USV Private Limited - Baby SebaMed

Recommendation: Not 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, 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 replied seeking for an extension to submit their response. The deadlines stipulated by Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) procedure exist keeping in mind the immediate and widespread impact that advertisements have on the public. Consequently, any action which is needed to be taken with respect to the same is required to be prompt and urgent. It is for this purpose that the deadlines, as stipulated, are set for advertisers/broadcasters etc, and the CCC itself makes it a priority to deal with every complaint before it as expeditiously as possible. However, as a special gesture, the advertiser was granted an extension of additional three business days to respond. The advertiser in their response stated that the advertisement does not claim equivalency with a mother’s womb or make any medical assertion; it positions Sebamed baby care as providing the “best protection after the womb” for a baby’s skin in the external environment, supporting the skin’s natural barrier with its pH 5.5 formulation. The term “feel” conveys emotional comfort, not factual equivalence, and the womb is used as a temporal and emotional reference point, not for comparison. All the statements, including pH 5.5 as “ideal,” are scientifically substantiated for post birth skin protection. In support of their response, the advertiser provided a copy of label artwork and certificate granted by the appropriate regulatory authority. In response to a request for product specific substantiation, the advertiser furnished a certificate of analysis. The advertiser’s response with the support data was referred to an independent technical expert of ASCI for their opinion. The expert opinion was shared with both the complainant and the advertiser to allow for additional submissions. The advertiser acknowledged the expert’s opinion but did not make any further submissions. The complainant, however, responded, clarifying that they are not challenging whether the advertiser’s baby care products have a pH value of 5.5. The objection is specifically to the advertiser’s claim, conveyed through words, visuals, and narrative, that a cosmetic product with pH 5.5 offers protection equivalent or identical to that of a mother’s womb. The claim “what if your baby could feel as protected outside”, together with the depiction of a foetus within the womb, creates a misleading comparative impression. pH 5.5 is a standard feature in baby care products and cannot justify superlative claims such as “best protection”. The complainant also cited published literature and statutory provisions under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and the Cosmetic Rules, 2020, in support of their submissions. The complainant’s submissions were shared with the technical expert for final opinion. The CCC viewed the YouTube advertisement (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9y-jrKAf22o) considered the complaint, the advertiser’s response, and the expert’s final opinion presented at the meeting. The claim made in the advertisement was reviewed based on the submitted documents, including the advertiser’s response, product certificate, and label artwork. The CCC observed that the advertised product - `SebaMed Gentle Wash’ is approved by the relevant statutory authority for baby products in India. The formulation has a slightly acidic pH of 5.5, which is considered safe and beneficial for protecting baby skin, retaining moisture, and supporting the natural skin barrier. The certificate of analysis provided by the advertiser confirms the pH levels of the product. The CCC discussed that the claim uses emotional language, with “feel as protected” conveying a sense of comfort and care rather than suggesting a medical or factual equivalence to the protection offered by a mother’s womb. The expression “Best protection after the womb” clarifies that the claim refers to protection in the external environment following birth. While concerns were raised that the language could indicate a comparison with the mother’s womb, the claim is regarded as exaggeration and not likely to mislead consumers. Taking into account the scientific support for the product’s pH, the provided certificate, the aspirational wordings of the claim, and the specific reference to “after the womb”, the claim was found to be substantiated. The CCC further noted that when the advertisement is viewed in its entirety, the phrases, “feel as protected”, “from the womb to the world”, and “best protection after the womb”, along with the associated visuals of the baby’s move from the mother's womb to the outside world, convey emotional feelings and do not make a misleading comparison between the protection offered by the product and that of a mother’s womb. Based on this assessment, the CCC concluded that the claim, “What if your baby could feel as protected outside. Baby Sebamed with ideal pH 5.5 gives your baby the best protection as they go from the womb to the world. Best Protection after the womb”, is not in contravention of Chapter I of the ASCI Code. This complaint was NOT UPHELD.