecticide from an Independentlaboratory and we

are submitting the following report for your ready

reference:

a. An independent laboratory (Bioscience Research

Foundation) study, Bioefficacy of Transfluthrin 1.6%

Liquid vaporiser (Good Knight Gold Flash - Normal

mode) against mosquito Aedesaegypti under

laboratory conditions as spatial repellency confirming

100% biting inhibition from 15th minute onwards in

the normal mode.

b. An independent laboratory (Bioscience Research

Foundation) study, Bioefficacy of Transfluthrin 1.6%

Liquid vaporiser (Good Knight Gold Flash - Flash

mode) against mosquito Aedesaegypti under

laboratory conditions as spatial repellency confirming

100% biting inhibition from 10th minute onwards in

the Flash mode.

Through the above reports,

a. it can be deciphered that for 1.6% Transfluthrin

formulation (normal mode & active mode), in a span

of 15 minutes to 20 minutes, GCPL’s products

(Liquid Vaporizer) gives 100% protection against

biting inhibition of mosquitoes;

b. it can be deciphered that for 1.6% Transfluthrin

formulation (normal mode & flash mode), in a span

of 10 minutes to 15 minutes, GCPL’s products

(Liquid Vaporizer) gives 100% protection against

biting inhibition of mosquitoes.

c. Also for ease of reference, please find below the

table which helps show that 1.6% Tranfluthrin (TFT)

Liquid Vaporizer gives 97% protection. The formula

for calculating the % protections is 1- (Test Biting

Instance / Control Biting Instance)%:

Hence Dabur Odomos’s Claim “Choose Odomos

Protection. Now get 99.9% protection from

mosquitoes as compared to Liquid Machines” is

disparaging and denigrating the entire liquid

machines category with incorrect comparison with a

0.88% Transfluthrin formulation of liquid machine

which has only about 25% market share and thus is

making an utterly misleading false claim.”




complainant and the advertiser. The expert, Prof.

Anurag Mehra, who reviewed all the technical

evidence provided to the FTCP was also present

during the deliberations.


the complainant:

The complainant challenged the claims “Choose

Odomos Protection. Now get 99.9% protection from

mosquitoes as compared to Liquid Machines!”, in the

instagram advertisement, “Odomos gives 99.9%

protection from Mosquitoes as compared to LVP''

and “Pata lagate maccharo se behtar protection kya

hai, liquid machine se mili sirf 66% aur odomos se

mili 99.9% protection” in the TVC. According to the


complainant the claims are unfair as the advertiser

when comparing their product with the liquid

vaporizer category chose the 0.88% Transfluthrin

Vaporizer Product in a single mode machine, which

is not a fair representation of the entire Liquid

Vapouriser (LV) category. The complainant in their

submission mentioned that currently there are three

types of Transfluthrin Vaporizer product

formulations available in the market and as of

November 2020, the market share for 0.88%

transfluthrin is 27%, 1.2% transfluthrin is 1% and

1.66% transfluthrin is 71%.

The complainant submitted that the advertiser has

conveniently chosen the weakest formulation variant,

one that is currently a smaller percentage of the

market share to arrive at a comparative claim

“…liquid machine se milisirf 66% aurodomos se mili

99.9% protection”. According to the complainant,

this data and the disclaimer “this has been tested as

per WHO Field Trial Guidance Document for

efficacy testing of household insecticides for 1st

30minutes. The test was designed to assess instant

mosquito bite protection when compared with 0.88%

Transfluthrin Vaporizer Product” is non-practicable.

This comparison could mislead consumers to believe

that the entire LV category is only 66% effective

against mosquitoes. Therefore, the advertisement was

disparaging the complete LV category.

Additionally, the complainant also raised concerns

about the testing methodology used by the advertiser

and submitted that the advertiser should have tested

against the market leader (Good Knight LV).

According to tests conducted by the advertiser as per

the approved WHO protocol, their product provides

81% and 97% protection in normal and booster mode

respectively which is much higher than the 66%

claimed by the advertiser. To conclude, the

complainant asserted that they are not contesting the

claim on the efficacy of the advertisers product, but

the comparison made with the LV category, calling it

untrue and unscientific.


the advertiser:

In their submissions to the FTCP, the advertiser

pointed out that this advertisement has been on air

since 2017 and quoted prior instances where similar

complaints were deliberated upon and not upheld by

the CCC/FTC panels.

The advertiser asserted that 21% market share is not

an ordinary number but a major market share held by

the 0.88% transfluthrin products in the LV category.

The advertiser submitted to the FTCP that they have

been transparent (through the disclaimer) about the

percentage of active (0.88% transfluthrin) present in

the products that were tested against their own to

arrive at the comparative claim “Pata lagate

maccharo se behtar protection kya hai, liquid

machine se mili sirf 66% aurodomos se mili 99.9%

protection”.

Furthermore, the advertiser submitted that the

complainant, as well as other brands in the liquid

vaporizer category itself have compared their

products with 0.88% transfluthrin product to establish

their own superiority claims. The advertiser raised

concerns about the complainant’s test reports that

showed a 97% efficacy in products with 1.6%

transfluthrin on booster moder within 10 minutes,

and submitted that, if another renowned brand

Mortein which has 1.6% transfluthrin claims to

provide protection in 35 mins on high power mode,

how is it that the complainant is able to achieve it in

such a short span of time. The advertiser hence raised

doubts about the report itself.

To conclude, the advertiser submitted to look for

percentage protection from point zero, that the

advertisement is geared toward creating awareness

among consumers, that is the point of application of

the product in case of Dabur Odomos cream.

