ASCI bans 62 ads, including Coca Cola, Honda Activa 4G, PepsiCo, TimesNow, Voltas, HUL, Dr Batra and Emami in June 2017
The Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) of the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) has banned as many as 62 advertisements out of 126 complaints it received across segments during June 2017. 
 
Out of 62 advertisements against which complaints were upheld, 23 belonged to the Healthcare category, 17 to the Education category, followed by 10 in the Food & Beverages category, six in the Personal Care category, and six advertisements from other categories, the self-regulatory industry body said in a statement.
 
ASCI said it processed complaints against advertisements from general public, industry as well as from the Department of Consumer Affairs' Grievances Against Misleading Advertisements (GAMA) Portal. Out of 99 advertisements, complaints against 38 advertisements were upheld.
 
The self-regulatory industry body also picked up 27 advertisement through its suo moto surveillance of print and TV media via National Advertisement Monitoring Services (NAMS) project. Out of 27 advertisements, total of 24 advertisements were considered to be misleading. Of these 24 advertisements against, 13 belonged to the Education category, nine belonged to the Healthcare category and two were from the Personal Care category, ASCI said. 
 
The banned ads are from prominent companies like Honda Motorcycle and Scooter India P Ltd (Honda Activa 4G), Voltas Ltd (Voltas All Star Inverter AC), Hindustan Unilever Ltd (Ayurvedic Anti-Dandruff Ayush Shampoo), Emami Ltd (Kesh King Shampoo and Kesh King Ayurvedic Oil), Coco Cola India Inc (Thumps Up, Sprite, Fanta, and Maaza), Narang Group (Ocean Active Water), PepsiCo India Holding P Ltd (Pepsi Gatecrash), among others, they range from FMCGs to autos, personal accessories to alcohol, and education to media.
 
HEALTHCARE:-
 
The CCC found the following claims of 14 advertisements in health care products or services to be either misleading or false or not adequately / scientifically substantiated and hence violating ASCI’s Code. Some of the health care products or services advertisements also contravened provisions of the Drugs & Magic Remedies Act (DMR Act), Drugs and Cosmetics Rules (D&C Rules) and Chapter I.1 and III.4 of the ASCI Code. Complaints against the following advertisements were UPHELD.
 
1. Rediscover Clinic Pvt. Ltd. (Rediscover Laser, Slimming, Skin and Hair Clinic): The advertisement’s claim, “Lose upto five kilograms weight with 21 centimetres from overall body”, was not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence, and with treatment efficacy data, and is misleading by exaggeration.
 
2. SBS Biotech (Unit-II) Ayurvedic Division (Dr. Ortho Capsules & Ointment): The advertisement’s claim, “getting rid of Joint Pains by using Dr. Ortho Capsules” was entirely unsubstantiated and misleading by exaggeration; the advertiser had not submitted any authentic data, nor substantiated with clinical evidence, in particularly about the efficacy of the said Dr. Ortho Capsules in curing joint pains; and is hence misleading by gross exaggeration.
 
3. Shree Maruti Herbal (Stay On Power Capsules): The advertisement’s claims, “Weakness, lack of strength, tiredness, lack of energy, early aging” and “For energy, vigour and strength stay on power capsule for men”  were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the D&C Rules.
 
4. Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Pvt Ltd (Pirrhoid): The advertisement’s claims, “Haemorrhoids?”,  “Results shown from first day” and “Proven for Piles” were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the D&C Rules.
 
5. Dindayal Aushadhy (303 Capsules): The advertisement’s claims and statements such as, “99% of women get more excited by their partners than by shopping discounts”, “Dindayal 303 increases stamina and improves vitality in men. Sufficient reason to get their partners excited” were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the D&C Rules.
 
6. Chaturbhuj Pharmaceutical Company (Japani Tel): The advertisement’s claims, “Token of Love”, “Specially for men for strength”, “Popular and effective” and “For better results use Japani M Capsule with Japani Tel”, were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the D&C Rules.
 
7. Sheth Brothers (Kayam Tablets): The advertisement’s claims, “Constipation, acidity, gas? Kayam Tablet”, “100% Ayurvedic”, “No side effects” and “Non habit forms”, were not substantiated with product efficacy data, and are misleading.
 
8. Sheth Brothers (Kayam Tablets): The advertisement’s claims (in Gujarati) as translated into English, “India’s No. 1 brand for (relief from) constipation”, “100% Ayurvedic”, “No side effects”, “Non habit forming”, “Best solution for constipation, acidity, gas”, “Most trusted of the country”, “Crores of people have got relief from constipation due to this” and “It is safe and most effective”, were not substantiated  and are misleading by exaggeration.  
 
9. Hamdard Laboratories (India) (Hamdard Safi): For the claim in the advertisement relating to “giving your liver, thyroid, and … the support they need...” seen along with the response of the advertiser in this regard together with the expert’s opinion, it was concluded that the specific claims in the advertisement relating the efficacy of the product in respect of liver and thyroid functioning were not adequately validated with clinical data. It was noted that the advertiser states that the product description as well as information given or reviews on platforms such as Amazon are not endorsed by Hamdard as there is no prior approval taken by these online sellers from Hamdard. Therefore it was concluded that this part of the claim in the advertisement is misleading.
 
10. Chaturbhuj Pharmaceutical Company (Japani Tel): The advertisement’s claims in Gujarati, as translated into English, “Feel the energy, ability and power”, “Specially for men for strength”, “Popular and effective” and “For better results use Japani M Capsule with Japani Tel”, were not substantiated with product efficacy data, and are misleading by exaggeration. In the absence of any claim support data, the claim, “Zealous (shaukeen) persons can also try and see the results”, was considered to be misleading by ambiguity and implication that this product could enhance sexual pleasure.
 
11. Multani Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (Multani Rhumed SG Tablets): In respect to the advertisement’s claim, “Multani Rhumed S G Tablet is Govt. of India’s Invention to get Rid of Joint Pain” it was opined that the agreement entered into by the advertiser with the NRDC mandates that, “The Licensee shall at its own cost affix a label or plate or inscribed in a conspicuous manner upon every article, box or packet containing the article, its components and spares, the legend or inscription “KNOWHOW developed by CCRAS, New Delhi and licensed by NRDC” and similarly, every advertisement, publicity material/ customer literature/hoardings etc. in respect of the ARTICLE shall include the same legend in bold letters as aforesaid at a conspicuous place in such advertisements /publicity material/ customer literature /hoardings, etc. Whereas the advertiser on their own were using a claim “Invention of CCRAS, Ministry of AYUSH, Government of India”. The CCC therefore concluded that the advertiser had violated the agreement that they had entered with the NRDC. Further, the advertisement’s claim “get rid of pain” was not substantiated. Therefore, this claim was false and misleading by exaggeration.
 
12. OPTM Health Care (P) Ltd.: The advertisement’s claims, “unlike cheap and contaminated Ayurvedic formula, OPTMs phytomedicine uses USA patented and clinically tested ingredients,” denigrated the entire class of Ayurvedic medicine and its practitioners, and contravened the provisions of Chapter IV.1(e) of the ASCI Code (“advertisement does not unfairly denigrate, attack or discredit other products, advertisers or advertisements directly or by implication”). Also, the claims, “India’s best and most scientifically advanced clinic for Joint care” was not substantiated by the advertiser with any comparative data of other clinics in the country in this area of medical specialization; nor was any independent assessment or certification provided for their claim of being “India’s best and most scientifically advanced”. Therefore it was concluded that the advertiser’s claim was misleading by ambiguity and exaggeration. Also, it was concluded for the claim related to “the display of X-Ray images of joints in their ads … to substantiate as a form of evidence for their supposedly successful treatment methodology” by the advertiser was entirely unsubstantiated and false. Further the claim, “Awarded by AYUSH minister for outstanding research done on pain and phytomedicine in the last 30 years”, was not substantiated with supporting evidence and is therefore misleading by gross exaggeration. Thus, it was concluded that the advertiser had failed to substantiate any of the objected claims they had made in their advertisement. 
 
13. OPTM Healthcare Private Ltd.:  In respect of the complaint that the advertiser had falsely claimed that their treatment system has been certified by AYUSH Department, the advertiser stated in their response that they had only mentioned about receiving an award from the AYUSH minister Sri Shripad Yesso Naik in a Conference held in Goa; and they had not mentioned of receiving any certification from the AYUSH department. However, it is seen that the title of the advertisement given by the advertiser in Bengali language reads: “Ministry of Ayush honoured the innovative treatment procedure for arthritis invented by OPTM”; and a part of the body of the advertisement reads: “Recently in a conference held in Goa, innovative Phytotherapy used by OPTM, was praised by Central government’s Ministry of Ayush and Central Council for Research in Ayurveda and Siddha. Central Ayush minister Sri Sripada Nayak awarded Apurba Ganguly for relentlessly spending 30 years for the research of pain treatment. This is one of the most prestigious recognition for OPTM Healthcare’s innovative Phytomedicine treatment as well”. From this it is clear that the advertiser had misrepresented the fact of receipt of an award from the Ayush Minister who was the chief guest in that function, as “Ministry of Ayush honouring OPTM”.  The advertiser’s claims, “OPTM Healthcare relentlessly continues (to) try treating arthritis pain…”, it was opined that regardless of whether the claim of “cure” was used or not, in the absence of any evidence of product efficacy, the claim is misleading by implication. Further for the claim, “certified by EMA European Medical Association as the Best Medical Practice in the field” it is seen that the advertiser has not made any substantiation of the specific claim; they instead stated in a vague manner that they “have made no claims of product which can cure all kinds of joint problems”. It was further opined that several references to ‘scientific outcome’, ‘inventions’  and ‘Nobel prize winner’ were not relevant and were misleading by implication. In respect of the complaint on the claim relating to the Chief Scientist, Mr. Apurba Ganguly curing patients from joint pain problems, and that there is no documentary evidence with Mr. Apurba Ganguly for stating himself as a Scientist, let alone Chief Scientist, the advertiser stated that “Apurba Ganguly was a researcher who has many published research papers in peer reviewed international medical journals and also supervises Ph.D students from esteemed University”.
 
