Marico Limited - Parachute

Recommendation: Not Upheld | Medium: General Public

CCC-R RECOMMENDATION ON REVIEW AS REQUESTED BY ADVERTISER The Consumer Complaints Council Review (CCC-R) panel through a personal hearing, heard the arguments of the advertiser. The advertiser was present during the deliberations to make their submissions with the CCC-R panel. The technical expert who reviewed the supporting evidence provided to the CCC-R panel was not present during the deliberations. The CCC-R panel noted the following submissions made by the advertiser: The advertiser submitted that the issue in question did not arise from a direct consumer complaint but originated from a LinkedIn post by an influencer which was subsequently picked up and tagged, and therefore, in their view, did not reflect any actual consumer grievance. The advertiser explained that the claim, “With 100% pure coconut oil for long and strong hair”, had been misinterpreted. They argued that the expression “100%” should be understood as referring to the purity and quality of the coconut oil used in the product, and not to the overall composition or quantity of coconut oil in the formulation. According to them, the claim should be read as a complete claim, with the word “with” playing a key role in conveying the meaning, and should not be broken down or read selectively. The advertiser also highlighted that the product packaging discloses the full composition on the back of the pack, comprising 79.4% vegetable oil including coconut oil, and 20% paraffinum liquidum. The product is classified as a Type 3 hair oil under BIS standards which permits a blend of vegetable and mineral oils. The advertiser further submitted that the claim is presented on the pack in a uniform font and style, without any emphasis that could lead consumers to read “100%” separately. It stated that expressions such as “100%” are commonly used in consumer advertising to indicate quality rather than product composition, as reflected in dictionary meanings and industry practice. They also cited market examples from the personal care sector where similar expressions are used alongside full ingredient disclosures on the back of pack. The CCC-R Decision The CCC-R panel discussed that the claim, “With 100% pure coconut oil for long & strong hair”, appearing on the front panel of the product pack, Parachute Advansed Gold Coconut Hair Oil, is to be read as a complete claim. The word `with’ indicates an ingredient-specific referencing that the coconut oil used in the formulation is 100% pure, rather than a representation of the overall product composition. The CCC-R panel further noted that the full ingredient details are transparently disclosed on the back of the pack and that the product is classified as a Type 3 hair oil under BIS standards. The CCC-R panel also considered the supporting documents submitted by the advertiser, including the cosmetic licence and test reports. The panel noted that the coconut oil used in the product complies with the relevant BIS standard and meets established quality requirements. The test results indicate that it is free from other admixtures confirming that the coconut oil used is 100% pure. Based on the advertiser’s submissions, the CCC-R panel concluded that the claim, “With 100% pure coconut oil for long & strong hair”, when read in its entirety and in the context of the overall packaging, is not misleading. The said claim is not in contravention of Chapter I of the ASCI Code. The complaint is Not Upheld on Review.