FTCP Recommendation:

The FTC Panel carefully considered the submissions

of both the advertiser and the complainant, and

deliberated upon the matters raised. The question

before the FCTP was that technically the product

efficacy of the advertiser’s product was proven and

had not been questioned by the complainant either,

but was the comparison with products having 0.88%

actives (transfluthrin) a fair comparison given the

current category context? The FTCP noted that the

product composition of the liquid vaporiser market

had undergone a significant change, and that superior

products containing greater concentration of actives

were now the dominant product at 70% + market

share. While earlier the comparison made by 0.88%

active was fair as that was the most prevalent

product, with the change in market structure, the

claim could be misleading. The FTCP felt that an

average consumer may not realise that the point of

comparison that the advertiser referred to was not

representative of the largest product category in the

liquid vaporizer segment, but rather a smaller

segment.

The complainant, through their test data, clearly

showed the performance of the dominant liquid


vaporizer was much superior to 66% efficacy referred

to in the advertisement.

However, the advertisement gives the impression that

Odomos is superior to the Liquid vaporizer category

at large and hence it does show the category

performance in a poorer light than what the category

can deliver on an average today. Earlier, when the

larger share of the market had products with 0.88%

transfluthrin, such comparative claims were not

considered to be misleading. However, in the current

scenario when the bulk of the market has shifted to

products with higher transfluthrin concentration such

a comparative claim would need to be revised against

a new benchmark. While the advertiser argued that

they had not attempted to mask the comparative

reference as the disclaimer stated that the claim is

only against 0.88% TFT, it was not considered

sufficient as it masks a substantive fact about the

liquid vaporizer category. As per ASCI disclaimer

guideline (3), a disclaimer should not attempt to

correct a misleading claim made in the

advertisement.

The FTCP noted the expert’s opinion and noted that

there was no concern with the test methodology or

protocol in the context of assessing biting frequency

and that the test results provided by the complainant

were acceptable. The FTCP deliberated on the point

of early protection offered by the advertiser’s product

and opined that though early protection is an

important point, it is not spoken about in the

advertisement. The claims around proving or

spreading awareness among consumers around early

protection (at <5-minute interval for instance) were

not made explicitly in the advertisement. The FTCP

concluded that the advertisement is misleading in the

current context because it makes an unfair

comparison with the relatively weaker products in the

market, which also have a much lower market share.

This unfair comparison tends to denigrate the entire

Liquid Vaporizer category.

The claims “Choose Odomos Protection. Now get


Liquid Machines!”, in the Instagram advertisement,

“Odomos gives 99.9% protection from Mosquitoes as

compared to LVP'' and “Pata lagate maccharo se

behtar protection kya hai, liquid machine se mili sirf

66% aur odomos se mili 99.9% protection” in the

TVC were found to be misleading by omission and

unfair to competition. The advertisement is in

violation of Chapter I, 1.1, 1.4, 1.5 and Chapter IV,

4.1 (b) and (e). This complaint was UPHELD.

CCC-REVIEW

1. 2101-CCC-R.12 (2010-C.1609)UNITED

BREWERIES LIMITED(*) - Kingfisher

Ultra Non-Alcoholic

NAME OF THE COMPLAINT: Suo Motu

Complaint

MEDIUM:Disney Plus Hotstar(*) dated October 19,

2020.

ADVERTISING AGENCY: Mindshare(*)


Suo-Motu Complaint registered against the OTT

advertisement of “United Breweries Limited –

Kingfisher Ultra Non-Alcoholic”, which appeared on

OTT Platform-Disney Plus Hotstar dated October 19,

2020.

“Kingfisher Ultra Non-Alcoholic advertisement

shows promotion of a liquor product brand name -

Kingfisher Ultra”

Objections:

“The advertisement appears to be a surrogate ad for

Kingfisher Ultra Beer.”

“It is a violation of Guidelines for Qualification of

Brand Extension Product or Service” YouTube Link

for reference:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzjVq12nwO4

CCC RECOMMENDATION:








The advertiser submitted point-wise exhaustive reply

to the objections raised in the complaint, “Kingfisher

Ultra Non-Alcoholic advertisement shows promotion

of a liquor product brand name - Kingfisher Ultra”

In their defense, Advertiser asserted that “At the

outset, we state that United Breweries Limited

(‘UBL’) is a responsible and law-abiding corporate

which believes in fair competition, transparency with

consumers and highest regard for the law of the land.

As such, all UBL products and communications are

fully compliant with the applicable laws” and went


on to provide a brief introduction to a) the non-

alcoholic beverages market in India; b) the

background of the product in question; c) details of

exclusive manufacturing locations and all registration

certificates/licenses; d) production and turnover

milestones along with projections; and e) product

presence in the market.

In their response the Advertiser also pointed out the

decisions taken by the CCC against a similar

complaint taken up earlier. “It may be noted that

earlier also a Suo-Motu complaint (1905-C.488,

email dated 20.05.2019) was registered by ASCI

against the advertisement of Kingfisher Radler

product of UBL apprehending that the said

advertisement was in violation of Chapter I and

Chapter III of ASCI Code and ASCI's Guidelines for


Upon submission of reply by the Company the said

complaint was NOT UPHELD by the Consumer

Complaints Council (CCC) vide its order dated

21.06.2019.” and appealed to the ASCI “in view of

submissions made in foregoing reply, we request you

to kindly drop the complaint and oblige”.

The following documents were submitted by the

Advertiser as claim support data: 1) copy of a media

report announcing “United Breweries forays in non-

alcoholic beverage segment”; 2) copy of a media

report reading “In dry Gujarat, liquor companies to

fight over no- alcohol beer”; 3) copy of a media

report reading “Kingfisher launches first non-

alcoholic drink”; 4) copy of FSSAI license; 5) copies

of certificate of registration of trademark; 6) copy of

image of labels; 7) copy of product shot; 8) copy of a

CA certificate; 9) copy of NOC to set up production

facility from Bihar State Pollution Control Board; 10)

copy of certificate of provisional registration from

Government of India and Government of Bihar; and

11) copy of the Ad film. The Advertiser’s response

along with the documents provided in defense of the

objection were presented before the Consumer

Complaints Council (CCC) to consider. The CCC

viewed the YouTube advertisement and considered

the Advertisers submissions at the meeting.

