Hindustan Unilever Limited - Colseup
Recommendation: Upheld | Medium: Consumer Organization
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 submitted their response.
The advertiser, in their response stated that their product is stain protection spray that prevents tooth staining and also clarified that the term "prevents" in consumer advertising is widely understood to mean significant reduction and not an absolute 100% guarantee. To substantiate the product's efficacy, the advertiser submitted multiple scientific studies conducted at independent third-party laboratories, covering in-vitro studies on hydroxyapatite discs and a human volunteer study, both demonstrating measurable stain prevention using CIELAB colour measurement protocols. The advertiser also provided literature supporting the mode of action of key ingredients, Sodium Hexametaphosphate (SHMP) and Poloxamer 407, along with a product approval license confirming the composition and safety of the product. The advertiser also submitted an additional human volunteer study . Regarding the influencer agreement, the advertiser shared the relevant clause confirming that the agency is responsible for ensuring influencer compliance with ASCI guidelines. The advertiser did not share the full agreement citing commercially sensitive and confidential information but requested the due diligence certificate from the influencers team which they did not receive from the agency.
As claim support data, the advertiser provided scientific studies, literature references, industry protocols, product approval license, and competitor examples of similar prevention claims.
The advertiser’s response with the claim support data was referred to an independent technical expert of ASCI for their opinion.
In response to the expert opinion, the advertiser provided a demo video showcasing the immediate benefits of the spray along with the human clinical study and the same was shared with the technical expert for final opinion.
The Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) viewed the Instagram advertisement:
(https://www.instagram.com/p/DUIshPpjHgv/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ%3D%3D), considered the complaint, the advertiser’s response along with the claim support data, and the expert’s final opinion presented at the meeting.
Claim – This is a stain protector spray which you basically spray on your teeth before you eat or drink anything and it prevents it from staining
The CCC observed that while the advertiser had provided a clinical study in support of the claim, the advertiser's evidence was insufficient to substantiate the claim, noting several gaps in the human volunteer study conducted on only 10 adults. The study showed results of teeth appearing brighter and whiter, but did not specifically address stain prevention, which was the core of the complaint. The CCC also observed that the study was conducted only using liquid swirling which was a mixture containing turmeric-coffee and did not account for solid food, which could act as an abrasive and remove the protective coating from the teeth. Additionally, the CCC also pointed out that there was no data on how quickly the spray binds to the teeth or how long the protection lasts given that saliva constantly rinses the mouth. Also, while the comparison was made between treated and non-treated teeth, however, there was no view of the comparative data in terms of difference of values recorded between the two.
Furthermore, the CCC noted that the advertiser was unable to provide a signed undertaking or declaration from the celebrity - Alaya F, submitting only a specific clause from their agency agreement without a signed copy.
Based on the above, the CCC concluded that the claim, “This is a stain protector spray which you basically spray on your teeth before you eat or drink anything and it prevents it from staining”, was inadequately substantiated. The claim and the visuals are misleading by exaggeration and are likely to lead to widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers.
The CCC observed that no evidence was provided to demonstrate that the celebrity (Alaya F) had undertaken due diligence prior to endorsing the advertiser’s product to ensure that the claim made in the advertisement is capable of substantiation. The advertisement contravened Chapter I, Clauses 1.1, 1.4 and 1.5 of the ASCI Code and also Clause (c) and (d) of the the ASCI Guidelines for Celebrities in Advertising . This complaint was UPHELD.
