Bright Lifecare Private Limited - Gritzo
Recommendation: Upheld | Medium: General Public
The present review proceedings relate to the Advertiser’s product Gritzo Super Milk Height+. The influencer, Sourav Joshi, is seen advertising this product for children of different ages in the video. He speaks about the product’s benefits, including increasing the height of the children. Admittedly this is a paid promotion. Therefore, the influencer has a material connection with the Advertiser as conceived in the Influencer Advertising in Digital Media (referred to as “ ASCI Guidelines for the ASCI Guidelines ” hereafter). ASCI received a complaint stating that in a video posted on 14th October 2024, the influencer promoted the product without following the ASCI Guidelines, as the qualifications and certifications necessary for providing advice on health and nutrition products had not been disclosed. The same influencer posted another video on 18th November 2024 promoting the same product again. The ASCI Guidelines were breached in the second video as well. The influencer failed to mention his eligibility to promote health and nutrition products and to disclose his qualifications prominently, as required. According to the Complainant, the lack of adherence to the ASCI Guidelines misleads consumers and poses a risk to public health by encouraging reliance on unverified claims made by an individual without the necessary credentials. In response, the Advertiser contended that the ASCI Guidelines require disclosure of professional qualifications only when influencers provide specific advice or expert opinions on health, nutrition, or wellness. In this case, the influencer did not purport to provide any such advice or expert opinion. His role was limited to sharing personal observations and reiterating claims already present on the product’s label. Since the influencer did not position himself as a professional in the field of health or nutrition, nor did he make recommendations beyond the scope of the product label, there was no violation of the ASCI Guidelines. The influencer’s statements in the promotional content were made after due diligence and reflected his personal experience with the product while adhering to ethical advertising practices. The Advertiser proposed that it would incorporate the following disclaimer into the promotional content: “These are my personal observations and experiences with respect to the product. Please consult a qualified professional before using this product.” ASCI did not accept the proposal as there was a material connection between the advertiser and the influencer, and therefore, it was not merely his personal observation about the product. The Advertiser contended that Clause 1.1(c) of the ASCI Guidelines for Influencers in Digital Media permits such advertising by influencers if they submit disclosures stating their unbiased opinion or personal experience, even if there is a material connection between the influencer and the advertiser. As the Advertiser’s approach was unacceptable to ASCI, the Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) heard the matter. The CCC observed that the advertisement features an influencer promoting a protein & nutrition drink mix for children, namely, `Gritzo Super Milk Height+’. The CCC found that the influencer had added a disclosure label of "includes paid promotion" in the advertisement, which indicated a material connection between the influencer and the advertiser. The CCC held that the influencer (Sourav Joshi) highlighted specific health and nutrition related claims about the product, implying expertise in the field. However, he had not provided any information about his qualifications, certifications, or professional registration as a dietitian or nutritionist. These details are essential when endorsing a health or nutrition product to ensure that the information shared with the viewers is accurate and reliable. The CCC believed that because there was no disclosure of relevant professional credentials, the advertisement was misleading by omission and exploited the consumers’ lack of knowledge. The CCC concluded that the advertisement contravened Chapter I, Clauses 1.4 and 1.5 of the ASCI Code, and Clauses I, I (2), II, II (1) of Addendum II For Health and Financial Influencers of ASCI Guidelines for Influencer Advertising in Digital Media. The complaint was thus upheld . The Advertiser has availed of the Independent review process and submitted the grounds on which its challenge to the recommendations is based. The first ground is that since the influencer was not offering specific advice about the product but had only shared his personal experience, he had not violated the ASCI Guidelines. The influencer had reiterated the claims and information mentioned on the product label. He had not made any additional claims about the product. The second ground of challenge is that the influencer’s statements are merely a reiteration of the information on the product label verified by the FSSAI. Therefore, there was no misrepresentation, and the influencer’s presentation did not necessitate professional qualifications in nutrition or healthcare. The third ground raised is that the influencer’s transparent communication about material connections, coupled with his adherence to content based solely on the product’s label, and therefore it aligns with the standards set by ASCI. After hearing the representatives of the Advertiser and on considering the complaint, the reply of the Advertiser and the recommendations of the CCC, I am of the opinion that the CCC has not committed any error in upholding the complaint. The influencer has not stated his personal experience on using the product. Instead, he speaks about proteins being necessary in the diet, the product having twice the amount of protein compared to other protein powders available in the market, there being “no bad stuff” or added sugar, calcium and vitamin D3 being good for the bones. He then says the product has no malt, artificial flavour, or preservatives. It is difficult to accept that the influencer merely parrots whatever the product label states. How does the influencer know that the protein content is twice as much as that of other similar products? What research did he conduct and what his proficiency to make such a statement? The influencer is obviously opining that there is “no bad stuff” in the product. What is his expertise for such an opinion? Where is the evidence of there being no malt or artificial flavours in the product. The influencer makes these definitive statements without technical expertise about health and nutrition. Indeed, if he had such knowledge and expertise, he ought to have followed the ASCI Guidelines for Influencer Advertising in Digital Media and the Addendum thereto dated 17 th August 2023. The Advertiser has relied on the Addendum dated 7th April 2025 to the aforementioned Guidelines which permit influencers who do not possess technical qualifications to share generic information about products or services that are not in the nature of technical advice. about the The information shared by the influencer cannot be considered generic. He opined product in the video while urging the viewer to use it. Besides, the addendum dated 7 th 2025 is not applicable as the offending videos are dated 14 th October 2024 and 18 th April November 2024. In these circumstances, the review is dismissed.