The CCC noted that there was a similar complaint

registered against the Advertiser that was not upheld.

However, the CCC treated the current case as being

independent from the previous one and carefully

considered all submissions made in support of the

current case.

The CCC deliberated on this and was of the opinion

that the ad content did not have any overt liquor cues

and was not in violation of Chapter III, 3.6 (b). The

CCC observed that the advertiser submitted the

required licenses and certificates as proof of their

brand extension product being registered with

appropriate Government authorities. The CCC agreed

to the advertiser’s submission that non-alcoholic beer

is becoming popular and other players are also

launching such products, and noted that the

Advertiser launched this product in prohibition states

so their interest may be genuine. However, no sales

turnover or distribution data was provided for CCC to

consider against the ASCI guidelines. Therefore, the

data did not meet the conditions laid in the ASCI

Guidelines for Brand Extension Product and

Services, and was in violation of the same. This CCC

held that the ad is in violation of Chapter III, 3.6(a) of

the ASCI code. The objection “The advertisement

appears to be a surrogate ad for Kingfisher Ultra

Beer” was UPHELD.

CCC RECOMMENDATION ON REVIEW:

The Consumer Complaints Council Review Panel,

through a personal hearing, heard the arguments of

the advertiser.

In their submission, the advertiser stated that the

product Kingfisher Ultra Non-Alcoholic Beer is a

new product that was launched in 2019 pan India.

The intention behind this launch was to offer non-

alcoholic beer to those who cannot get, or do not

wishto consume alcoholic beer. Furthermore, they

asserted that non-alcoholic beer is a growing market

in India, and the product was now available across

the country. The advertiser’s company is the only one

to manufacture and market these products in India.

The advertiser added that for any new product in the

market it takes at least 4-5 years to reach Rs. 5 cr. in

annual sales figures, and in a category whose annual

estimated sales is Rs. 50 cr. the advertiser’s two

brands Radler and Kingfisher Ultra Non-Alcoholic

Beer put together already captures 25% of the market

share.

The advertiser also argued that the product in

discussion is a substitute product for alcoholic beer

and it is prominently displayed throughout the

advertisement that it is a non-alcoholic product so as

to not mislead the consumers in any way. The

advertiser further drew the CCCR’s attention towards

the packaging, stating that the packaging for the non-

alcoholic beer is frosted bottles which is clearly

different from that of the transparent bottles for

alcoholic beer.

Along with his verbal submissions the advertiser also

submitted a CBFC certificate, as well as a CA


certificate authenticating the advertiser’s sales

volume and annual gross sales turnover for

Kingfisher Ultra Non-Alcoholic Beer for the year

2019-2020 and 2020-2021(upto 31st December

2020).

The CCCR panel carefully considered the advertisers

submissions and felt that the company has made an

effort to make a significant investment in the non-

alcoholic beer category. Their intention appears to be

clear and serious; to capture a growing market. Their

investments are quite decisive, the product itself is a

genuine saleable product, the packaging is different

and the content of the advertising does not violate

Chapter III 3.6(b). The CCCR also considered the

sales figure provided in the CA certification, and

debated whether Rs. 2.43 cr. for three financial

quarters in a 50 cr. market is a fair amount to give the

advertiser a benefit of doubt in view of an

exceptionally difficult year for business.

However, the quantitative guidelines under the ASCI

code for Brand extension are well defined and require

products distributed nationally to exceed a turnover

of Rs. 5 crores. The CCC-R noted that these

guidelines were established more than eight years

ago, and therefore a sale of Rs. 5 crores for a new

product is not an excessive requirement. The CCC-R

also noted that the advertiser could have submitted

distribution data in lieu of sales data, which was not

done. The CCC-R felt that once the sales of the

advertised product crosses the threshold of Rs. 5

crore, or if the advertiser can establish that they meet

the distribution criteria, then this advertisement can

be allowed to run.

The CCCR panel concluded that as per the current

ASCI guidelines, the sales turnover did not qualify

under the ASCI Guidelines for Brand Extension

Product and Services, and was in violation of the

same. The CCC recommendation of the complaint

being UPHELD stands on CCC-Review.

2. 2101-CCC-R.13 (2010-C.1692) UNITED

BREWERIES LIMITED(*) - Heineken 0.0 -

Non-Alcoholic Beverage

NAME OF THE COMPLAINT: Suo Motu

Complaint

MEDIUM: Disney Plus Hotstar(*) dated October 27,

2020.

ADVERTISING AGENCY: Mindshare(*)


Suo-Motu Complaint registered against the OTT

advertisement of “United Breweries Limited –

Heineken 0.0 - Non-Alcoholic Beverage” which

appeared on OTT Platform Disney Plus Hotstar dated

October 27, 2020.

“Heineken 0.0 advertisement shows the promotion of

a liquor product brand name – Heineken. The bottle

shown is an exact copy of an alcoholic drink it sells

under the brand name Heineken”

Objections:


for Heineken Beer.”

2. “It is a violation of Guidelines for Qualification of


CCC RECOMMENDATION:








In response to the objection raised in the complaint

“Heineken 0.0 advertisement shows the promotion of

a liquor product brand name – Heineken. The bottle

shown is an exact copy of an alcoholic drink it sells

under the brand name Heineken. Therefore, the

advertisement appears to be a surrogate ad for

Heineken Beer”, the Advertiser submitted that, “At

the outset, we state that United Breweries Limited

(‘UBL’) is a responsible and law-abiding corporate

which believes in fair competition, transparency with

consumers and highest regard for the law of the land.