However, it is noticed that the advertiser had not given any details of the qualifications, experience details or publications of the said individual. It was concluded that the various claims of the advertiser made in their advertisement were not substantiated by any reliable data, and that the advertisement was misleading by ambiguity and implication.
 
14. Alchem International Pvt. Ltd. (Phytorelief-CC): The advertisement’s claims, “70% reduction in the frequency of Cold N Flu episodes”, “83% reduction in bacterial count within three days”, “The PhytoAdvance technology uses an advanced process to extract plant actives that are high on bioavailability and thus more effective than usual plant based medicines”, “(Phytomedicine Gen3 is the latest generation of phytomedicine, which have undergone international clinical studies.) These published clinical studies conclusively establish their effectiveness across a range of ailments” and “Effective, clinically proven defense against Flu & Cold virus”, were not adequately substantiated with robust, large scale clinical studies and with more specific evaluations among statistically significant sample size.
 
FOOD & BEVERAGES:-
 
1. PepsiCo India Holding P. Ltd. (Pepsi Gatecrash): It was noted that the font size of the disclaimer in the advertisement was in font size of 6 which is illegible and unreadable. Thus, it was concluded that it is clear that the advertisement had violated the ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers by using a much smaller font for the disclaimers in the TV advertisement.
 
2. Narang Group (Ocean Active Water): For the advertisement’s claims, “Is Your Water Keeping up with your Lifestyle”, “Inspiring Smarter Hydration” and “Get Smarter Hydration Everyday” it was opined that the advertised product, compared with normal water and further considering the sugar levels in the product, could not be promoted as an equal or better alternative than normal drinking water. The advertiser has chosen the comparison in such a way as to bestow an artificial advantage on the advertised product. Therefore, it was concluded that the advertisement was false and misleading by ambiguity and implication. Further, regarding the objection on the supers in the advertisement, the advertiser admitted that the supers were smaller than the required size.  Thus, the advertisement violated the provisions of the ASCI Codes as well as ASCI Guidelines on Disclaimers.
 
3. Coconut Development Board (Coconut Oil): The advertisement’s claim, “Highly nutritious, rich in fibre, vitamins and minerals” was not adequately substantiated and was false and misleading by exaggeration. Also, the claim, “A natural antiseptic boosts energy immune system”, is not adequately substantiated with authentic clinical data and was misleading. Further, the claim, “Restore thyroid function and increases metabolic rate” was not adequately substantiated and was misleading by exaggeration. The claim, “Reduces obesity”, was not acceptable since obesity is due to several reasons such as heredity, food habits, hormonal functions, etc.; and further, the claim is not substantiated by clinical research data conducted by independent agency with requisite scientific rigour. The claim was not adequately substantiated, and was misleading by exaggeration. Also, the claim in the advertisement, “An antioxidant, improves digestion and bowel movement” was not adequately substantiated and supported with clinical research data and was misleading.  Further the claim, “Good for Kidney” has not adequately been substantiated, and was false, and misleading by exaggeration. Also the claim, “will not increase cholesterol and heart attacks”, was not adequately substantiated and therefore was false and misleading by exaggeration.
 
4. Amazon.com, Inc. (Our Organik Tree - Jaggery powder): The advertisement’s claim of the Jaggery product being a “Blood Purifier”, is unsubstantiated with any scientific clinical evidence and product efficacy data, and is misleading by exaggeration.
 
5. N.V.K. Mohamed Rowther Sultan & Sons (Roja Pakku): The advertisement showcasing visuals of children/young teenagers promoting pakku (areca nuts) shows an unsafe practice, which is likely to encourage minors to consume the product which could cause harm to them.  Also, the advertisement is misleading by omission of a cautionary message/warning.  
 
6. Pioma Industries Private Limited (Rasna): The advertiser had failed to substantiate their claims made in the advertisement, i.e.: that firstly, their product was made in Gujarat, and loved by the world; secondly, that their product was the world’s largest selling instant drink concentrate; and thirdly, their product was India’s most trusted family owned brand, with any assessment and certification by independent market research organizations. Therefore the claims in the advertisement were misleading by exaggeration.
 
7. Coca-Cola India Pvt. Ltd. (Maaza): It was noted that the disclaimers in the advertisement were not legible. Thus is was concluded that the advertisement had violated the ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers. 
 
8. Coco Cola India Inc. (Fanta): It was noted that the disclaimers in the advertisement were not legible and also not in the same language as the audio of the advertisement (English). Thus, it was concluded that the advertisement had violated part of the ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers.
 
9. Coco Cola India Inc. (Sprite): The font size of the disclaimer in the advertisement was written in 5 pixel and hence the advertisement violated the ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers ("For high definition images, the height of the text lower case elements shall be NOT LESS THAN 18 pixels [18 lines] in a 1080 line raster.").
 
10. Coco Cola India Inc. (Thumps Up): It was noted that the disclaimers in the advertisement were not legible.  Thus, it was concluded that the TV Commercial had violated the ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers.
 
PERSONAL CARE:-
 
1. Lotus Herbals Ltd. (Lotus Herbals Limited Safe Sun UV Screen Matte Gel): The advertisement’s claim, “Lotus safe sun karega harmful rays se fight”,  suggests that Lotus Safe Sun products including Matte GEL SPF 50 will protect skin from harmful rays of the sun as well as harmful rays from the stadium floodlights.  Further, another advertisement of the product shows UVA and UVB rays getting reflected from the model’s face thereby implying that the product provides protection from UVA and UVB rays. These claims made in the advertisements were not substantiated with scientific evidence of product efficacy, and with technical tests/trials reports from an independent third party.  Also, these claims are misleading by implication and exaggeration.  
 
2. Emami Limited (Emami Kesh King Ayurvedic Oil): The advertisement’s claim, “No hair-fall, dandruff or dryness” was considered to be an absolute claim. Also, the advertiser did not substantiate the claim of “weak matrix cells in the roots of the hair are activated by this oil”. Further in respect of the claim, “pictures and names of  two  doctors  and  one hair  expert  from India, Japan and Australia” in the advertisement, saying  “Recommended  by  world' s  best hair experts”, the advertiser had stated in their response in respect of this complaint that they had modified this claim to "renowned hair experts", however this being a regional advertisement, the meaning of few words/statements have been slightly changed from what was handed to them in Hindi. It was disagreed with the advertiser’s submission as it was observed that the complaint under reference was in Gujarati and it continued using the claim which was found objectionable earlier as it was considered as false and misleading. Further, in respect of the exaggerated claims said to be made in the testimonial by Juhi  Chawla, and that it is misleading and creates undue influence on buyers, it was observed that the advertiser has used a testimonial by a celebrity which states that she believes in the product and trusts it. The advertiser did not submit any evidence of the celebrity lending her name to this particular communication and any of the claims therein. Also, several claims in the same communication by the celebrity were considered to be unsubstantiated and misleading. It was not agreed upon with the advertiser’s argument that the celebrity had only expressed her satisfaction with the usage of their products and its benefits; and that this is not a claim made by them but a satisfaction statement. Also it was opined that the said statement or declaration of satisfaction by the celebrity, made in praise or commendation of the product and publicised through an advertisement, becomes an advertisement in the understanding of the common man, since the consumers are most likely to be influenced by such publicity.
 
Lastly, it was noted that there was no information or evidence submitted by the advertiser to show that the celebrity concerned has had “adequate information about, or experience with the product or service being advertised”. In view of the above overall factors, and in the absence of any document submitted by the advertiser in support of the apparent commendation given by the celebrity, it was concluded that this claim in the advertisement has contravened the provisions of ASCI’s Guidelines for Celebrities in Advertising.
 
3. Emami Ltd. (Kesh King Shampoo): The claims made in the advertisement through inclusion of statement of a customer as ‘testimonial’, i.e., “I feel Kesh King Oil is more effective in controlling my hair fall than Ashwini Hair Oil and Sesa hair Oil.  I am telling from my personal experience that I can think of nothing else other than Kesh King for controlling my Hair Fall.  A few months back I was having lot of hair fall, I used Sesa and Ashwini Hair Oil but my hair fall did not stop.  I regularly use Kesh King Oil, Kesh King Shampoo and also used capsules. Within one month my hair fall reduced. My hair became longer and healthier. I think my search for the right product has finally come to an end. I got very much benefited after using this oil. There are many others who share similar opinions”, are not adequately substantiated, and are misleading.
 
4. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (Ayurvedic Anti-Dandruff Ayush Shampoo): The voiceover in the advertisement in Tamil as translated into English conveys, “the big problem for hair is dandruff, but on using dandruff shampoos, a bigger fear than that is hairfall”. The essence of the complaint was that the suggestions/apprehensions expressed in the advertisement was that the message “use of anti-dandruff shampoo is associated with fears of hair loss in users”, is not based on any evidence and is hence unsubstantiated”. The essence of the advertiser’s case was that the advertisement expressed merely an apprehension and did not seek to represent the actual technical facts. 
 
