Bright Lifecare Private Limited - HK Vitals

Recommendation: Upheld | Medium: General Public

Influencers Paayal Jain and Tena Jaiin have been engaged by the Advertiser to advertise its product – HK Vitals Veg Collagen – on social media platforms. In a complaint received by ASCI, the Complainant objected to the claims made in the promotional content about ”skin growth and improvement”, which apparently violate the ASCI Guidelines for Influencer Advertising in Digital Media (“ the ASCI Guidelines ”) in the health and nutrition category. The Complainant alleged that the influencers have not disclosed their qualifications, which is mandatory under the ASCI Guidelines while promoting health and nutrition products. This would lead to consumers being misled into believing exaggerated or scientifically unverified claims which would seriously affect them. Misleading promotions in the health and nutrition category pose a significant risk to consumer safety and well-being, particularly when presented by unqualified individuals. In response, the Advertiser submitted that the requirement to disclose qualifications did not apply to its promotional content as, one influencer was not giving any specific advice but only sharing her experiences with the other influencer. She was merely reiterating the claims on the product label and had not provided any opinion or advice. The Advertiser stressed further that the consumer, being educated, is expected to read the information on the product label, which is based on scientific studies. Thus, the influencers’ role is limited. The Advertiser suggested that it would add the following disclaimer: "These are my personal observations and experiences with respect to the product. Please consult a qualified professional before using this product." ASCI did not accept this proposal as the influencers had added the platform disclosure tool, indicating that there is a material connection between the Advertiser and the influencers and the statements made in the video were not merely personal observations. The Advertiser controverted this by submitting that even if there is a material connection between the influencer and the Advertiser, influencers can provide their unbiased opinion/ personal experience by providing the disclosures. Ultimately the Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) heard the Advertiser, while the complainant chose to be absent. The CCC was of the view that the influencers (Paayal Jain and Tena Jaiin) had highlighted specific claims about the product relating to health and nutrition, implying expertise in the field. They had not provided any information about their qualifications, certifications, or professional registration as dieticians or nutritionists. These details are essential when endorsing a health or nutrition product to ensure that the information shared with the viewers is accurate and reliable. In the absence of such disclosure, the advertisement was misleading by omission and exploited the consumers’ lack of knowledge. The CCC concluded that the advertisement contravened Chapter I, Clauses 1.4 and 1.5 of the ASCI Code, and Clauses I, I (2), II, II (1) of Addendum II For Health and Financial Influencers of ASCI Guidelines for Influencer Advertising in Digital Media. This complaint was upheld. Aggrieved by the recommendations of the CCC, the Advertiser has initiated the Independent Review Process. It has challenged the decision of the CCC mainly on three grounds: (i) ASCI Guidelines for Influencer Advertising in Digital Media require the influencer to possess relevant qualifications only if specific advice is being given and are not necessary when the influencer is sharing her personal experience with the consumer about the product based on the information disclosed on the product label; (ii) since the influencer’s statements are merely a reiteration of the information on the product label which is verified by the FSSAI, there is no misrepresentation, and the influencer's presentation does not necessitate professional qualifications for promoting such a product in the healthcare or nutrition category; (iii) even if a material connection exists between the influencer and the advertiser, Clause 1.1(c) of ASCI Guidelines for Influencers in Digital Media permits the sharing of personal experiences, provided adequate platform disclosures are made. I am unable to accept any of the grounds advanced by the Advertiser. The influencer speaks about collagen being naturally present in the skin when young and reducing with age, causing wrinkles and sagging of the skin. Now this statement is a technical statement based on scientific studies. It is not a personal experience of the influencer. The product contains vitamins C, E and Hyaluronic Acid as mentioned on the label. There is no disclosure indicating that the influencer has any idea about the merits or demerits of the contents of the product. How does the influencer assert that there is no added sugar to the product and that it does not cause any side effects? What is her technical expertise to make such an assertion? There can be no dispute that the product has been promoted as one in the health and nutrition sector. The influencer is not merely sharing her experience of the product but has made positive assertions in respect of the product without disclosing her expertise in the subject. This is a breach of the ASCI Guidelines. The Advertiser has relied on the Addendum dated 7 th April 2025 to the ASCI Guidelines, which permit influencers who do not possess technical qualifications to share generic information about products or services that are not in the nature of technical advice.The information shared by the influencer in the video cannot be considered as generic. She has spoken in glowing terms about the product while commending it to the other influencer and consequently to the consumers. The information she shares is not generic but specific to the product being promoted. The review is dismissed and the view of the CCC is upheld.