As such, all UBL products and communications are

fully compliant with the applicable laws” and went

on to provide a brief introduction to a) the non-

alcoholic beverages market in India; b) the

background of the product in question; c)

reinstatement of the fact that Heineken is a Promoter

of UBL and its operations in India are undertaken in

collaboration with UBL and details of import license

and registration certificates; d) production and

turnover milestones along with projections; and e)

product presence in the market.

The following documents were submitted by the

Advertiser as claim support data: 1) copy of media

report announcing the launch of the product –

“Heineken 0.0 launch in India sets stage for

Anheuser-Busch InBev battle”; 2) copy of the FSSAI


import license; 3) copy of certificate of registration of

trademarks; 4) copy of a CA certificate; 5) copy of an

image of product shot; and 6) copy of the ad film.

The Advertiser’s response along with the documents

provided in defense of the objection were presented

before the Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) to

consider. The CCC viewed the TVC and considered

the Advertisers submissions at the meeting.

The CCC deliberated on this and noted that the

Advertiser meets the criteria of line extension

guidelines for ASCI in terms of sufficient product

distribution or sales turnover, based on the data

submitted by the advertiser. The CCC observed that

the advertiser submitted the required licenses and

certificates as proof of their brand extension product

being registered with appropriate Government

authorities. However, the content and situation

depicted is overtly suggestive of an alcohol product.

The bar set up, the wine glass, the beer like bottle

were all directly suggestive of an alcoholic product

being advertised. Therefore, the ad had cues and

clues which could suggest that this advertisement was

for a product whose advertising is restricted by law.

This was in contravention of Chapter III, 3.6(b) of the

ASCI code. The objection “The advertisement

appears to be a surrogate ad for Heineken Beer” was

UPHELD.




the advertiser.

The advertiser in their submissions stated that the

advertisement in question is for Heineken 0.0 non-

alcoholic beer and the same message is prominently

displayed on the screen throughout the advertisement.

In their response to the objections raised by the

previous CCC about the bar setup providing direct

cues to alcoholic beverages, the advertiser said that

the ‘bar setup’ is in fact apt in this case and the

objection to it is misconstrued. The advertiser went to

point out that bars also sell energy drinks and other

non-alcoholic beverages. They added that this

advertisement is targeted towards people who either

hesitate to have alcoholic beverages or are teetotalers

going to a bar. The idea is to provide consumers a

choice, and a substitute for alcohol. In their

arguments they also mentioned that the depiction of

James Bond in the ad was also unintended in a way

that he is refusing his standard drink, a Martini and

choosing Heineken 0.0 non-alcoholic beer instead;

reiterating the idea of the “choice”. To conclude their

submissions the advertiser added that packaging of

the product in question and the said brands alcoholic

beer are also different. The alcoholic beer comes with

a green label while Heineken 0.0 comes with a blue

label.

Along with their oral submission, the advertiser also

provided a CA certificate authenticating the

advertiser’s sales volume and annual gross sales

turnover for Heineken 0.0 Non-Alcoholic Beer for

the year 2018-2019, 2019-2020 and 2020-2021(upto

31st December 2020).

The CCC-R panel carefully considered the

advertiser’s submissions. The panel noted that sales

data provided by the brand earlier as well as now met

the criteria of line extension guidelines for ASCI and

was not a matter of concern in this case.

The CCCR deliberated on the qualitative aspects of

the brand communication and was of the opinion that

the advertiser’s submissions about the bar being an

apt setup for this product was not convincing. The

CCCR was of the view that in common practice

people go to a bar with the intent of consuming

alcoholic beverages and not to have a non-alcoholic

drink, especially when they go alone, which is akin to

the depiction in the advertisement. The packaging

too, in choice of the colour of the bottle was

strikingly similar to the alco-bev category. The

review panel discussed that certain colours of bottles,

especially, brown, amber, green are common in the

alcoholic beverage industry, and could be construed

as cues in the context of the situation depicted in the

advertisement.

Furthermore, the CCCR panel added that the use of

actor Daniel Craig in his James Bond avatar appeared

to be a strategic move as the actor was promoting

alcoholic beer globally through advertisements that

are similar to the Heineken 0.0 Non-Alcoholic Beer

advertisementagainst which this complaint was

received. This could create an instant connect in

consumermind to the alcoholic beer category.

Therefore, the CCCR panel concluded that the use of

a bar setup with empty Martini glasses, shakers etc.

to advertise a non-alcoholic beer; the similarity of the

bottle with that of Heineken alcoholic beer in terms

of colour and shape; and the use of actor Daniel

Craig who is promoting beer globally are all directly

suggestive of an alcoholic product being advertised.

Therefore, the ad had cues and clues which could

suggest that this advertisement was for a product

whose advertising is restricted by law. This was in

contravention of Chapter III, 3.6(b) of the ASCI


code. The CCC recommendation of the complaint

being UPHELD stands on CCC-Review.

3. 2101-CCC-R.14 (2011-C.1922) POLYCAB

INDIA LIMITED –Polycab Puro Coat Fans

NAME OF THE COMPLAINT: End Consumers

MEDIUM: Star Sports 1(*) dated November 03,

2020.

ADVERTISING AGENCY: R K Swamy BBDO(*)


Complaint received against the TVC and YouTube

Advertisement of “Polycab India Limited-

PolycabPuroCoat Fans” which appeared on Star

Sports 1 dated November 03, 2020.”

Claims objected to:

1. New PolycabPuroCoat fans with Nanova

Technology– AntiVirus, AntiGerms, AntiDust,

AntiRust

2.India’s First Anti-VirusFans

Complaint:

"Anti virusfan ! (1) 03/11/2020

Are we Indians so idiots that such advertisements are

ever designed and telecasted during IPL matches?

Just seen between 12 & 13 over during mi batting on

live star sports 1. @ascionline if you wish to act.