EDUCATION:-
 
The CCC found following claims in the advertisements by four different advertisers were not substantiated and, thus, violated ASCI Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions. Hence complaints against these advertisements were UPHELD.
 
1. Satyadeva Institute: The advertisement’s claims, “No. 1 Institute in Asansol” and “No. 1 Result Maker Institute” were not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s institute and other similar institutes, or any third party validation; and are misleading by exaggeration. Also the claims, “Faculties from Patna”, “Test the Best”, and advertisements showing published photographs of students, are false and misleading by exaggeration.
 
2. Vision IAS (Vision IAS Classroom): The advertisement’s claims, “15 ranks in top 20 and 70+ ranks out of top 100 successful candidates in the Civil Services Exam 2016” which was given below the photographs of six individuals with a line above the photographs reading “OUR CSE 2016 RESULT”, was not substantiated. Thus, the claims were false and misleading by gross exaggeration.
 
Complaints against the following two advertisements of the educational institutes were UPHELD because of unsubstantiated claims that they ‘provide 100% placement/AND/OR they claim to be the No.1 in their respective fields’:
Krystal Institute and Appin Technology Lab (ATL Foundation).
 
OTHERS:-
 
1. Voltas Ltd. (Voltas All Star Inverter A/C: The font size of the disclaimers in the advertisement measures about 13 pixels, and hence the advertisement violated the ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers ("For high definition images, the height of the text lower case elements shall be NOT LESS THAN 18 pixels [18 lines] in a 1080 line raster.").
 
2. Bharat Petroleum Corp Ltd.: The advertisement’s claim, “Go Green with Speed for it reduces emissions”, was unsubstantiated with supporting data, and therefore is misleading by exaggeration and omission.
 
3. Techno Plastic Industries (Signoraware): The comparison claims made against ordinary steel products, “Steel might contain Cobalt 60, a radioactive isotope that causes cancer”, “Steel might contain migration of nickel (0.7 mg/kg – PPM) from metal resulting in skin allergies”, and “Steel has a higher risk of rusting and violates the requirement of a minimum of 16% chromium”, were not substantiated with supporting evidence. Further it was opined that these claims are likely to mislead consumers to believe, without any justifiable basis, that the product - Signoraware is superior to ordinary steel products, thus thereby denigrating the entire category of steel ware.
 
4. Honda Motorcycle and Scooter India P. Ltd. (Honda Activa 4G):  The advertisement showcases the pillion rider wearing a helmet without the ISI mark which headgear conforms to the standards of Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS). In the absence of any data to indicate that the helmet worn by the pillion rider is BIS marked, it was concluded that the advertisement contravened the provisions of Chapters III.3 and III.4 of the ASCI Code (“Advertisements shall not, without justifiable reason, show or refer to dangerous practices or manifest a disregard for safety or encourage negligence”).
 
5. Visual Eyes Specs World Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (Visual Eyes Lens): The Twitter advertisement of the brand showcasing the #BackToSchool contest states that the person with maximum likes wins. Upon careful consideration of the complaint, and the evidence provided by the complainant (URL and screenshot of the twitter post #BackToSchool, showing more likes received by the complainant than the announced winner), and in the absence of any comments or response from the advertiser, it was concluded that the twitter advertisement – contest is misleading as the terms of the contest were not met with.  
 
6. Times Network Ltd. (Times Now): For the advertisement’s claim, “The Ruling No. 1”, while the graphical representation appears to be in line with BARC principles and the figures shown are technically correct, the relative share data shown is itself not a permissible extrapolation and is therefore misleading, and is not compliant with BARC Guidelines.
 
SUO MOTO ACTION
 
The advertisements given below were picked up through ASCI’s Suo Moto surveillance of print and TV media via National Advertisement Monitoring Services (NAMS) project. Out of 27 advertisements, total of 24 advertisements were considered to be misleading. Of these 24 advertisements against, 13 belonged to the Education category, nine belonged to the Healthcare category and two were from the Personal Care category. 
 
HEALTHCARE:-
 
The CCC found the following claims of nine advertisements in health care products or services to be either misleading or false or not adequately / scientifically substantiated and hence violating ASCI’s Code. Some of the health care products or services advertisements also contravened provisions of the Drugs & Magic Remedies Act (DMR Act), Drugs and Cosmetics Rules (D&C Rules) and Chapter I.1 and III.4 of the ASCI Code. Complaints against the following advertisements were UPHELD.
 
1. Total Dental Care Pvt. Ltd. (Sabka dentist): The advertisement’s claim, “Sabka Dentist is India’s largest and most accessible chain of dental clinics….” was inadequately substantiated and also misleading by exaggeration.
 
2. Rediscover Clinic: The advertisement’s claim, “No pain, no surgery, no downtime, no scar, permanent reduction of stubborn fat & clinically proven, and no side effects. Lose five to eight centimetres through LYPO-R (Non-invasive, painless)” was not substantiated with any clinical evidence and with treatment efficacy data and was therefore false and misleading by gross exaggeration.  
 
3. Sunflower Women’s Hospital: The advertisement’s claim, “Most trusted IVF Centre” was not substantiated with any information or authentic comparative data vis-à-vis the data of other similar clinics within that city or region; or any third party validation or research to prove this claim. The claim was therefore considered to be false and misleading by gross exaggeration.
 
4. Thareja Home Nursing: The advertisement’s claim, “Treat alcohol addicted without consultation” was entirely unsubstantiated and misleading by gross exaggeration. Also the claim, “the only institution of Alwar and Bharatpur which gives riddance from bidi, cigarrate, tobacco, laudanum, alcohol, and hemp” was not substantiated with any authentic comparative data vis-à-vis data from other similar clinics of these two towns, or other towns, or any third party validation or research to prove this claim. Thus, the above claims were concluded to be false and misleading.
 
5. Dr Malik Ayurvedic Research Centre: The advertisement’s claims relating to the cure of diseases like stone, piles, sexual problems in just seven days, also the claims to give definite results for all stomach related diseases, are considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act and the D&C Rules.
 
6. Kangra Herb Pvt. Ltd. (Kangra Herb Health Centre): The advertisement claims that for any kind of heart problems, high blood pressure, coronary artery blockage, angina like problems has an overwhelming treatment without any operation and cures heart diseases from its roots. The claims are considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act and the D&C Rules.
 
7. Dr Batra’s Positive Health Clinic: The advertisement’s claims, “Clinical studies conducted in Europe had shown that after homeopathic treatment, 83 per cent of women patients with polycystic ovarian syndrome had no signs of ovarian cysts and there was a marked reduction in their hair loss too” were inadequately substantiated. In respect of the second claim, “The recurrence rate of patchy hair loss (alopecia areata) was found to be just 9.1 percent in patients treated with homeopathy, against 50 percent in patients who took conventional treatment for the disorder”, it was observed that the book that was shown as scientific evidence was authored by Dr. Akshay Batra, who is an interested party in the advertiser, Dr. Batra’s Clinic. It was further seen that the study that apparently formed the basis for the book had not been published in any reputed peer-reviewed journal. It was concluded that the substantiations offered by the advertiser for their claims were not acceptable, and that the claims made by the advertiser in the advertisement are false and misleading.
 
8. Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Ltd. (Apollo Heart Inst.): The advertisement’s claim, “World’s largest solid organ transplant programme”, is not adequately supported. Also, the claim is misleading by exaggeration.
 
9. Care and Cure Herbals (Shots Capsules and Gel): The advertisement’s claims, “Unmatched energy booster” and “Only for men,” were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the D&C Rules. Also the visual on the product packaging read in conjunction with the claim objected to implies that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure.
 
EDUCATION:-
 
The CCC found following claims in the advertisements by 13 different advertisers were not substantiated and, thus, violated ASCI Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions. Hence complaints against these advertisements were UPHELD.
 
1. Ambition School of Competitive Education: The advertisement’s claim, “Most trusted Institute @ Purnea, Bhagalpur & Muzaffarpur” was not substantiated with any comparative data of their institute vis-à-vis other similar institutes in the three towns mentioned in the advertisement; nor was any independent third-party validation or research to prove this claim submitted. Further, in respect of the claim, “Scholarship worth Rs. One Crore”, no information was submitted to show the details of the scheme including the criteria for the same, details of students who had been given such scholarships in the past, and independent third-party validation or certification to substantiate this claim. In view of the above, it was concluded that the advertiser had failed to substantiate the claims they had made in the advertisement; and therefore, the claims made by the advertiser were false, and misleading by exaggeration.
 
2. Times Centre Learning Ltd. (Timespro): The advertisement’s claim, “Trusted by Thousands for their Banking Career” was not substantiated with any evidence to prove that the advertiser’s institute is trusted by thousands for their banking career and was misleading by exaggeration.  
 
3. International Institution of Technology & Professional Training (IITPT): The advertisement’s claim, “100% Money back guarantee” was not substantiated with any authentic data. Therefore it was concluded that the claim was false and misleading by exaggeration.
 
4. Mukils Englio: The advertisement’s claim, “100% Job Placement Assistance.” is misleading by implication as it was concluded that the use of 100% numerical is not relevant for “job placement assistance” claim.
 
5. Sure Centre Success: The advertisement’s claim, “Jharkhand's only trustworthy and prestigious guiding institute” was entirely unsubstantiated and therefore, the claims were considered to be false and misleading by exaggeration.
 
