BlueTyga Fashions Private Limited - Blue Tyga Sunscreen Jacket
Recommendation: Upheld | Medium: Suo Moto
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 claim in the advertisement, or alternately to substantiate the claim 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. As a special gesture the advertiser was granted an extension of three business days to respond. As claim support data, the advertiser provided UPF 50+ protection certificate, product launch report establishing the launch timeline of the product, market research / marketplace assessment supporting the claim relating to the product's positioning in the Indian market, and commercial invoices and supporting records evidencing the launch and sale of the product. The advertiser’s response with the claim support data was referred to an independent technical expert of ASCI for their opinion. The expert opinion was then shared with the advertiser to allow them to make additional submissions. The advertiser then held a virtual meeting with the ASCI Secretariat and the technical expert to discuss their submissions. Post the meeting, the advertiser provided additional documents to substantiate its “India’s First” claim. They submitted that the documents contained details of the earliest available marketplace listings, oldest available customer reviews, and social media posts of other brands offering similar products. The additional submissions made by the advertiser were shared with the technical expert for final opinion. The Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) viewed the Facebook advertisement (https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/?id=944496068136771), considered the complaint, the advertiser’s response along with the claim support data, and the expert’s final opinion presented at the meeting. The CCC noted that the advertiser submitted information relating to the dates on which competing brands were first made available on Amazon, along with a product listing of sunscreen jackets from Shopify, a tax invoice indicating sale of a jacket, a purchase order for sunscreen jackets, and sales data for jackets. It was observed that the sales data provided did not clearly establish whether it related exclusively to UPF 50+ certified sunscreen jackets. The CCC observed that the amazon listing dates for brands included in their submission did not establish when such products were first made available to consumers, as no information was provided regarding their presence on other platforms, direct-to-consumer channels, or retail channels. Further, the submission did not cover all brands offering a similar UPF 50+ sunscreen jacket proposition in India. The CCC further noted that, while the claim referred to the source of UPF 50+ certification, a copy of the certificate or details regarding the type of certificate issued by Intertek was not submitted. Subsequently, the advertiser provided further information, including details of another competing brand and additional information relating to the brands submitted earlier. The CCC observed that, for the brands submitted by the advertiser, the advertiser’s product predated these brands primarily based on Amazon listing dates. It was also observed that the available social media review dates were subsequent to the advertiser’s product launch. However, the advertiser did not provide evidence to establish that the brands submitted represented the complete category of UPF 50+ sunscreen jackets available in India and that the advertiser’s product was the first such offering available to consumers across all relevant channels. The CCC further observed that the listings submitted were primarily from Amazon, with only one reference from another marketplace, and did not establish the availability status of similar products across other platforms or channels. Based on this assessment, the CCC concluded that the voice over claim, “This is India’s first UPF 50+ certified sunscreen jacket”, was inadequately substantiated, and is misleading by exaggeration. The source and date for the claim is not mentioned in the advertisement. The said claim in the advertisement contravened Chapter I, Clauses 1.1, 1.2 and 1.4 of the ASCI Code. This complaint was UPHELD.
