P T 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 availed 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 four business days to respond. The advertiser in their response stated that, “the "brightening" claim will be removed from its communications. A final report confirming the change will be shared soon. The matter is still in progress, as the responsible team is currently out of town”. The CCC viewed the Website advertisement (https://www.soulflower.in/products/vitamin-c-serum), considered the complaint, and the advertiser’s response. The CCC observed that the advertiser has not provided supporting data for the claims made. In the absence of claim support data, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Instant Brightening”, was not substantiated with clinical evidence, clinical third party test reports for product efficacy. Claim, “30X powerful, game changing serum for instant skin brightening”, was not substantiated with comparative clinical test reports to prove that the product is 30 times more powerful for instant skin brightening. The said claims are misleading by exaggeration and are likely to cause widespread disappointment in the minds of 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. The CCC noted the advertiser’s response that the claim of, “Instant Brightening”, is being withdrawn from their advertisements.