Jetking Infotrain Limited - Jetking Thane

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 replied requesting for four weeks to submit their response.

As a special gesture, the advertiser was granted an additional two business days to respond; however, no response was received within the extended timelines.

The Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) viewed the Website advertisement, considered the complaint, and the advertiser’s response.

The CCC noted that the advertiser did not provide supporting data for the claims made.

Claim - “Join Jetking, India's Leading IT Training Institute” – was not substantiated with verifiable comparativedata validated by an independent third party, to prove that the advertiser’s institute holds a leading position among IT training institutes in India. The claim is misleading by exaggeration.

Claim - “India's Most Trusted Digital Skills Institute” – was not substantiated with verifiable comparative data validated by an independent third party, to prove that the advertiser’s institute is more trusted than other similar digital skills institute in India. The claim is misleading by exaggeration.

Claim - “Join India’s leading and most trusted digital skills institute, with over 79 years of legacy, offering industry-focused programs in Cloud Computing, Cybersecurity, and BCA Degrees, along with 100% job assistance to launch your career” - While the advertiser may be providing job assistance to their students for getting jobs in relevant industries, the use of 100% numerical is not relevant for “job assistance” claim. There cannot be a percentage assigned to any assistance claim such as 40% or 80% assistance. The use of “100%” as a descriptor in the claim is misleading by implication.

The CCC concluded that the said claims contravened Chapter I, Clauses 1.1, and 1.4 of the ASCI Code, and Clause 4 of ASCI Guidelines For Advertising Of Educational Institutions, Programs, And Platforms. This complaint was UPHELD.