USV Private Limited - SebaMed Baby

Recommendation: Not Upheld | Medium: Industry Member

The ASCI had approached the advertiser for its response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded the details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The advertiser was offered an option to seek an Informal Resolution (IR) of the complaint by modifying or withdrawing the claims in the advertisement, or alternately to substantiate the claims with supporting data. The advertiser was also offered an opportunity for a telecon with the ASCI Secretariat, which they did not avail and replied seeking for an extension to submit their response. The deadlines stipulated by Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) procedure exist keeping in mind the immediate and widespread impact that advertisements have on the public. Consequently, any action which is needed to be taken with respect to the same is required to be prompt and urgent. It is for this purpose that the deadlines, as stipulated, are set for advertisers/broadcasters etc, and the CCC itself makes it a priority to deal with every complaint before it as expeditiously as possible. However, as a special gesture, the advertiser was granted an extension of additional three business days to respond. The advertiser in their response stated that the advertisement does not claim protection equivalent to or identical with a mother’s womb, but clearly positions the product as providing the “best protection after the womb” acknowledging the womb as the safest place and addressing baby skin care in the post birth environment. The claim of protection is limited to cosmetic skin care benefits, namely maintaining the skin’s natural barrier through an ideal pH 5.5 formulation, which is scientifically appropriate for baby skin after birth. There is no comparison, disparagement, or therapeutic claim. In support of their response, the advertiser provided a copy of label artwork and certificate granted by the appropriate regulatory authority. In response to a request for product specific substantiation, the advertiser furnished a certificate of analysis. The advertiser’s response with the support data was referred to an independent technical expert of ASCI for their opinion. The expert opinion was shared with both the complainant and the advertiser to allow for additional submissions. The advertiser acknowledged the expert’s opinion but did not make any further submissions. The complainant, however, responded, clarifying that they are not challenging whether the advertiser’s baby care products have a pH value of 5.5. The objection is specifically to the advertiser’s claim, conveyed through words, visuals, and narrative, that a cosmetic product with pH 5.5 offers protection equivalent or identical to that of a mother’s womb. The claim “what if your baby could feel as protected outside”, together with the depiction of a foetus within the womb, creates a misleading comparative impression. pH 5.5 is a standard feature in baby care products and cannot justify superlative claims such as “best protection”. The complainant also cited published literature and statutory provisions under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and the Cosmetic Rules, 2020, in support of their submissions. The complainant’s submissions were shared with the technical expert for final opinion. The CCC viewed the Instagram advertisement (https://www.instagram.com/p/DM0PegcyilF/) considered the complaint, the advertiser’s response, and the expert’s final opinion presented at the meeting. The claim made in the advertisement was reviewed based on the submitted documents, including the advertiser’s response, product certificate, and label artwork. The CCC observed that the advertised product - `SebaMed Body Lotion’ is approved by the relevant statutory authority for baby products in India. The formulation has a slightly acidic pH of 5.5, which is considered safe and beneficial for protecting baby skin, retaining moisture, and supporting the natural skin barrier. The certificate of analysis provided by the advertiser confirms the pH levels of the product. The CCC further observed that the claim uses aspirational language, where the term “feel as protected” communicates emotional reassurance rather than a literal comparison to the protection provided by a mother’s womb. The wordings “Best protection after the womb” emphasizes that the claim applies to post birth external protection. While the complainant raised concerns that the language could suggest a comparison with the mother’s womb, the claim is considered an exaggeration and is not likely to mislead consumers. Considering the scientific rationale for the product’s pH, the supporting certificate, the subjective nature of the claim, and the clarification provided by the phrase “after the womb”, the claim was found to be substantiated. The CCC further noted that when the advertisement is viewed in its entirety, the phrases, “feel as protected”, “from the womb to the world”, and “best protection after the womb”, along with the associated visuals of the baby’s move from the mother's womb to the outside world, convey emotional feelings and do not make a misleading comparison between the protection offered by the product and that of a mother’s womb. Based on this assessment, the CCC concluded that the claim, “What if your baby could feel as protected outside. Baby Sebamed with ideal pH 5.5 gives your baby the best protection as they go from the womb to the world. Best Protection after the womb”, is not in contravention of Chapter I of the ASCI Code. This complaint was NOT UPHELD.