(2) 04-11-2020

Polycab it's on net too.”

Suo Motu Observation:

ASCI observed the advertisement which portrays the

protagonist wearing gloves, mask and protective

eyewear, suggesting that he is afraid to remove them

saying' Aunty germs, Aunty viruses &Aunty dust and

the lady replies saying 'Aunty nahi Anti'. Given the

current pandemic situation the advertisement is likely

to be misleading by implication in spite of the

disclaimer suggesting that the fan offers protection

from coronavirus.

CCC RECOMMENDATION:










Advertiser in their response submitted point-wise

reply to the objections raised in the complaint.

Advertiser submitted supporting data to demonstrate

the authenticity of the benefits and the efficacy of the

product.

Claim – “Naya PolycabPuroCoat fans with Nanova

Technology - Anti Virus, Anti Germs, Anti Dust,

AntiRust”

- advertiser stated that “the quantitative assessment of

Anti-viral activity done at the lab shows virus

reduction percentage of 99.19% with the

NanovaUltraguard E2C 140X AB coating. The

quantitative assessment of microbial kill activity with

NanovaUltraguard E2C 140X AB Anti-dust, anti-

bacterial easy to clean Nanocoating:

i. Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 6538 is 99.95%,

ii. Escherichia coli ATCC 8739 is 99.93%.

The advanced highly cross-linked nanocoating

equipped with hydrophobic (water) and oleophobic

(oil) repellent properties and which makes Purocoat

fans are non-stick to dust and easy to clean depicting

their “Anti-Rust” Claim. There is a clear disclaimer

as ‘Claim not applicable to coronavirus (COVID-19)’

in the TVC.”

Claim – “India’s First Anti-Virus Fans” – advertiser

stated that “Polycab fans are the first ones to use and

claim this revolutionary coating on its fans which

deactivates viruses, germs, repels dust (easy to clean)

and protects from rusting. Hence Polycab fans are the

first to have Anti-virus, Anti-germ, Anti-dust & Anti-

dust features in one fan. They are not aware of any

other brand to have any such product or made claim

for it.”


Copy of the TVC, (2) Copy of storyboard, (3) Test

report for the coating used is from Novasurface

which is tested for Anti-dust and Anti-rust, (4)Test

report from Biotech Testing Services on

NanovaUltraguard E2C 140X AB coating, (5) Test

report from Biotech Testing Services on

NanovaUltraguard E2C 140X ABcoating.








sought for a meeting with the technical expert, which


was arranged by the ASCI Secretariat through Zoom

video conference.


technical expert, the advertiser submitted test

certificates and presentation of Slide wise test

reports. This data was again shared with the technical

expert. The Technical expert raised certain queries on

the test reports and asked for further clarifications on

the same. These queries were subsequently answered

by the advertiser.

Based on the advertiser’s additional response, the



The CCC viewed the TVC and the YouTube

advertisement

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hzJCdJrhMo)



meeting.

The CCC observed that the study for the product was

done by Biotech Testing services Mumbai for anti-

bacterial and anti-viral activity with MS 2 phages

which are viruses of bacteria and not against animal

/human viruses. It is useful only for preliminary

screening of anti-viral activity. Also, the report is not

issued on appropriate NABL stationary and is

without any reference to NABL accreditation status

of the laboratory. The study is not based on the

standard testing protocol for demonstrating the anti-

viral /anti-bacterial activity/efficacy of products on

surfaces which are for long term use. Additional data

from NIBEC, Pune study against SARS CoV-2 Virus

was not acceptable as a third-party test report.

BTS study document had no signature and was not on

the proper format of report on their letterhead. The

CCC

notedthattheadvertiserhadunsignedreportswiththematt

hetimeofsubmission,and the advertiser subsequently

submitted the signed reports, which was not

acceptable. Similarly, the ‘d technology lab’ report

for anti-viral study using MS2 phages and

bactericidal/fungicidal test reports also had no

signature. Activity against MS2 phages, as reported

by this laboratory is only indicative and not specific

anti-viral activity against COVID-19 virus.

Therefore, this report is not acceptable as supportive

of claim. Eurofins Gurgaon had a test report from

‘Biopharma product testing’ on Biocides and

antimicrobials report using Bovine coronavirus with

only 2 log reduction was additionally submitted. The

testing result reports efficacy of 2 Log reduction

which is not equivalent to 99.9% efficacy. Therefore,

it does not substantiate the claim of 99.9% efficacy.

Additional test data from Nelson labs Fairfield,

NJ,USA reports on testing with Human coronavirus,

but report carries a note which clarifies that it is as

per US FDA Good Manufacturing Practice

regulations only. This testing is not a testing of

appropriate anti-viral testing to accept as a product

claim data.


the claims, “Naya PolycabPuroCoat fans with

Nanova Technology - Anti Virus, Anti Germs, Anti

Dust, Anti Rust”, were inadequately substantiated.



minds of consumers. Given the current pandemic

situation, regardless of the disclaimer, the

advertisement is likely to mislead consumers that the

product offers protection from Coronavirus.


concluded that the claim, “India’s First Anti-Virus

Fans” was not substantiated with verifiable

comparative data to prove their product being India’s

first for the product features claimed, nor the claim

was backed by an independent third-party validation.

The TVC and the YouTube advertisement

contravened Chapters I.1, I.4, and I.5 of the ASCI





the advertiser.

In their submission, the advertiser stated that

“PuroCoat with Nanova Technology” is a coating

that gives the fan a 4-in-1 advantage: anti-virus, anti-

germ, anti-dust and anti-rust, and any bacteria or

virus that comes in contact with the blade of the fan

gets neutralized. The advertiser added that for

virucidal activity of the fan they have tested on

human coronavirus and the SARS-CoV-2 virus and

found their product to be efficacious against both.

