PT Invent India Private Limited - Soulflower

Recommendation: Upheld | Medium: General Public

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 avail and replied seeking for an extension of time 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 four business days to respond. The advertiser had a telecon with the ASCI Secretariat before making their submissions. Post this telecon, they replied requesting the ASCI Secretariat `to refer to their website where all product details including Certifications and Medical Journal Link are transparently made available’. They further shared links for product details, study report, and Medical Journal. The advertiser’s response along with the claim support data was referred to an Independent technical expert of ASCI for an opinion in the matter. The expert’s opinion was then shared with the advertiser for making additional submissions. After receiving the technical expert’s opinion, the advertiser participated in a Zoom video conference with the ASCI Secretariat and the technical expert to discuss their submissions. During the meeting, the advertiser indicated that they may consider sharing the clinical study data. However, despite reminders from the ASCI Secretariat, the advertiser did not submit any additional data. The CCC viewed the Website advertisement (https://www.soulflower.in/products/rosemary-essential-oil-hair-growth) considered the complaint, the advertiser’s response along with the claim support data, and the expert’s opinion presented at the meeting. The CCC observed that the advertiser has submitted a published clinical study report which examines the use of rosemary essential oil in the treatment of androgenetic alopecia. The study also includes a comparison between the efficacy of rosemary essential oil and that of 2% Minoxidil. However, the claim made by the advertiser is based solely on the findings of this third party study and not on any clinical research or trials conducted using their own product. The CCC further observed that the submitted article is not fully accessible through the provided link. The advertiser has not provided the full study paper or any product-specific data to support the claim. Based on this assessment, the CCC concluded that the claims, “Natural Alternative to Minoxidil”, and “DHT Blocker, Faster hair growth, Increases volume and thickness”, were inadequately substantiated. The claims are misleading by exaggeration and are likely to cause widespread disappointment among consumers. The source and date for the claims is not mentioned in the advertisement. The said claims contravened Chapter I, Clauses 1.1, 1.2, 1.4, and 1.5 of the ASCI Code. This complaint was UPHELD.