Nivea India Private Limited - Beiersdorf - Eucerin DermoPurifyer Range

Recommendation: Upheld | Medium: Suo Motu - NAMS (TAMS)

The ASCI had approached the advertiser for its response in addressing the objections raised in the complaint. 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 submitted their response. The advertiser in their response stated that independent clinical studies conducted with dermatologists showed the products are non-comedogenic, non-acnegenic, effective, well-tolerated, and safe for acne-prone skin with no adverse events. All products are dermatologically approved. Multiple in-vivo studies show significant improvement in `Pimples/acne’, `Evenness’, and `Post acne marks’ within two weeks. A Product in Use (PIU) study with consumers found 95% agreed the product delivers clearer skin in 2 weeks. The products have been tested and approved by dermatologists, with over 98% of experts recommending the cleansing gel and serum. The range helps prevent future breakouts by addressing factors like excess sebum, clogged pores, and bacterial activity. A study showed 94% agreed the cleansing gel helps remove excess sebum. As claim support data, the advertiser provided the following documents – (1) For claim – “Dermatologist Approved – Safe & Effective For Acne- Prone Skin” - clinical study for Cleansing Gel, clinical study for Toner, clinical study for Serum, reference articles on understanding of Dermatologist Approved. (2) For claim – “Visibly Clear Skin in 2 Weeks” - clinical studies for Serum, supplement to claim substantiation for Serum, Product In Use study for Serum, Undertaking from the influencer. (3) For claim – “The dermat trusted range helps to control sebum, reduce inflammation, and prevent future breakouts” - Real world evidence for Cleansing Gel and Serum, reference articles for efficacy on the Salicylic acid, clinical study for Cleansing Gel, clinical studies for Serum. (4) copy of product labels - Cleansing Gel, Toner and Serum, Product approval copies, Formulation studies - Cleansing Gel, Toner and Serum. 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. Post this meeting, the advertiser addressed the queries raised in the expert opinion. The advertiser stated that the sensations like itching or burning reported in one study were mild, occurred in a few participants, and reduced over time. Other studies showed no such reactions. The studies referenced were conducted on the exact marketed products, with internal terminology clarified through similarity certificates. Single-blind study designs are widely accepted in cosmetic research and supported by The European Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) guidelines. The products independently do not claim such benefits in 2 weeks. The advertiser will request the influencer to include an appropriate disclaimer that the benefit is out of personal experience and may vary with other individuals. The study was conducted continuously over a 12-week period, capturing real-world usage and perception of the product’s effectiveness. DermoPurifyer Cleansing Gel and Serum, when used together, provide a visible anti-shine effect by reducing excess skin oiliness and greasiness, help control sebum production, and reduce skin inflammation, improving skin compatibility. …. The claim about future breakouts will be modified to remove it from the advertisement. The advertiser further provided similarity certificate for toner, and similarity certificate for serum. The additional submissions made by the advertiser were sent to the technical expert for final opinion. The Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) viewed the Instagram advertisement (https://www.instagram.com/reel/DGN1jSiSzN1/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA%3D%3D) considered the complaint, the advertiser’s response along with the claim support data, and the expert’s final opinion presented at the meeting. Claim – “Dermatologist Approved – Safe & Effective for Acne-Prone Skin” The CCC noted that while the standard requirement for a product to be labelled as 'dermatologist approved' involves third party Human Repeat Insult Patch Testing, the products in question were evaluated using a modified method. As the clinical studies were conducted and assessed by dermatologists, the regime is considered dermatologist approved. The CCC observed that the claim that the product range is safe and effective for acne-prone skin was evaluated through several clinical studies. One study on the cleansing gel involved daily use over four weeks, monitoring skin tolerance, acne lesion counts, and skin condition. The gel was found to be compatible with skin, causing no adverse effects such as dryness or irritation. It did not increase acne related spots or pigment changes, indicating safety and non-comedogenicity. However, it showed limited effectiveness in reducing certain acne lesions, suggesting it may not effectively treat acne. A separate study on the toner used twice daily for nearly a month, assessed irritation and skin reactions. While the product was generally safe, the subjects reported increased sensations like itching and burning, indicating irritation. Skin tolerance signs observed by dermatologists remained mostly favorable, but the subjective discomfort raised concerns about the toner’s overall safety in the regimen. There is no evidence provided for the toner’s effectiveness against acne. The serum underwent a 12 week study, where its safety and acne impact were evaluated. It was well tolerated and demonstrated a reduction in acne lesions after a month of use, confirming both its safety and efficacy for acne treatment. The CCC further observed that the additional documentation submitted clarified that the products had been tested in single blind studies with dermatologist involvement, which may introduce some bias. The advertiser responded by explaining that such study designs are common and accepted in cosmetic research and that third-party