However, they have refrained from making any

Covid-19 related claims and in fact, the said

advertisement comes with a disclaimer “Claim not

applicable to coronavirus (COVID-19)”. Addressing

concerns raised by the earlier CCC regarding testing

protocols, the advertiser submitted that they have

followed standard protocols for testing of virucidal

efficacy on both porous and non-porous surfaces.

Furthermore, the advertiser in their submissions

asserted that all their claims revolve around, and are

based on contact mechanism with the fan surface


only and not otherwise. They do not claim to reduce

the viral load of the room in which the fan is being

used. The fan is effective only when viruses, bacteria

or dust particles come in direct contact with the fan

surface; or when infected hands come in contact with

the surface of the fan etc.

Along with their verbal submissions, the advertiser

also submitted the following documents in support of

their claim:

1) The accreditation certificates of (a) Biotech

Testing Services, (b) The Bombay Textile Research

Association, (c) Eurofins Biolab and (d) the

accreditation certificate along with scope of

accreditation for Nelson Labs; 2) the final report of

virucidal efficacy on coated non-porous nanova

hygiene against human coronavirus from Nelson

Labs; 3) NIBEC declaration as third-party testing

labs; 4) copies of two email chains to establish digital

copy is equivalent to signed hard copy.

The CCC-R panel carefully considered the

advertiser’s submissions and reviewed the documents

submitted by them. The panel noted that the virucidal

efficacy of PuroCoat fans have been established

against the human coronavirus and SARS-CoV-2,

however, they raised a concern about the testing

conditions being restricted to a storage condition - a

panel was kept for a period of eight to fifteen months

in stationary mode in real life exposure conditions.

The CCC-R panel took cognizance of the advertiser’s

submission that the claims were only valid for

surface contact and that this substantiates that the fan

blades/surface are protected from viruses, germs, dust

and rust.

However, the CCC felt that in spite of the test results

showing that the fan blades and surfaces were

protected, when the entire advertisement was viewed

from the perspective of an average consumer, how

this feature translated into a consumer benefit was

unclear.

The CCC-R panel went on to deliberate that in a

normal everyday scenario, fan blades are not touched

frequently. If the same feature was offered on a

surface which the consumer touched frequently, then

this would have a possible benefit for the consumer.

The CCC-R panel further felt that the creative

context of the advertisement along with the claim,

“anti-viral fan” would lead a consumer to believe that

the fan provides genuine protection to them. The

panel opined that the content of the advertisement

which displayed a young man’s reluctance to take off

a mask because of the fear of viruses, bacteria, dust

etc. upon visiting someone’s home, and the hostess’s

insistence on taking off the same with the assurance

that the fan has anti- virus/bacteria/dust/rust

properties, gives a strong impression that the

microbial load in the room is being reduced and the

air they are breathing is also safe. The CCC-R felt

that in an advertisement, every frame is kept for a

certain meaning and impression it wishes to convey,

and hence the context and situation shown is

important. In the current pandemic situation when a

consumer hears the term virus it automatically creates

a connection with coronavirus, and any product claim

related to ‘anti-viral’ provides a sense of security for

the consumer. While the advertiser put the

disclaimer, the situation showing the wearing of a

mask by one of the protagonist clearly established the

Covid context.

The CCC also noted that the expert’s opinion in the

original CCC review had asked for any tests that

could be shown to lower the microbial load in the

room/ air. The advertiser confirmed to the CCC-R

that such a test was not done because they did not

intend to make a claim about any reduction in

microbial load of the room. The CCC-R felt that the

current situation shown in the advertisement would

lead the consumers to believe that the use of the fan

is beneficial in terms of reducing the microbial load

of the air they breathe, creating a false sense of

protection. While the advertiser may not have

intended for that to be the key message of the

advertisement, it would be the clear message

interpreted by consumers.

The CCC-R took note of the advertiser’s assertion

that, the fact that there is accumulation of dust on the

sides of the fan blades, is proof that the draft of air

does not push dust or any other microbes away, but

particles do settle on the blade. Similarly, the viral

load also gets neutralized when they come in contact

with the blade. However, what fraction of the air it is

effective on was not established.

The CCC-R panel concluded that the creative

situation in the advertisement does not focus on

surface contact, but rather gives the impression that

the fan reduces the microbial load of the room and

protects the consumer. Therefore, to substantiate the

impression they have created in the advertisement,

they should in fact be able to reduce the microbial

load in the room. According to the expert present at

the meeting, no reports were submitted to

substantiate the same, for which standard tests are

available. Therefore, the CCCR felt that the claims


are misleading by exaggeration and are likely to lead

to widespread disappointment in the minds of

consumers. Given the current pandemic situation,

regardless of the disclaimer, the advertisement is

likely to mislead consumers that the product offers

protection from Coronavirus as well as other

microbes. The advertisement is in contravention of

Chapters I.1, I.4, and I.5 of the ASCI Code.

The CCC recommendation of the complaint being

UPHELD stands on CCC-Review.

2101-CCC.27

DMR VIOLATION


The following advertisements were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act

/ The Drugs & Cosmetics Rules, as well as advisory issued by the Central Council of Indian Medicine (CCIM) on

February 15, 2017 prohibiting such claims being made in advertisements and is being referred to the Ministry of

AYUSH and the CCIM

Sr

.

N

o

Complain

t No

/

Source

Advertiser

(Brand /

Product)

Media /

Publication

Date

Claim/s Objected To Contravention (Clause

Applicable)

1 2101-

C.875

@

AYUSH

CCIM

Aambatkar

Hospital (Dr.

Aambatkar)

EP Lokmat,

Nagpur Edition,

Main Issue

(Marathi)

(08.11.2020)

Sexual weakness due to

childhood mistakes,

weakness of the nerves,

Sexual dysfunction,

depression in the marital life

due to premature ejaculation,

low sperm count.