6. Deeksha Classes Pvt. Ltd.: The advertisement’s claims of being, “Most trusted brand in Education” and “Get upto 100% Scholarship”, the advertiser had failed to substantiate the claims they had made in the advertisement; and therefore, the claims made by the advertiser were false and misleading by exaggeration.
 
7. Sri Hari Academy Gate: The advertisement’s claim, “100% Success in AEE” was entirely unsubstantiated; the advertiser had not submitted any authentic data, nor was any independent third-party validation or certification of the claim provided.  Therefore, the claim was considered to be false and misleading by gross exaggeration.
 
Complaints against advertisements of all educational institutes listed below mostly are UPHELD because of unsubstantiated claims that they ‘provide 100% placement/AND/OR they claim to be the No.1 in their respective fields’:
Ambition School of Competitive education, Mody University of Science and Technology, Vibrant Academy (I) Pvt. Ltd., Mothers Education Hub, SR Leaders Institution and Morning Lotus International Preschool. 
 
PERSONAL CARE:-
 
1. X Men Instant Fairness Face Cream: The advertisement’s claims, “long-lasting fairness, spot reduction, and contained SPF 15”, were unsubstantiated and misleading by gross exaggeration.
 
2. Tianjin Tianshi India Pvt. Ltd. (Airiz Sanitary Napkin): The advertisement’s claim, “World’s No. 1 Brand” was not substantiated with any relevant information, or authentic comparative data vis-à-vis the data of other similar brands, or any independent third-party validation or research to prove this claim. It was therefore concluded that the claim was false, and misleading by exaggeration.
 
Like this story? Get our top stories by email.

User

COMMENTS

Shiva Prasad

1 year ago

What about the Airtel add claiming 84 days for₹399? They are not giving it to the public but claim in the add. You can see many press releases also.

Shiva Prasad

1 year ago

What about the Airtel add claiming 84 days for₹399? They are not giving it to the public but claim in the add. You can see many press releases also.

REPLY

Shiva Prasad

In Reply to Shiva Prasad 1 year ago

I can give you the press release of India today, financial times etc.

BEST strike creates chaos in Mumbai on Rakhi Day
Millions of Mumbaikars were severely hit on Rakshabandhan Day as around 37,000 employees of the Bombay Electric Supply and Transport (BEST) launched a strike to press for their salary demands here on Monday.
 
The entire fleet of nearly 3,800 BEST buses remained in depots across the city as employees belonging to nine unions stayed off duty, stranding the three million commuters who use it daily as their lifeline.
 
The strike proved a boon for autorickshaws and taxis which were in huge demand to ferry people going from one place to another.
 
Many charged the commuters exorbitantly even for short rides, while others relied on the app-based cab services like Ola and Uber.
 
The BEST Employees Union President Shashank Rao said that the employees had demanded that their salaries should be paid on time and a written undertaking should be given, but the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) administration failed to provide it.
 
Hectic efforts are underway with Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, BMC Commissioner Ajoy Mehta, Shiv Sena President Uddhav Thackeray attempting to resolve the issue.
 
Meanwhile, Mumbaikars paid through their nose for commutes by autos or taxis on account of the strike in different parts of the city and surroundings, as well as the neigbouring district like Thane and Raigad services by BEST's long-distance services.
 
A regular commuter M.N. Bose complained he had to shell out Rs 200 for a ride from Kalina to Santacruz which normally cost around Rs 50, while another commuter paid Rs 250 to travel from Kandivali to Dahisar to her brother's home for Rakshabandhan, up from barely Rs 70.
 
The Maharashtra State Roads Development Corporation (MSRDC) has deployed its own ST buses in some key sectors to tackle the commuter rush, while the state government has permitted private buses to carry regular commuters.
 
The state government has threatened to invoke the Maharashtra Essential Services Maintenance Act, 2011, against the striking employees.
 
Disclaimer: Information, facts or opinions expressed in this news article are presented as sourced from IANS and do not reflect views of Moneylife and hence Moneylife is not responsible or liable for the same. As a source and news provider, IANS is responsible for accuracy, completeness, suitability and validity of any information in this article.
 

 

User

COMMENTS

Ramesh I

2 years ago

Why can't / didn't the Govt declare public transport services like BEST Bus service an essential service under ESMA ? Employee Unions should be barred from holding an entire city to ransom with their wayward strikes. But it's also shameful that the BEST doesn't pay its staff on time, as everyone depends on their salary income to make ends meet. Unlike most BMC staff, not everyone demands/gets 'bribes'.

ASCI bans 117 ads, including Jio, Amazon, Airtel, Emami, Redmi Note 4, Manforce, Dr Batra, and VLCC in May 2017
The Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) of the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) has banned as many as 117 advertisements out of 154 complaints it received across segments during May 2017. Most of the complaints upheld in telecom segment belong to claims of 'unlimited call or data', including from Reliance Jio, Airtel, Idea, and Reliance Communication. 
 
Out of 117 advertisements against which complaints were upheld, 39 belonged to the Healthcare category, 33 to the Education category, followed by 8 in the Personal Care category, 8 in Telecommunication sector, 6 in the Food & Beverages category, 5 in E-commerce category and 18 advertisements from other categories, the self-regulatory industry body said in a statement.
 
The banned ads are from prominent companies like Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd (3 months unlimited at Rs309), Xiaomi Technology India Pvt Ltd (Xiaomi Redmi 4A and Redmi Note 4), HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co Ltd (HDFC life Cancer care), Asian Paints Ltd (Asian Paints Royale Atmos), Amazon (for four products, services), Bharti Airtel Ltd, Idea Cellular, Reliance Commmunication Ltd, Emami Ltd (Fair and Handsome Fairness Cream), Kalyan Jewleers Polycab Wires Pvt Ltd (Polycab Cables & Wires), Mankind Pharma Ltd (Manforce Condoms), among others, they range from FMCGs to autos, personal accessories to alcohol, and education to media.
 
HEALTHCARE:-
 
The CCC found the following claims of 39 advertisements in health care products or services to be either misleading or false or not adequately / scientifically substantiated and hence violating ASCI’s Code. Some of the health care products or services advertisements also contravened provisions of the Drugs & Magic Remedies Act (DMR Act), Drugs and Cosmetics Rules (D&C Rules) and Chapter 1.1 and III.4 of the ASCI Code. Complaints against the following advertisements were UPHELD.
 
1. Fit N Slim Fitness Centre: The advertisement’s claims, “Instant Result (100% Result)”,  “Reduce two to three inches in one sitting”, and “Five to seven kilograms in a month”, were not substantiated and were hence misleading by exaggeration.
 
2. Fit N Fine Body Care Services Pvt. Ltd. (Fit N Fine): The advertisement’s claims, “Instant inch loss through non‐surgical liposuction”, “Guaranteed five kilograms weight loss”,  and “Immediate visible results ‐ Lose six to eight centimetres* Results within 60 minutes”, were not substantiated and are hence misleading by exaggeration. It was further opined that the efficacy sought to be depicted through an image purporting to be that of “after the treatment” was misleading by gross exaggeration.
 
3. The Medinova Retreat (MediSpa): The advertisement’s claims, “Now reducing weight is very easy” and “Reduce three inches from tummy within ten hours only*”, were not substantiated and were misleading by gross exaggeration. Also it was concluded that the claims and efficacy being depicted in the image of “after the treatment” was misleading by gross exaggeration.
 
4. VSS Health and Wellness Center: The advertisement’s claims, “100% Guarantee of weight loss or money back”, “Reduce upto five kilograms weight and get more upto five kilogram free”, and “Reduce upto ten kilograms weight and get more upto ten kilogram free”, were not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence, and with treatment efficacy data among patients, and they were misleading by exaggeration. It was further noted that, the advertiser had not provided any supporting evidence of customers to whom the money was refunded.
 
5. VLCC Health Care Ltd. (VLCC Center): The advertisement’s claim, “Weight Loss Challenge! ‐ Lose ten kilograms in seven days”, was not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence, and was misleading by exaggeration.
 
6. Dr. Batra’s Positive Health Clinic (Dr. Batra’s Homeopathic Clinic): The advertisement’s claim, “India’s Most Trusted Homeopathy Brand”, was not substantiated; nor was the source and date of research mentioned in the advertisement.  The claim was therefore considered to be misleading by omission. Also the claim, “94% patient satisfaction” too, was not substantiated with any supporting evidence of patient satisfaction data, and was hence considered misleading.  
 
7. Complete Health Solutions Private Limited (You Stay Fit): The advertisement’s claim, “Odisha's No.1 GYM & Slimming Centre”, was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data pertaining to the advertiser and other similar gyms / centres, or any third party validation or research to prove this claim.  In view of the above, the claim was considered to misleading by exaggeration.
 
8. Mind Power Clinic: The advertisement’s claims, “We prove 100 percent treatment for Alcohol addiction” and “Our treatment/medicine is so effective that the patient will be completely cured before he even realizes, what has been done to him”, were not substantiated and are misleading by gross exaggeration.
 
9. RJR Siddha Ayur Unani Hospital: The advertisement’s claims, “The cartilage is made to grow and the synovial fluid is made uniform. The knee pain heals through this and the knee strengthens within one or two months” and “In our treatment the knee pain is totally cured and is not repeating life long as mentioned by our customers”, were not substantiated with any supporting clinical evidence, and were misleading by exaggeration. Also the claims, “The people who take treatment in our RJR hospital won't have knee pain in life again” and “Don't worry about knee pain, please come to RJR hospital and cured without surgery”, are misleading by implication.  
 