testing ensures accurate reporting. The CCC discussed that overall, the gel and serum are safe to use, with the serum showing benefits in reducing acne. The toner, however, caused mild irritation symptoms initially, which lessened over time, but its safety remains questionable. There is no evidence supporting the gel or toner’s effectiveness against acne, while the serum showed positive results. The combination of these findings suggests that the regimen cannot be fully endorsed as safe and effective for acne prone skin, mainly due to the toner’s irritation and the gel’s lack of acne treatment efficacy. Claim – “Visibly Clear Skin in 2 Weeks” The CCC observed that the said claim is supported by several documents related to clinical and consumer studies. One study involved a single blind, non-comparative clinical trial where the product, described as a cream applied twice daily on the face for 12 weeks, was self-assessed by the participants for multiple skin parameters such as smoothness, shine, evenness, visibility of post acne marks, pores, irritation, redness, and acne. Significant improvements in these parameters were observed after two weeks. However, there is a need for clarification from the advertiser regarding whether the serum is actually a cream or resembles a traditional serum. The CCC further observed that another study which was randomized, controlled, and blinded, assessed the product’s effects over 12 weeks using clinical grading and self-assessment. The clinical evaluation focused on skin tone evenness, roughness, redness, post acne marks, and acne signs. The results showed significant improvement in skin tone and reduction in post acne marks after a few weeks. Self-assessment covered similar parameters but lacked complete results on pimples and smoothness, with some baseline measurement discrepancies requiring explanation from the advertiser. The Dermatologist scoring showed notable improvement in acne lesions after four weeks. Additionally, a consumer study referenced a product described as alcohol based, which conflicts with earlier descriptions of a cream formulation. The influencer’s statement confirmed visible skin benefits after 14 days of use, but clinical data indicates that anti acne effects generally become visible only after four weeks, suggesting that the claim of clear skin in two weeks is not fully supported. The CCC noted that the advertiser acknowledged an error regarding timepoints in the self-grading procedure, explaining that an immediate post application timepoint was incorrectly labelled causing confusion. They asserted that the clinical studies were conducted by third parties ensuring unbiased and accurate data. They also stated that single blind designs are commonly accepted in cosmetic research for evaluating efficacy attributes and cited relevant guidelines supporting such methodologies. The advertiser has clarified that the serum studied is the same as the marketed product and provided certification to that effect. The CCC discussed that some improvements in skin condition are seen after two weeks, but clear and noticeable anti-acne results usually take around four weeks of regular use. Therefore, the claim of visibly clear skin in two weeks is not fully supported by the available evidence. Claim – “This dermat-trusted range helps to control sebum, reduce inflammation, and prevent future breakouts” The CCC observed that the documents submitted in support of the said claim include multiple clinical and perception studies. A regional study evaluated user and professional feedback on a skincare regime, measuring factors like acne severity, post acne marks, skin evenness, and overall skin condition. However, the study lacks details on the duration of product use and does not include objective or instrumental data. Clarification is needed on how conclusions regarding prevention of future breakouts were drawn, as there is no clear parameter targeting this claim. The CCC further observed that a clinical study on a cleansing gel applied to face and body over four weeks assessed parameters such as smoothness, shine, evenness, and greasiness. While improvements were seen across all areas, the study does not include any data that directly supports the claim of preventing future breakouts. The other documents provided include evidence on the benefits of salicylic acid, but they do not directly support the claims made for this product range. The CCC noted that the advertiser’s response refers to previous study findings to support claims of anti-shine and oil control. While anti-inflammatory effects of the serum are supported by the decrease in inflammatory lesions, the reference to anti-shine is not backed with clear results. It is acknowledged that the serum shows anti-acne benefits, which may imply some sebum control, but no direct measurement confirms this. The advertiser has accepted that the claim of `preventing future breakouts’ was an error and have agreed to modify the advertisement to remove this claim. Upon evaluation of the submitted data, it is concluded that the claim related to reducing inflammation is substantiated only for the serum, but not for the gel. The claims of controlling sebum and preventing future breakouts are not substantiated for the serum, gel, and toner, as none of the studies directly measure these effects. Based on this assessment, the CCC concluded that the claims, “Dermatologist Approved – Safe & Effective for Acne-Prone Skin”, “Visibly Clear Skin in 2 Weeks”, and “This dermat-trusted range helps to control sebum, reduce inflammation, and prevent future breakouts”, were inadequately substantiated. The claims are misleading by exaggeration and are likely to cause widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers. The `before’ and `after’ visuals in the advertisement, suggesting complete acne elimination and clear skin, is misleading. The said claims contravened Chapter I, Clauses 1.1, 1.4 and 1.5 of the ASCI Code. This complaint was UPHELD