Analemma Commerce Private Limited - Dermafique

Recommendation: Upheld | Medium: Consumer Organization

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 claimsin 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 requesting for two weeks extension to submit their detailed 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 six business days to respond. The advertiser stated that the product contains essential Natural Moisturizing Factors (NMFs) like sodium lactate, hyaluronic acid, sodium PCA, and glycerin, which are directly added to the formulation to help restore skin hydration lost during cleansing. Backed by third-party instrumental studies, in-house lab research, and a consumer study, the product has been shown to increase skin hydration, prevent water loss, and maintain the skin barrier. As claim support data, the advertiser provided the following documents – (1) Report - Primary Irritation Patch Test, (2) Ingredient List, (3) Report - Evaluation of In-Vivo Safety And Efficacy of Skin Cleanser Formulation, (4) Market Research Study report from Kantar, (5) Copy of Advertisement, (6) Product labels, (7) Product approval license, (8) Scientific literature / journal references as cited in the advertiser’s response. 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. The advertiser had a meeting with the ASCI Secretariat and the technical expert via zoom video conference to discuss their submissions. They subsequently shared the presentation that was used during the meeting. The presentation included information on: market products claiming ‘technology’- both in India and globally, NMF technology, NMF ingredients, and market products claiming NMF technology. The additional submissions made by the advertiser were sent to the technical expert for final opinion. The CCC viewed the Instagram advertisement, considered the complaint, the advertiser’s response along with the claim support data, and the expert’s final opinion presented at the meeting. Claim – “Replenishes Lost NMF while Cleansing” The claim under review is that the product replenishes lost Natural Moisturising Factor (NMF) while cleansing. Upon examination of the submitted material, the CCC observed that NMF includes components such as amino acids, urea, lactic acid, and sodium PCA. These are naturally found in the skin and are essential in maintaining skin's softness and moisture balance. The product in question contains sodium lactate and sodium PCA, but does not appear to include urea and amino acids, which are also key elements of NMF. The CCC further observed that none of the studies provided directly measure the presence of NMF in the skin. One laboratory based study indicates that the cleanser is mild, without addressing NMF. The other studies presented rely on trans epidermal water loss (TEWL) and skin hydration as indirect indicators to support the claim. One study shows that after using the product - `Dermafique Aqua Cloud Shower Gel` skin hydration improves compared to untreated skin, and TEWL remains unchanged at the application site. Based on this, it is concluded that NMF is replenished. However, this conclusion is not acceptable, as a reduction or lack of increase in TEWL can also occur with the use of other products containing different moisturising ingredients, and does not specifically prove that NMF is restored. The CCC observed that the advertiser has acknowledged that their product does not contain all elements typically found in NMF and has provided explanations for their exclusion. They maintain that measuring NMF directly in the skin is impractical. The CCC was of the view that the evidence based only on skin hydration is not adequate to demonstrate that the product replenishes NMF. Claim – “Made with NMF technology” The advertiser has claimed that the product is made with NMF technology. However, upon examination of the product’s composition, it was found that while it does include certain ingredients such as sodium lactate and sodium PCA, it does not contain other key components like urea or amino acids, which are also considered essential parts of natural moisturising factors (NMF). NMF refers to naturally occurring elements in the skin, and there is nothing technological about their presence. The advertiser has stated that the term `technology’ is commonly used across various products to highlight certain features or qualities. The CCC discussed that since the advertiser has acknowledged that their product does not contain all the components typically associated with NMF, this claim cannot be considered substantiated. Based on this assessment, the CCC concluded that the claims, “Replenishes Lost NMF while cleansing”, and – “Made with NMF technology”, were inadequately substantiated. The 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.