Toprankers Edtech Solutions Private Limited - LegalEdge

Recommendation: 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. The advertiser was also offered an opportunity for a telecon with the ASCI Secretariat, which they did not avail and neither did they submit their written response. The Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) viewed the Website advertisement (https://www.toprankers.com/legaledge- demo-class) and considered the complaint. The CCC observed that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date as specified by the ASCI Secretariat. Claim – “India’s most loved CLAT Coaching Institute”, was not substantiated with verifiable comparative data against other CLAT coaching institutes in India to prove that it is more loved than others. There is no reference provided to independent rankings, third-party verification, student feedback reports, and any verifiable metrics to justify the claim of nationwide preference or dominance. Claim - “40+ expected NLSIU selections” - the advertiser has not provided verified list of selected students, along with details on the type and duration of programs they were enrolled in such as full-year courses, crash courses, or test series, and whether these were paid, structured programs. The claim is not supported by a verified count of selected students confirmed by an independent third party. Claim – “94 Classroom selections under AIR 500”, was not substantiated with supporting evidence such as student roll numbers, admit cards, or IDs. There is no clarity on whether these students were enrolled in paid, full year classroom programs or short term courses, and the name and duration of the program have not been disclosed. Additionally, no independent third-party verification has been submitted to confirm the accuracy of the claim. In the absence of response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the said claims were not substantiated. The claims are misleading by exaggeration and are likely to lead to widespread disappointment in the minds of students. The said claims in the advertisement contravened Chapter I, Clauses 1.1, 1.4 and 1.5 of the ASCI Code. This complaint was UPHELD.