10. Prem Hospital (IVF and Surrogacy Center): The advertisement’s claim that now no one will remain childless implies a cure from infertility and is considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.
 
11. Shri Ram Murti Smarak Institute of Medical Sciences: The advertisement’s claim, “First time in Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand successful treatment for varicose veins without incision, without operation through laser,” is considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the D&C Rules.
 
12. Care Point (Acupuncture, Physiotherapy, and Hair Weaving & Bonding Clinic): The advertisement’s claims, “Freedom from Baldness”, “Get freedom from obesity” and “Increases Height,” were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act and D&C Rules. Also, the “before and after” visuals in the advertisement appear to be misleading.
 
13. Chahal Clinic: The advertisement’s claim, “No Baldness,” is considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the D&C Rules.
 
14. Kashish Slimming Center: The advertisement’s claims, “Reduce weight through modern Machine”, “Reduce six to ten kilograms weight in one month + Along with it reduce three to six inches figure” and “No Exercise”, were not substantiated and are misleading by exaggeration. The visual in the advertisement was also considered to be misleading by implication.  
 
15. Fitness World:  The advertisement’s claims, “In one month five kilograms guaranteed weight loss or weight gain with no diet no medicine”, were not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence and with treatment efficacy data, and were therefore misleading by exaggeration.
 
16. Vimhans PrimaMed Super Speciality Hospital: The advertisement’s claims, “Walk the same day”, “No Physio” and “Painless & Quick Recovery”, were inadequately substantiated and are misleading by exaggeration and implication.
 
17. FMS Dental Hospital: The advertisement’s claim, “Ranked 5th in World and 1st in India by GCR Global Clinic Ranking”, was inadequately substantiated, and the claim is misleading.
 
18. Grover Eye Laser & E.N.T. Hospital (Grover Eye Laser Hospital): The advertisement’s claim, “India’s only multifocal lasik laser with which you can get rid of both distance and near reading glasses”, was not substantiated with any justification, and the claim was misleading by exaggeration.   
 
19. Navchetana Kendra: The advertisement’s claim, “Quit Alcohol”, was not substantiated and is misleading by exaggeration.
 
20. NuAyurveda Clinic: The advertisement’s claim, “I joined for the Weight loss programme and lost siz kilograms and 12 inches……” was not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence, and with treatment efficacy data. It was further concluded that, the claim was misleading by exaggeration.
 
21. Lida Biotech Pvt. Ltd. (Lida Herbal Slimming Capsules): The visual shown in the advertisements of a slim model in the advertisement is misleading by implication that the product, when used, would result in slimming, which was not substantiated with proof of product-efficacy.
 
22. Medinn Belle Herbal Private Limited (Endura Mass weight Gainer): The advertisement’s claim, “Endura Mass gave me the right weight to make me a winner.  So if you are underweight start taking Endura Mass today”, was not substantiated with clinical evidence of product efficacy and was therefore misleading by exaggeration and implication. 
 
23. Trophic Wellness Pvt. Ltd. (Nutricharge Woman): The advertisement’s claims, “Promote women’s health to help keep them youthful”, “Helps fulfil daily needs with 33 key vitamins, minerals, antioxidants and amino-acids to keep them healthy”, “Gives six specialty nutrients that may alleviate women’s specific health problems at various stages of their life”, “Nutricharge woman tablet is potentially beneficial for diabetics” and “May help correct dietary deficiencies to keep girls and women fit and may improve metabolism”,  were all not substantiated with any evidence of product efficacy and are misleading by exaggeration. 
 
24. Sablok Clinic: The advertisement’s claims to treat sex related problems successfully and take pleasure of married life, are considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the D&C Rules.
 
25. Nidan Ayurveda India Pvt. Ltd. (Nidan Ayurveda India): The advertisement’s claims, “Eat fully even but still reduce weight - Otherwise get money back”, “NIDAN AYURVEDA INDIA's new research from which without reducing diet you can reduce your weight without any side effects. Within 45 days if there is no result get your money back guarantee” are untruthful and misleading to the consumers.
 
26. Sameeksha Ayurveda Clinic (Sameeksha Clinic): The advertisement’s claims, “Get Rid of Hypothyroidism Permanently & Safely”, are untruthful and misleading to the consumers.
 
27. Mankind Pharma Limited (Heal O Kind Nanofine Gel): The advertisement’s claims, “FIRSTAID'S ALL ROUNDER – INJURY, BURNS, BRUISES, CUTS, NICKS (emphasized with a tick mark)”, “NANO CRYSTALLINE SILVER IN HEALO KIND has anti-bacterial action for wound healing, Reduces inflammation, Prevents scarring of wounds” were inadequately substantiated and is misleading by ambiguity and implication, in absence of efficacy data for the product / active ingredients at the levels used in the product.
 
28. SBF Healthcare and Research Centre Private Limited (SBF Healthcare): The advertisement’s claim, “Since its inception a decade ago, about 7000 people have been treated successfully” was untruthful, and misleading, in the absence of any authentic scientific evidence to substantiate the claims made in the advertisement.
 
29. British Nutritions Pvt. Ltd. (D-Protin): The advertisement’s claims, “The only company in India trusted for over 2 decades in diseases specific nutritional products.”, “Pioneers & leaders in Diabetic nutrition.”, “The only brand DPROTIN which is trusted by millions of doctors across the nation and in more than 30 countries.” and “Most awarded and highly prescribed” were without substantiation, and therefore misleading.
 
30. Rajnish Hot Deals Pvt. Ltd. (Play-Win F-Capsule): The advertisement’s claims, “Power booster for females.” and “get rid of body weakness and gain enthusiasm & energy” are misleading by exaggeration.
 
31. DHI Global Medical Group: The advertiser’s claim regarding the superiority of their products or services based on IMRB Customer Satisfaction survey ratings, in the absence of any substantiation through IMRB study design, questionnaire and reports, etc., was untruthful and misleading.
 
32. ReeAge: The advertisement’s claim, “Latest PRP Stem Cell Technology for Hair regrowth”, was not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence, and with treatment efficacy data among patients. Further it was opined that the efficacy of the above claim depicted via images of “before and after the treatment” is misleading by gross exaggeration. 
 
33. Hair Doc Hair Clinic (Hair Doc Trichology Hair Clinic): The advertisement’s claim, “Stop Baldness on time!” was not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence as well as with treatment efficacy data among patients; and was therefore misleading by exaggeration. Further the claim, “Honoured by 'Keshratna' Award” was not substantiated with details, references of the award received such as the year, source, etc.; so the claim was misleading. Lastly, it was opined that the efficacy of the advertised treatment, depicted through images of “before and after the treatment”, was misleading by gross exaggeration.  
 
34. Dr. Adityan Skin and Hair Laser Centre: The advertisement’s claims, “Permanent Treatment for Pimples” and “Permanent Cure for Pimples”, are absolute claims which were inadequately substantiated with clinical evidence, and are misleading by exaggeration. It was also opined that the claims of efficacy depicted through images of “before and after” the treatment were misleading by gross exaggeration.
 
35. Oliva Advanced Hair and Skin Clinic: The advertisement’s claims, “Treatment of Hair Loss and Hair Fall by using Platelet cells”, “Treatment without side effects” and “New permanent solution can be got from baldness”, were not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence, and with treatment efficacy data among patients, and are misleading by exaggeration.  
 
36. Pushpa Clinic (P) Ltd.: The advertisement’s claims, “Guaranteed Treatment for Baldness” and “Pushpa Clinic Ayurvedic Treatment is Incredible for removing all types of Baldness”, were not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence and with treatment efficacy data among patients. Further it was concluded that the claim, “100% Success”, was not substantiated with any supporting data. Also the claim, “100% Money Back Guarantee if no result within 15-60 days”, was not substantiated with supporting evidence of the customers who were refunded with the money back.  It was thus opined that the claims were misleading by exaggeration.
 
37. Athena Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. (Hair for Sure): The advertisement’s claim, “Supercharged with breakthrough Rutexil Growth Complex and Caffeine”, was not substantiated, and misleading by exaggeration. Further regarding the claims, “Clinically tested to help control hair fall and accelerate hair growth” and “Clinically proven to help accelerate hair growth and control hair loss”, were inadequately substantiated and are misleading by ambiguity and implication.  
 
38. Hair Doc Trichology Hair Clinic (Hair Doc Trichology Expert): The advertisement’s claim, “Baldness” made therein, and the “before treatment” and “after treatment” visuals, it was concluded that the claim made in the advertisement was without substantiation and misleading by implication.
 
39. Dr. Batras Positive Health Clinic (Dr. Batras Homeopathic Clinic): The advertisement’s claims “First time in India” followed by “Grow your hair back in just 10 weeks by French technology” and “Introducing a Nobel Prize winning technology which is an innovative hair treatment that results in hair growth in 10 weeks.” were not substantiated adequately and are misleading.  
 
EDUCATION:-
 
The CCC found following claims in the advertisements by 33 different advertisers were not substantiated and, thus, violated ASCI Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions. Hence complaints against these advertisements were UPHELD.
 
