Mumbai, April 6 (IANS) The advertising industry watchdog’s Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) said on Tuesday it has upheld complaints against 51 advertisements in categories of healthcare, e-commerce, education, food and beverages out of 102 in January for either misleading consumers or not able to substantiate their claim.
“Out of 51 advertisements against which complaints were upheld, 13 belonged to the education category, 12 to the food & beverages, followed by 11 in the healthcare, 6 in the e-commerce and 9 advertisements from other categories,” the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) said in a statement.
“The CCC found the claims in health care and personal care product or service advertisements of 11 advertisers to be either misleading or false or not adequately/ scientifically substantiated and hence violating ASCI’s code,” it said.
It said some of the health care products or services advertisements also contravened provisions of the law.
In the education category, the CCC found claims in 13 advertisements were not substantiated and thus, violated ASCI guidelines for advertising of educational institutions.
Regarding the advertisement of Rice Education, which stated, “The Best Training for Government Jobs Examination”, the Council said: “The claim in the advertisement is an absolute claim and was not substantiated with supporting comparative data versus other institutes.”
In regards to Uttam Dawakhana’s advertisement, which claimed “with Vanaspati oil and unaniraambaan medicines, 100 percent satisfaction of sexual problems”, the ASCI said: “The claim in the advertisement was not substantiated.”
“Also, specific to the claims implying treatment for sexual problems, and advertisement visual implying enhancement of sexual pleasure, the advertisement is in breach of the law as it violates the Drugs & Magic Remedies Act.” it said.
Among e-commerce category, for a advertisement of Ibibo Group P. Ltd. (redBus.in), the watchdog said: “The claim in the offer, ‘Mumbai to Goa Rs. 350’, is not substantiated with ticket reservation history corresponding to the period when the complainant visited the portal and is misleading.”