Hindustan Unilever Limited - Nexus

Recommendation: Not Upheld | Medium: Industry Member

The ASCI had approached the advertiser for its response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and

also forwarded the details of the complaint, verbatim 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 the claim, “Back to virgin hair in 6 drops” is supported by robust instrumental

data. The objective of the study was to measure the smoothness and hair strength imparted on Indian hair by the product

versus untreated hair.

Claim, “Hair is reborn with 3 days of Use” - the report shows that a single application of the product restores hair to a level

that outperforms the control utilised in the study, and reaches virgin-hair-equivalent condition, on both tested parameters.

Claim, “11x Strength”, is substantiated by the hair breakage data.

The advertiser provided the instrumental study/data as the claim substantiation document.

The advertiser’s response, along with the claim substantiation data, was referred to an independent technical expert of ASCI

for their opinion.

The expert opinion was shared with the complainant and the advertiser for their further submissions. The complainant did

not respond to the expert opinion.

The advertiser had an online meeting with the ASCI Secretariat and the technical expert to discuss its submissions.

Following the meeting, the advertiser addressed the queries raised by the expert.

Claim, “Back to virgin hair in 6 drops” - the advertiser confirms that the two parameters evaluated in this regard were

smoothness and hair strength. These two parameters are those most relevant to consumer perception, and are accordingly

the most appropriate parameters to substantiate said claim.

Claim, “Hair is reborn with 3 days of use” - the advertiser’s primary submission is that the word ‘reborn’, as applied to

hair, is evocative language. A consumer encountering ‘reborn’ on a hair serum understands it as hair which looks, feels and behaves as though restored - smoother, stronger, and no longer damaged. The claim was framed, tested and communicated

as a claim relating to the hair fibre.

The additional submissions made by the advertiser were shared with the technical expert for final opinion.

The Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) viewed the Nykaa advertisement (https://www.nykaa.com/nexxus-promendresurrection-

oil-hair-serum-for-bond-repair-frizz-reduction-heatprotection/

p/21596542?pps=1&productId=21596542&redirectpath=slug&skuId=19855814) considered the complaint, the

advertiser’s response along with the claim support data, and the expert’s final opinion presented at the meeting.

Claim - “Back to virgin hair in 6 drops”

The CCC noted the advertiser’s submission that the claim is made in the context of hair-fibre appearance and performance.

The CCC discussed that the study was conducted to measure the smoothness and hair strength of Nexxus Promend Oil

Resurrection hair serum on Indian hair, compared with untreated hair. The testing was conducted under conditions

representative of normal product use, including testing on virgin, damaged and serum-treated hair, with evaluations also

carried out after an application representing 6 drops of serum. It was observed that the frictional energy and hair breakage

for serum-treated hair were significantly lower than for virgin hair, damaged hair and damaged hair treated with nonconditioning

shampoo. Similar results were observed with the application of 6 drops of serum.

The CCC noted that smoothness and hair strength were the only parameters measured because these were most relevant to

consumer perception. The CCC further discussed that the improvements in smoothness and resistance to breakage support

an overall improvement in hair condition, including fibre resilience, surface condition, alignment and manageability, with

reduced tangling and frizz. Although other characteristics of hair were not directly measured, smoothness and improved

hair strength were indirectly relevant to parameters such as shine, elasticity and cuticle alignment.

Based on the above assessment, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Back to virgin hair in 6 drops”, was substantiated. The

said claim is not in contravention of Chapter I of the ASCI Code. This complaint was NOT UPHELD.

Claim - “Powerful Hair is reborn with 3 days of Use”

The CCC observed that the word `reborn’ is used as a creative representation of the cosmetic benefit of restoring damaged

hair to a condition better than or equivalent to virgin hair. The claim represents that continued use of the product over a 3-

day period confers the stated cosmetic benefit. The powerful hair implies hair strength, and the study shows that the serum

reduces hair breakage, which indicates improved hair strength. These effects are seen after one application and repeated

application is likely to continue this effect.

The advertiser clarified that the serum is likely to be applied on the hair length and not the roots, and it is nowhere mentioned

that the product is a hair growth product.

The CCC was of the view that considering that the product is applied on the hair shaft, the term `reborn’ implies restoration

of hair.

Based on the above assessment, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Powerful Hair is reborn with 3 days of Use”, was

substantiated. The said claim is not in contravention of Chapter I of the ASCI Code. This complaint was NOT UPHELD.

Claim – “11X Strength”

The CCC discussed that the study provided proves the anti-breakage effects of the serum. The hair-breakage results for

virgin hair, damaged hair, hair treated with non-conditioning shampoo and hair treated with 6 drops of serum clearly

demonstrate that the serum was able to provide strength more than 11 times.

Based on this evidence, the CCC concluded that the claim, “11X Strength”, was substantiated. The said claim is not in

contravention of Chapter I of the ASCI Code. This complaint was NOT UPHELD.