1. Lovely Professional University: The advertisement’s claim, “packages in excess of Rs. One Crore are the norm" clearly conveyed the idea that an overwhelming majority of the students of the advertiser’s University are able to obtain placements with Rs. One crore per annum remuneration, immediately after passing out of the University. It was however seen that the advertiser could not provide any evidence or proof for the claim. It was opined that the advertiser’s further statement in justification, that the above advertisement “was only information”, could also not be accepted. In view of the above, it was concluded that the advertisement was misleading by ambiguity and implication.
 
2. Indeed.com: The advertisement’s claim, “The World’s #1 job site”, was inadequately substantiated, and is misleading by ambiguity and omission.
 
3. ALS Satellite Education Private Limited - ALS Satellite Education:  The advertisement’s claims, “India's Largest IAS Coaching Institution” and “All India 1st Rank for 3 times”, were not substantiated were not substantiated with any verifiable, authentic, and comparative data vis-a-vis other similar institutes in the same category, or, reports of any third party validation or research to prove these claims. Also the claims, “2208+ Selections in last 15 years” and “180+ Selections in 2016 Exam”, were not substantiated with verifiable claim support data, and are misleading by exaggeration and implication.  
 
4. IT Champs Software Pvt. Ltd.: The advertisement’s claims, “Free Internships provided with Assured Placements” and “Assured Placements for Candidates enrolling in SAP S4 HANA Certification”, were not substantiated with verifiable claim support data and were therefore misleading by exaggeration. 
 
5. British Fort Foundation: The advertisement’s claims, “The Most Awarded CBSE School” and “The Most Awarded International CBSE School”, were not substantiated with any supporting evidence and were misleading by exaggeration.
 
6. Motion Education Pvt. Ltd. (Rao Classes):  The advertisement’s claim, “The Most Trusted Institute for Pre Engineering, Medical, and Foundations” was not substantiated with any verifiable, authentic comparative data  for this institute vis-à-vis other similar institutes in the same category, or through any third party validation; and was  therefore misleading by exaggeration.  
 
7. Vijayam Educational Institutions (Vijayam Coaching Centre): The advertisement’s claim, “No.1 Institution in Chittor since 16 years”, was not substantiated with any verifiable, authentic comparative data of the advertiser’s institute vis-à-vis other similar institutes in that area, or with any third party validation. Also the claim, “Pay one time fees, coaching up to acquiring job”, was also not substantiated with supporting evidence of any students who had availed of such facility, for verification.  The claims were hence considered to be misleading by exaggeration and implication.
 
8. ICAII: The advertisement’s claim, “Author of India's No-1 Selling book of NEET 2017", was not substantiated with supporting data and is misleading.  
 
9. Subhas Bose Institute of Hotel Management: The advertisement’s claims, “Asia's Education Excellence Award, Singapore Best Educational Institute in Health Care”, were not substantiated. Also the claim, “Confirmed placement in the health care industry”, was not substantiated with any verifiable claim support data, and was therefore misleading by exaggeration.
 
10. Ramappa Academy Police: The advertisement’s claim, “Fees return batch available if job not acquired”, was not substantiated with any supporting evidence of the customers whose fees were refunded and hence the claim is misleading by exaggeration.
 
11. Rankers Educare: The advertisement’s claim, “Guaranteed Selection Batch Start For: - Entrance Exam 2017”, was not substantiated with verifiable claim support data, was misleading by exaggeration.
 
12. Resonance Eduventures Limited: The advertisement’s claim, “The Most Trusted Institute for Pre-Engineering / Pre-Medical / Pre-Foundation in India”, was not substantiated with verifiable comparative data of the advertiser and other similar institutes in the same category, or any through a third party validation; and that the claim was misleading by exaggeration.
 
13. Base Education Services Pvt Ltd- Base Education: The advertisement’s claim, “The Most trusted Institute for student training in Karnataka”, was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s institution and other similar institutes, or through any third party validation or research to prove the claim, and is misleading by exaggeration.
 
14. Roorkee College of Pharmacy: The advertiser’s claim in respect of the placements in MNCs such as Astellas, Boehringer- Ingelheim which are claimed to have happened in the college was not truthful, and was therefore misleading consumers.  
 
15. Akhil Bharat Siksha Kendra Computer: The advertisement’s claim, “Akhil Bharat Computer Siksha Kendra” - “Department of Labour, NCT, MHRD (CR) Approved”, or affiliated to the Government of India were not supported by any authentic evidence. The advertisement was untruthful and misleading.
 
16. Chitkara University: The advertisement’s claim, “Most Trusted University in North India”, was without any substantiation or qualifiers, and was untruthful and misleading.
 
17. SICE Institute Shivaji: The advertisement’s claims, “Job guaranteed intensive coaching”, and “Puppala Shivaji who is state no.1 faculty”, were without any substantiation of any kind, and were untruthful and misleading.
 
18. St. Bonnie White College of Nursing: The advertisement’s claim, “100% Scholarship”, was not substantiated with authentic supporting data such as evidence of 100% scholarships availed by any of their students; and that the claim was misleading by exaggeration and ambiguity regarding the amount of scholarship and the total number of scholarships offered. 
 
19. Medical Super 50: The advertisement’s claim, “Upto 100% Scholarship”, was not substantiated with any authentic supporting data such as evidence of 100% scholarships availed by any of their students; and that the claim was misleading by exaggeration and ambiguity regarding the amount of scholarship and the total number of scholarships being offered.
 
20. First Guide Academy: The advertisement’s claim, “Upto 100% Scholarship”, was not substantiated with any authentic supporting data such as evidence of 100% scholarships availed by any of their students.  Further, the claim was considered to be misleading by exaggeration and ambiguity regarding the amount of scholarship and the total number of scholarships being offered.
 
21. ICON Education Career: The advertisement’s claim, “100% Scholarship”, was not substantiated with authentic supporting data such as evidence of 100% scholarships availed by any of their students and   was misleading by implication and ambiguity regarding the amount of scholarship and the total number of scholarships being offered.
 
Complaints against advertisements of all educational institutes listed below mostly are UPHELD because of unsubstantiated claims that they ‘provide 100% placement/AND/OR they claim to be the No.1 in their respective fields’: 
 
Picasso International Animation College, V Rahul Coaching, Institute of Rural Management, Cokonet Technologies Pvt Ltd, V. Institute of Internet Marketing, Subhas Bose Institute of Hotel Management, Expert Institute of Advance Technology Pvt. Ltd., Career Point, Anil Nair Classes, Industrial Training Department - Dept of Industrial Train (Ker)-OT, Yaduvanshi Shiksha Niketan and  Birsa Inst of Tech (Trust) - BITT Polytechnic. 
 
FOOD & BEVERAGES:-
 
1. Aqua Pure Life water purifiers: The advertisement’s claim, ““Sabse Shudh Pani” was considered as entirely unsubstantiated and misleading by exaggeration. 
 
2. Organic India Private Limited (Tulsi Green Tea): The advertisement’s claim, “100% Certified Organic”, was not substantiated and is misleading.
 
3. Narang Group (Ocean Fruit Wave): The advertisement’s claim, “You can squeeze those bottles instead of me”, suggested that the consumer should have this drink instead of having fresh fruit. This aspect, in the context of the
advertisement recommending what a child should drink, it was opined, that the advertisement was in violation of the ASCI Guidelines on Advertising of Food and Beverages Clause 5 (“mislead as to the nutritive value of the beverage”). Further, the claim that contained illustration of a fruit, saying “It’s all me”, was considered misleading by implication.
 
4. Modi Naturals Ltd. (Oleev Active): The advertisement’s claim was that the product “helps in reducing serum cholesterol, preventing lifestyle diseases, and has anti-ageing properties etc.” The advertiser stated that nowhere on the packaging was it claimed that ‘Oleev Active’ helps in reducing serum cholesterol, preventing lifestyle diseases, etc. The advertiser positions these benefits as Oryzanol properties, the claim was not substantiated for  the  Oryzanol  content  in  the  product  or  the  specific  oil  blend  and  was  misleading  by  ambiguity  and implication. Further for the claim, “Stable while frying”, the advertiser submitted report to support claim. However, there was no mention of the advertised product in the report and a comparison was done with Saffola Gold. In absence of a detailed study under different frying tests for the specific product, this claim was considered to be inadequately substantiated. Also, for the claim “a light oil that gets absorbed upto 20% less”, the report did not cover frying results for different foods. Therefore, the data was considered to be inadequate and the claim was misleading by ambiguity and omission. Furthermore, while the advertisement is in Hindi, the disclaimers in the advertisement are in English which violates ASCI’s Guidelines for Disclaimers. 
 