100% guaranteed treatment

The maintenance or

improvement of the

capacity of human beings

for sexual pleasure, Section

3(b) – DMR

Schedule

2. 2101-

C.876

@

AYUSH

CCIM

AyurSaukya Eenadu(*),

Khammam

Edition, Main

Issue (Telugu)

(14.11.2020)

Paralysis, Kidney Stones,

Sexual Problems

- Permanent solution for all

types of diseases

Paralysis: Item No.39 –

DMRSchedule

Kidney Stone: Item no. 22

DMRSchedule

The maintenance or

improvement of the



3(b) – DMRSchedule

3 2101-

C.877

@

AYUSH

CCIM

Ayurved

Infertility

Clinic

Divya

Bhaskar(*),

Rajkot Edition,

Main Issue

(Gujarati)

(02.11.2020)

Successful Ayurvedic

Treatment of Infertility, For

Male And Female Infertility

Infertility-Sterility in

Women Item No.48- DMR

Schedule

Sexual Impotence Item no.

45 DMR Schedule

4 2101-

C.878

@

AYUSH

CCIM

Dr Kumar

Clinic

EP Dainik

Jagran(*), New

Delhi Edition,

Supplement

Jagran City

(Hindi)(22.11.2020)

Successful Treatment of

Venereal disease &

Masculine Weakness

The maintenance or

improvement of the



3(b) – DMR

Schedule

5 2101-

C.1088

@

AYUSH

CCIM

Healing

Hands

Physiotherapy

&Ayurved

Center (Dr.

Vinod Roda)

EP Lokmat,

Solapur

Edition, Main

Issue (Marathi)

(04.11.2020)

The following diseases are cured in my clinic - Heart disease, Male and Female Infertility, Arthritis and Paralysis Yes,Bloodpressure and

sugar medications can be

reduced or stopped! Objection:This Claims implies Diabetes & Blood Pressure can be cured

DMR Schedule Item Nos.

Heart Diseases: Item no. 26

Sexual Impotence: Item. 45


Women: Item No.48

Rheumatism- Item No. 43

Paralysis: Item No.39

High/ Low Blood Pressure

- Item No. 27

Diabetes-Item No. 9


6 2101-

C.1349

@

AYUSH

BholanathAy

urved/

TilaFakiri

EP

Hindustan(*),

Varanasi

Edition, Main

Issue (Hindi)

(01.12.2020)

Cure Impotency, Increase

Sexual Power (Kaam Shakti)

Objection:The visuals on the

product pack imply that the

product is meant for sexual

enhancement

Sexual Impotence Item no.

45-DMR Schedule

The maintenance or

improvement of the




7 2101-

C.1484

@

AYUSH

CCIM

Humsafar

Dawakhana

EP Dainik

Jagran(*),

Moradabad

Edition, Main

Issue (Hindi)

(18.11.2020)

Successful and permanent

treatment of sexual diseases

Successful treatment of all

the indri diseases such as

length-thickness problem,

sloppiness, looseness and

prematureejaculation

The maintenance or

improvement of the



3(b) – DMR

Schedule

8 2101-

C.1494

@

AYUSH

Cosmo

vedant-

Cosmo vedant

Range of

products

EP Dainik

Jagran

(*)Moradabad

Edition, Main

Issue (Hindi)

(12.11.2020)

Ayurvedic Medicine to

Increase Libido/ sex energy




enhancement

The maintenance or

improvement of the




9 2101-

C.1538

@

AYUSH

Gray Herbs/

MahashaktiR

asayanVati

Punjab Kesari,

Chandigarh

Edition,

Supplement

Chandigarh

Kesari (Hindi)

(06.11.2020)

Enhances strength and

capacity

Objection:The visuals in the

advertisement imply that the


enhancement

The maintenance or

improvement of the



3(b) – DMR

Schedule

10 2101-

C.1544

@

AYUSH

Riddhi

Herbals /

Tonic Plus

Range of

Products

Amar Ujala(*),

Allahabad

Edition, Main

Issue (Hindi)

(22.11.2020)

Bring New Vigor Bring Back

the Lost Sexual Power




enhancement

The maintenance or

improvement of the



3(b) – DMR

Schedule

2101-CCC.28

DMR VIOLATION

The following advertisements were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act

/ The Drugs & Cosmetics Rules, as well as advisory issued by the Central Council of Indian Medicine (CCIM) on

February 15, 2017 prohibiting such claims being made in advertisements and is being referred to the Ministry of

AYUSH and the CCIM

Sr.

No

Complai

nt No

/ Source

Advertiser

(Brand /

Product)

Media /

Publication Date

Claim/s Objected To

Contravention (Clause

Applicable)


1 2101-

C.1350

@

AYUSH

CCIM

Al-Taj

Dawakhana

EP Amar

Ujala(*), New

Delhi Edition,

Main Issue

(Hindi)

(01.12.2020)

Successful treatment of

venereal diseases after or

before marriage

The maintenance or

improvement of the


for sexual pleasure,

Section 3(b) – DMR

Schedule

2 2101-

C.1596

@

AYUSH

CCIM

Lord

Dhanvantari

Ayuredic

Hospital

Dainik

Bhaskar(*),

Ambala Edition,

Supplement

Ambala Bhaskar

(Hindi)

(26.11.2020)

Regardless of How Old the

Arthritis is, We Give

100% Ayurvedic

Treatment and Cure it

from the Root

Successful Treatment of

Sterility with Ayurved.

Rheumatism- Item No. 43-

DMR Schedule


Women Item No.48-

DMR Schedule

3 2101-

C.1597

@

AYUSH

CCIM

DivyaUpcha

rSansthan/

Shuddhi

Ayurveda -

Guru

Manish

EP Dainik

Jagran(*), New

Delhi Edition,

Supplement

Jagran City

(Hindi)

(16.12.2020)

Obesity, Cancer,

Leucoderma, Cerebral

palsy (Brain Disorder),

Heart Problem, Sugar, BP,

Solution of gall and liver

stones, asthma, paralysis,

and other such serious

problems from the root

DMR Schedule Item Nos.

