Satiya Nutraceuticals Private Limited - Plix

Recommendation: Upheld | Medium: General Public

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 availed and replied seeking for an extension to submit their response. As a special gesture, the advertiser was given an additional three business days from the original due date to respond. The advertiser in their response stated that the claims are ingredient-led and supported by scientific evaluations of the ingredients used in the product. The product contains clinically proven ingredients such as Redensyl, Baicapil, and Rosemary extracts at specified concentrations, and the advertisement carries a visible disclaimer that the claim is “based on the efficacy of 3% Redensyl, tested standalone”. The advertiser explained that the studies on Redensyl showed activation of the anagen (growth) phase, reduction in the telogen (falling) phase, improvement in the anagen/telogen ratio, and substantial new hair growth over the 12 week period. As claim support data, the advertiser provided the following documents – (1) Scientific evidence on key active ingredients, (2) Image of the product label - front and back, (3) Product approval license. The advertiser’s response with the claim support data was referred to an independent technical expert of ASCI for their opinion. The expert opinion was then shared with the advertiser to allow them to make additional submissions. In response, the advertiser submitted that the claim is based on the efficacy of Redensyl, which is present in the formulation. The disclaimer does not contradict the main message but clarifies it by stating that the product contains clinically proven ingredients like Redensyl which has proven benefits. Supporting data confirming the efficacy of the Plix hair growth serum in 12 weeks is not necessary. Regarding the claim, “Get 9,500 new hair in just 12 weeks”, the advertiser submitted that there is no mandatory requirement to have a claim to be substantiated by a clinical study. There is adequate scientific evidence to confirm the efficacy of Redensyl and other proven ingredients in relation to improvement in hair density and promotion of new hair growth. The claim has not been attributed to the product, but to the ingredients present in the product which has been substantiated with technical data. Subsequently, the advertiser held a meeting with the ASCI Secretariat and the technical expert via zoom to discuss their submissions. Following this meeting, the advertiser submitted a copy of a past CCC decision where a claim based on Redensyl was reviewed, along with a study on a parallel formulation. The additional submissions made by the advertiser were sent to the technical expert for final opinion. The Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) viewed the YouTube advertisement (https://www.youtube.com/shorts/K_OIy65KuDs), considered the complaint, the advertiser’s response along with the claim support data, and the expert’s final opinion presented at the meeting. Claim – “Plix ka rosemary advanced hair growth serum with clinically proven ingredients ye hairfall roke aur de new hair growth sirf barah hafto mein”. The CCC noted the advertiser’s submission that the ingredients such as Redensyl, Baicapil, and Rosemary leaf extract are present at specified concentrations in the `Plix Rosemary Advanced Hair Growth Serum’. The advertiser submitted research literature and technical studies in support of the efficacy of these individual ingredients. The advertiser further clarified that the claim is ingredient-based and not supported by any clinical study conducted on the finished product. The advertisement carries a disclaimer stating, “Based on the efficacy of 3% Redensyl, tested standalone”. The CCC discussed that while Redensyl may demonstrate efficacy when tested independently, the advertised product contains multiple active ingredients that may also contribute to the overall product performance. However, no evidence has been submitted to demonstrate the efficacy of Redensyl in combination with the other active ingredients present in the formulation to substantiate the product benefits as claimed. The CCC further discussed of the presence of the disclaimer, all relevant documents at hand and the advertiser responses and opined that even though the disclaimer talks of the ingredient 3% Redensyl, the way the claim is currently placed in the advertisement, the consumers are likely to interpret it as a claim relating to the product as a whole, rather than to the individual ingredients. The CCC further noted that the advertiser submitted a document relating to formula comparison, clinical study protocol, and clinical study results comparing the `Plix Rosemary Hair Growth Serum’ with another similar hair growth formulation. However, as the formulations differ in ingredients and their respective concentrations, the CCC was of the view that the results of this study are not adequate to substantiate the claim. Claim – “Get 9,500 new hair in just 12 weeks.” The CCC noted that the advertiser relied on ingredient-based studies to support the claim of hair growth over a 12 week period. However, the CCC was of the view that this claim quantifies the number of new hairs, which is likely to be perceived as a product-level performance claim and would therefore require clinical substantiation specific to the finished product. The CCC observed that the advertiser has not provided product specific study to substantiate the claim. The CCC further noted that, in the absence of clinical evidence supporting product efficacy, the before-and-after visuals in the advertisement are misleading. Based on this assessment, the CCC concluded that the claims in the advertisement, “Plix ka rosemary advanced hair growth serum with clinically proven ingredients ye hairfall roke aur de new hair growth sirf barah hafto mein”, and “Get 9,500 new hair in just 12 weeks”, were inadequately substantiated. The claims are misleading by exaggeration and are likely to lead to widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers. The said claims contravened Chapter I, Clauses 1.1, 1.4 and 1.5 of the ASCI Code. The before and after visuals in the advertisement contravened Chapter I, Clause I.4 of the ASCI Code. This complaint was UPHELD by majority. With respect to the use of the celebrity (Hardik Pandya) in the advertisement, the advertiser submitted that the celebrity has been informed of the requirements relating to due diligence. Owing to a change in the celebrity’s agency, the relevant undertaking was awaited, and the advertiser requested for additional time to submit a copy of the undertaking from the celebrity. The CCC observed that the advertiser did not provide evidence to show that the celebrity had done due diligence prior to the endorsement of the product, to ensure that all descriptions, claims and comparisons made in the advertisement are capable of substantiation. This contravened Clauses (c), (d) of the ASCI Guidelines for Celebrities in Advertising. This complaint was UPHELD