5. Modi Naturals Ltd. (Oleev Smart): It was viewed that the word “Oleev” in the advertiser’s brand name, “Oleev Smart”, is likely to cause, in spite of all clarifications to the contrary, a belief in the consumers at large, in a broad manner that it may contain olive oil especially given that the mother-brand that is advertised in mass media has Olive oil. In view of the above discussion, the product name in packaging / advertisement was considered to be misleading. The product below the product title on its packaging, which says “Smarter choice for a healthy lifestyle” for which it was unclear as to how such consumption of the product alone would lead to better health than the current oil being consumed by consumers, and there are no comparative studies cited for this claim. Further it was concluded that while the advertiser is portraying the benefit of an oil blend versus single oil, in absence of any comparative data or qualifier, the claim “Smarter” is misleading by ambiguity and omission of the comparison being referred to. Also the claim, “Super enriched formula of Vitamin A, D, E & K, Oryzanol and Omega fatty acids. An anti-oxidant property of Vitamin A and E keep tissues in healthy state and prevents cellular damage, while Vitamin D helps in bone and muscle strength, Vitamin K aids in healing process. Oryzanol improves blood circulation and lowers overall bad cholesterol levels. Also Omega 3, Omega 6 and Omega 9 fatty acids along with other good lipids support and promote heart health” the advertiser stated that these claims are made for oil’s constituents such as Oryzanol. It was noted that while the advertiser positions these benefits as Oryzanol properties, the claim was not substantiated for the oil constituents / Oryzanol content in the product or the specific oil blend and was misleading by ambiguity and implication. For the term in the advertisements, “VitaFit+”, when seen in conjunction with declaration of Vitamin A, D, E and K, was not found to be objectionable, but in absence of evidence of the RDA levels for these vitamins, the term was considered to be misleading. Further, for the claim, “Stable while frying”, the advertiser submitted report to support claim. However, there was no mention of the advertised product in the report and a comparison was done with Saffola Gold. In absence of a detailed study under different frying tests for the specific product, this claim was considered to be inadequately substantiated. For the claims, “low absorption” and “a light oil that gets absorbed upto 20% less”, was not substantiated by lab trial reports to prove that reduction in absorption of oil is to a significant level is achieved due to the addition of DMPS. Therefore the data was considered to be inadequate and the claim was misleading by ambiguity. 
 
6. Modi Naturals Ltd. (Oleev Health): It was viewed that the word “Oleev” in advertiser’s brand name, “Oleev Health”, is likely to cause, in spite of all clarifications to the contrary, a belief in the consumers at large, in a broad manner that it may contain olive oil especially given that the motherbrand that is advertised in mass media has Olive oil. In this view, the product name in packaging / advertisement was considered to be misleading. Further for the term ‘Cardizymes’, it’s presentation in conjunction with a heart / heart beat symbol, in absence of evidence of the effective Oryzanol level for heart related benefits, was considered to be misleading by implication. Also the claim “Contains Oryzanol that lowers bad cholesterol and keeps your heart young and healthy. Oryzanol also promotes blood circulation thereby promoting overall physical health. Also Omega 3, Omega 6 and Omega 9 fatty acids along with other good lipids support and promote heart health”, was not substantiated for the oil constituents / Oryzanol content in the product or the specific oil blend and was misleading by ambiguity and implication. For the claim “Stable while frying”, the data presented by the advertiser was not considered to be adequate. Further for the claims, “low absorption” and “a light oil that gets absorbed upto 20% less”, there was no substantiation by lab trial reports to prove that reduction in absorption of oil is to a significant level is achieved due to the addition of DMPS. Therefore the data was considered to be inadequate and the claim was misleading by ambiguity.
 
PERSONAL CARE:-
 
1. OJB Herbals Pvt. Ltd. (Oshea Sun Block SPF 40): The advertisement’s claims, “Five in One Solution SPF 40”, “Skin lightening”, “Prevents tanning & ageing” and SPF values for their product range stating - Other SPF Range:‐ “UVSHIELD SPF‐ 50 ‐ SUN BLOCK FORMULA ‐ Broad Spectrum Protection (HEVL) All skin type”,  “UVSHIELD SPF‐30 ‐SUN BLOCK CREAM ‐ Enriched with Almond All skin type”, “UVSHIELD SPF‐25 ‐ SUNSCREEN ‐ Fairness Lotion ‐ All skin type” and “UVSHIELD SPF‐20 ‐ SUNBLOCK GEL ‐ Enriched with Alovera Normal to Oily skin”, were not substantiated with evidence of technical evaluation for measurement of SPF factor in each product and proof of product efficacy, and were therefore misleading.
 
2. SBS Biotech Ayurvedic Division (Roop Mantra Skin Care Products): The advertisement showcases celebrity, Preity Zinta, who states, "I'm very happy to be associated with Roop Mantra why because manthra is a best ayurvedic product.  It got many national and international awards also”, and further that Preity Zinta had said before endorsing roop manthra she studied and tried roop manthra to herself and said that you also try it, then you will understand yourself that why I have done this endorsement. It was opined that in accordance with the celebrity guidelines of ASCI, the advertiser was required to show that the celebrity was adequately informed about the product, or had personal experience with the product, which they had not conclusively established. In view of the above, it was concluded that the said claim has not been adequately substantiated and is misleading by implication. The advertisement also claims that it was “helpful in protecting from dark complexion, scars, wrinkles, pimples and dull skin” which was not substantiated with relevant and authentic scientific evidence or independent studies conducted on the efficacy of the product. Therefore it was concluded that this part of the advertisement was misleading. 
 
3. Win – Medicare Pvt. Ltd. (Mederma Intense Gel): The advertisement’s claim, “Flawless” in the statement “Now get the flawless skin in just 8 weeks from Acne Scars”, was inadequately substantiated and was misleading by exaggeration.  
 
4. Lotus Herbals Limited (Lotus Whiteglow Range of Products): The advertisement’s claims, “LOTUS WHITEGLOW ‐ it comes enriched with saxifrage extracts and milk enzymes that help Lighten, Whiten your skin in 7 days”, “Visible results in 7 days ‐ WHITEGLOW is the only natural fairness range that can deliver visible results in 7 days of regular use”, “Clinical Trials show that the following ingredients lighten, whiten & brighten the skin in 7 days* of regular use: SAXIFRAGA EXTRACTS ‐ Act as antioxidants & prevent damage from UV radiation, claim of SPF value of WHITEGLOW HAND & BODY LOTION  i.e. SPF 25 ‐ PA+++, whitening claim for WHITEGLOW FACIAL FOAM ‐ 3 in 1 DEEP CLEANSING i.e. Whitens ‐ Blocks Melanin Production, WHITEGLOW SERUM + MOISTURISER ‐ UPTO 2X SKIN WHITENING & BRIGHTENING POWER”, claim of SPF value of “WHITEGLOW Skin Whitening and Brightening Gel crème ‐ i.e. SPF 25 ‐ PA+++”, were not substantiated with evidence of product efficacy, and are misleading by exaggeration.
 
5. Ratan Ayurvedic Santhan Private Limited  (Herbal Facia Facial Bar): The advertisement’s claims, “Facial bar with kesar and chandan”, “Brings fairness and removes pimples”, “Has kesar, chandan, aloe vera and camphor”, “In only two minutes gives the feeling of facial”, were not substantiated with technical and efficacy data for the product, and is misleading by exaggeration.
 
6. Ratan Ayurvedic Sansthan Private Limited (Ratan Beuton Herbal Kala Shampoo): The advertisement’s claims, “Get beautiful black hair easily” and “Enriched with Natural elements - Herbal shampoo”, are untruthful and misleading to the consumers by ambiguity and implication.
 
7. Zee Laboratories Limited (My Fair Cream): The advertisement’s claims, “Fairness cream”, “Tried and tested by crores of people” and “President Award Winner”, are untruthful and misleading to the consumers.
 
8. Emami Limited (Fair and Handsome Fairness Cream): The statement in the advertisement, “Mardo ki sakt tawacha per pink fairness cream beaasar!” (…Pink Fairness Cream is of no use on Men’s tough skin…) was not adequately substantiated. The endorsement by the Celebrity in the advertisement was further examined and it is seen that the advertisement contains portions of the celebrity expressing opinions such as “Mardo ki sakt tawacha per pink fairness cream beaasar!” which have not been substantiated.  Therefore this part of the advertisement contravenes Clause (d) of the Guidelines for Celebrities in Advertising. Further the claim, “Long Last Fairness: Visible Fairness in 3 weeks” which appears on the product packaging implies that the product provides the claimed effect “fairness” for some extended time after its use has stopped or for some extended duration after the last application of the product, which was not substantiated adequately over a reasonable time period by the advertiser by objective measurements and the claim is misleading by ambiguity and implication.
 
TELECOMMUNICATION:-
 
1. Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. (3 months unlimited at Rs.309/-): The advertisement’s claim, “3 months unlimited at Rs.309”, is misleading by ambiguity and omission of a disclaimer qualifying the offer that it is subject to terms and conditions. Further for the claim, ”Unlimited” contravened Chapter I.4 of the ASCI Code as well as Clauses 1 and 2 of ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers. (“A disclaimer can expand or clarify a claim, make qualifications, or resolve ambiguities, to explain the claim in further details, but should not contradict the material claim made or contradict the main message conveyed by the advertiser or change the dictionary meaning of the words used in the claim as received or perceived by a consumer” and “Disclaimer such as `T&C apply’ should indicate where this information is available to consumer for further reference.”).
 
2. Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. (Reliance Jio): For the advertisement’s claim, “All unlimited three months at Rs.309”, the complaint made was that the offer is valid for only 84 days which is not completely three months. It was concluded that the advertiser’s explanation in respect to this complaint, that “it was a standard industry practice to consider one month as 28 days to bring about consistency in the billing cycle” was not considered acceptable, given the fact that in common parlance, a month was always understood as a calendar month. Further, in respect of the claim, “Unlimited maza continue hoyega” that was made in the advertisement ought to have carried a mention that such claim was subject to certain terms and conditions. The advertisement did not have any mention of the speed throttling after 1 GB. In the absence of such mention of terms and conditions, it was opined that the claim was vague and misleading by omission and ambiguity.
 
3. Reliance Communications Ltd.: The advertisement’s claims, “unlimited local STD call for 28 days at Rs 199” and “unlimited local STD call for all networks”, were without any substantiation and the claim stating “unlimited” is misleading in view of the capping. 
 