Obesity – Item No.36,

Cancer -Item No. 6

Leucoderma - Item No.33

Diseases and Disorders of

brain- Item no. 10

Heart Diseases:ItemNo.26

Diabetes: Item No. 9

High/Low Blood Pressure:

Item No.27

Paralysis: Item No.39

Gall stones, kidney stones

and bladder stones - Item

No.22

Asthma-Rule No. 06,

DMR Act

4 2101-

C.1598

@

AYUSH

BholanathA

yurved/

TilaFakiri

EP Hindustan

(*), Lucknow

Edition, Main

Issue (Hindi)

(15.12.2020)

Sure shot effect

“Shaukeenaur sugar

mardokeliye”

Objection: The visual on

the product pack imply

that the product is meant

for sexual enhancement

The maintenance or

improvement of the




Schedule

5 2101-

C.1600

@

AYUSH

Maqs Herbal

Sciences/

Farbahi

Khas Oil

EP Amar

Ujala(*), Meerut

Edition, Main

Issue (Hindi)

(03.12.2020)

Farbahi Khas Oil

especially for masculinity

Objection: The visuals on




The maintenance or

improvement of the




Schedule

6 2101-

C.1667

@

AYUSH

Maqs Herbal

Sciences/

MajoonJosh

awar

EP Amar

Ujala(*), Meerut

Edition, Main

Issue (Hindi)

(03.12.2020)

1. Bring Happiness in

Married Life

2. Vigor Even Better

The maintenance or

improvement of the




Schedule


7 2101-

C.1887

@

AYUSH

MLJ Herbal/

Power Gold

ViryaShodha

n Capsule

EP Dainik

Jagran(*), Agra

Edition, Main

Issue (Hindi)

(06.12.2020)

Awake Vigour and Pep

Cure Premature

Ejaculation, Weakness and

Provide Blissful married

Life

Objection:The visuals on




The maintenance or

improvement of the




Schedule

8 2101-

C.2673

@

AYUSH

Butterfly

Ayurved/

Butterfly

Ayurveda

Vita-M

Digital Display,

(http://speedtest.n

et), National

Edition, Main

Issue (English)

(01.01.2021)

Improve your sex life The maintenance or

improvement of the




Schedule

9 2101-

C.2674

@

AYUSH

CCIM

Doxwell

Ayurveda

EP Dainik

Jagran(*), New

Delhi Edition,

Supplement

Jagran City

(Hindi)

(24.12.2020)

Increase vigour and time

Give more hold back

power and make you

masculine, Cure impotency

and nightfall, Cure

sloppiness, premature

ejaculation and discharge

from the root, Boost

vigour, excitement and

power

The maintenance or

improvement of the




Schedule

Sexual Impotence-Item

no. 45 DMR Schedule

10 2101-

C.2675

@

AYUSH

Maya

Ayurved

Bhawan/

Madhumeha

Sugarnash

EP Ananda Bazar

Patrika, Kolkata

Edition,

Supplement

Rabibasariya

(Bengali)

(27.12.2020)

Sugar destroyer

(MadhumehaSugarnash in

the brand title)

Objection:

The name of the product

“Sugarnash” imply that the

product is meant to cure

diabetes

Diabetes-Item No. 9-DMR

Schedule

11 2101-

C.2676

@

AYUSH

Chetan

Herbals/

ShilajitPrash

EP Hindustan,

New Delhi

Edition, Main

Issue (Hindi)

(18.12.2020)

Are You Feeling Weak?

For Masculine weakness,

decreasing stamina,

Decreasing Vigor

Increase power, energy

and stamina. Companion

for married life

Objection: The visual on




The maintenance or

improvement of the




Schedule

12 2101-

C.2677

@

AYUSH

CCIM

Swaroop

Sex Cure

Divya Bhaskar(*),

Ahmedabad

Edition,

Supplement City

Bhaskar

(Gujarati)

(19.12.2020)

Prevention of all problems

related to sex - Swaroop

Sex Cure

The maintenance or

improvement of the




Schedule

http://speedtest.net/

http://speedtest.net/


13 2101-

C.2708

@

AYUSH

CCIM

Ayuryogam

Health &

Wellness

Center

Sandesh,

Vadodara Edition,

Main Issue

(Gujarati)

(18.12.2020)

Cure Parkinson by Basti

Shirodhara in Panchkarma

Disorders of the nervous

system Item No.14 DMR

Schedule

14 2101-

C.2709

@

AYUSH

CCIM

Raj

Dawakahana

Punjab Kesari,

Jalandhar Edition,

Supplement

Jalandhar Kesari

(Hindi)

(09.12.2020)

Desired time in sex with

complete guarantee

Passionate sex again and

again, which will blow

everyone’s senses, with

full guarantee.

The maintenance or

improvement of the




Schedule

15 2101-

C.2710

@

AYUSH

CCIM

Sampurna

Ayurveda

(Rohini)

EP Dainik

Jagran(*), New

Delhi Edition,

Supplement

Jagran City

(Hindi)

(22.12.2020)

Increase sex time

Cure masculine weakness,

smallness, thinness,

discharge and premature

ejaculation from the root

SPL Machine & oil

The maintenance or

improvement of the




Schedule

16 2101-

C.2711

@

AYUSH

CCIM

Taran

Ayurvedic

Centre

Punjab Kesari,

Jalandhar Edition,

Supplement

Jalandhar Kesari

(Hindi)

(09.12.2020)

Increase vigour and timing

Make young people

morestronger, older people

feel younger.

The maintenance or

improvement of the




Schedule