4. Bharti Airtel Ltd. (Airtel 29 INR for 1 month): The advertisement’s claim, “Enjoy internet for the full month at just Rs.29”, is misleading by ambiguity and omission as 75 MB being given at that cost may not last for a month.
 
5. Bharti Airtel Ltd (Airtel Rs 348 and Rs 299 Unlimited plan): The offers in the advertisement, “Airtel Rs. 348 and Rs. 299 Unlimited plans”, were misleading by ambiguity and omission of disclaimer qualifying the offers that they were subject to terms and conditions.  
 
6. Bharti Airtel Ltd. (Airtel Broadband): The advertisement’s claim, “Speed up to 100 Mbps available with this plan” was not substantiated and was misleading by ambiguity and omission the “terms and conditions” were not mentioned anywhere in the advertisement.
 
7. Idea Cellular: For the advertisement’s claim, “unlimited calls for 28 days”, the advertiser could not substantiate the claim “unlimited” as mentioned in the advertisement and the claim is misleading in view of the capping of 300 minutes in a day.  
 
8. ACT Fibre (ACT Fibre): The advertisement’s claim, “ACT-Fibernet - Bangalore’s No. 1 High Speed Internet Provider” is not adequately substantiated and is misleading. 
 
E-COMMERCE:-
 
1. BusinessEx.com: The advertisement’s claim, “India's # 1 Business Broking Company”, was not substantiated with any verifiable, authentic comparative data with other similar companies; or any third party validation or research to prove this claim, and was misleading by exaggeration. 
 
2. Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. (Amazon.com, Inc.): The visual of “a man and a woman riding two wheeler without a helmet” as depicted in the advertisement shows a violation of traffic rules, as well as an unsafe practice. 
 
3. Amazon.com, Inc. (American style cream and onion flavor – party pack): The advertisement’s claim, “The price offer “MRP 230  Price 63.00 Save 167.00 (73% off)” of “American style cream and onion flavor – party pack”, was false and misleading as the actual MRP of the product is Rs. 65. 
 
4. Amazon.com, Inc. (Redmi 3S/ 3S Prime): An advertisement regarding a flash sale for Redmi 3S / 3S Prime on Amazon states the sale will be at 12pm every Friday. In spite of all their assertions, the advertiser had not provided any evidence of successful sale of the advertised product through flash sale, in the period mentioned in the advertisement. Hence it was considered that the advertisement had violated the ASCI Code, in so much as the claims therein have not been objectively substantiated and the offer was misleading. 
 
5. Amazon.com, Inc: The advertiser’s claim regarding the prices at which specific products were being offered on their webpage, was untruthful and misleading to the consumers. 
 
OTHERS:-
 
1. Aerobok Shoes Pvt. Ltd. (Aqualite): The advertisement’s claims, “India’s Most Trusted Brand - Consumer Validated 2016”, “Asia's Most Promising Brand”, “World's Greatest Brand Asia & Gcc”, and “India's Selected No.1 Brand - India 2016”, were inadequately substantiated and are misleading.
 
2. Asian Paints Ltd. (Asian Paints Royale Atmos): The advertisement’s claims, “Air purifying paint” and “It destroys harmful pollutants, making the air inside your home purer than ever before”, were inadequately substantiated and are misleading by exaggeration.
 
3. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd (HDFC life Cancer care): The advertisement’s claim, “One in eight Indian men are likely to contract cancer at some point in their life”, was not substantiated with authentic supporting evidence, and is misleading by exaggeration exploiting consumers’ lack of knowledge.  
 
4. LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. (LG Dual Cool Air Conditioners): The visual in an advertisement showing a minor on multiple occasions leaving her home, crossing the road and entering a Mall without the consent of her parents, depicts a dangerous act which is likely to encourage minors to emulate such acts in a manner which could cause harm or injury to such minors.
 
5. Grey Matters: The advertisement’s claim, “You Bring the Passport, We’ll get you the Visa” was not substantiated with supporting evidence such as detailed list of candidates who had been given visas by the competent authorities, and is therefore misleading by ambiguity and implication. 
 
6. Metro Shoes Ltd. (Davinchi Cooling & Energising Socks): The advertisement’s claims, “Made from Organic Cotton” and “Soft cotton socks infused with cooling and energising blend of peppermint and other mint oils”, were not substantiated with supporting data of product performance, and were hence misleading by exaggeration.
 
7. Metro Shoes Ltd. (Davinchi Aloe Vera Health Socks): The advertisement’s claims, “help in anti-aging and reverse degenerative skin changes”, “improves ability of skin to rehydrate and aid in removal of dead skin cells”, “removes swelling from injuries and promotes recovery from infections”, “reduces arthritis, joint and muscle pain” and “has soothing and healing effects on burns and wounds,” were not substantiated with authentic scientific or clinical evidence for the advertised product and are misleading by implication. 
 
8. Aryamaan Developers Pvt. Ltd. (Crystal Xrbia): The advertisement’s claim, “international airport 20 minutes away”, was false and misleading.
 
9. Prameya News7 (News 7 Odisha): The advertisement’s claim, “No. One news channel in Odisha” is unsubstantiated.
 
10. GM Global Technies Tower (GM Infinite Towers): The advertisement’s claim in respect of the advertised  housing  project  being  located  opposite  to  a  particular  mall  was  untruthful and  was  therefore misleading consumers.
 
11. Arogya Retail: The advertisement’s claim, “provision of 20% to 75% discount” was untruthful and was therefore misleading consumers. 
 
12. Mankind Pharma Limited (Manforce Condoms): The advertisement that was available on YouTube, which was a longer version than the one on TV with additional scenes, ought to have been appropriately age-gated, so as to act as a caution to under-aged viewers. In was concluded that, in view of the fact that minors could view the said YouTube advertisement without any cautionary age-gating, the advertisement violated the provisions of the ASCI Codes. 
 
13. TV Today Ltd. (Aaj Tak) Network: The advertisement relates to a particular day (8th November 2016 4 hours of demonetization announcement), stating Source: BARC, 08 Nov 16, TG 15+ NCCS AB, Time Band 2000-2400, Share%. The data released is basis market share% which is against BARC guidelines. It was concluded that the percentage share has been used instead of impressions in 000s or coverage in 000s which is not permissible as per BARC guidelines. Hence the advertisement is considered to be misleading.
 
14. Balaji Telefilms Ltd. (ALTBalaji): The advertisement’s claim, to watch the show "Karle tu bhi mohabbat" for free, was untruthful, and misleading, too, to the consumers in the absence of any mention of the terms and conditions (that one would have to pay a nominal subscription fees after a given number of free episodes) to which the claim was subject to.
 
15. Kalyan Jewellers: The advertisement’s claim, “Gold coin free with every purchase above 25000” has been inadequately substantiated in as much as they had not provided any evidence of gold coins having been actually given to customers, or that of a comparative sales receipt of another customer to show that the customer in the complaint in question had in fact been given a discount and the claim was misleading.
 
16. Polycab Wires Pvt. Ltd. (Polycab Cables & Wires): It was noted that one of the characters’ action and dialogues in the advertisement strongly suggested that the electric consumption meter had stopped running fast after the change in the cables. This, considered together with the other claim of the advertiser in the advertisement that use of Polycab cables results in substantially reduced power consumption, invariably leads to the conclusion that the advertisement suggested slow movement of the electric consumption meter. Therefore it was concluded that this part of the advertisement was misleading. Further, in respect of the complaint that the advertisement claimed energy savings to a substantial extent so that the consumer felt relief from blood pressure etc., the advertiser stated that they had not shown the actor’s blood pressure going down; and that they had made no claim about the extent of energy saving as stated by the complainant. However, it was noted that the characters in the advertisement act in such a dramatic manner that an ordinary person, on viewing the advertisement, would come to the reasonable opinion that the savings in power consumption due to the use of the product cables promoted in the advertisement would be quite substantial. It was noted that such savings would depend only on the total wattage of electricity consumption in a given premises covered by one electricity consumption measurement meter, and the total length of electric cabling used in such premises. In the absence of mention of any of these factors by the advertiser in the advertisement, and in view of the lack of clarity for the expression “ordinary wires” used in the advertisement, it was concluded that the advertisement was misleading by implication. It was further concluded that the claim of the advertiser, “Polycab wire lagao aur bijli bachao” and comparison to “ordinary cable” was misleading by omission and implication. 
 
17. Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited (Xiaomi Redmi 4A and Redmi Note 4): The advertisement’s claim, “Pre-order Now!” was not substantiated and the “pre-order announcement” advertisement is misleading as the advertiser did not provide any third party certificate or any audited report to substantiate that the advertised product was available for sale or was sold to any customer.
 
18. LG Electronics India Pvt Ltd (LG Air Conditioner): The advertisement’s claim, “India's 1st ac with mosquito away technology” is without substantiation, and misleading.
Like this story? Get our top stories by email.

User

We are listening!

Solve the equation and enter in the Captcha field.
  Loading...
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email

BUY NOW

online financial advisory
Pathbreakers
Pathbreakers 1 & Pathbreakers 2 contain deep insights, unknown facts and captivating events in the life of 51 top achievers, in their own words.
online financia advisory
The Scam
24 Year Of The Scam: The Perennial Bestseller, reads like a Thriller!
Moneylife Online Magazine
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance
financial magazines online
Stockletters in 3 Flavours
Outstanding research that beats mutual funds year after year
financial magazines in india
MAS: Complete Online Financial Advisory
(Includes Moneylife Online Magazine)