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 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 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 certificates for UVA and UVB rays protection, UV Protection laboratory test report, Fabric UV Transmission test report, Product technical specification sheet, Product launch report, Market research / Marketplace assessment report, Commercial invoices and supporting launch records, Agreement pertaining to the celebrity endorsement. Given the nature of the claims, the advertiser’s response with the claim support data was referred to two independent technical experts of ASCI for their opinion. The expert opinions were then shared with the advertiser to allow them to make additional submissions. The advertiser held a virtual meeting with the ASCI Secretariat and the technical experts 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. For the claims, “98% UVA UVB protection”, “It blocks more than 98% of UVA and UVB rays”, the advertiser submitted additional technical documentation and independent laboratory test reports in support of the UV protection performance claims for the Blue Tyga Sunscreen Jacket. The submission included reports covering the product's UPF performance under different conditions and across product variants, together with details of the testing methodology. The additional submissions made by the advertiser were shared with the technical experts for their final opinion. The Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) viewed the YouTube advertisement (https://www.youtube.com/shorts/rZLkeeS3yW4?feature=shared), considered the complaint, the advertiser’s response along with the claim support data, and the expert final opinions presented at the meeting. Claims – “98% UVA UVB protection”, “It blocks more than 98% of UVA and UVB rays” The CCC observed that the advertiser submitted independent test reports stating that the jacket material had been tested in accordance with the relevant testing standard. It was initially noted that the reports did not provide details of the testing methodology, testing conditions, statistical basis or the methodology used to derive the UV protection claims from the reported results. Subsequently, the advertiser submitted further test reports covering the original fabric, the fabric after repeated washing, the fabric under wet conditions and additional product variants. Based on the supporting evidence submitted, the CCC concluded that the claims, “98% UVA UVB protection”, and “It blocks more than 98% of UVA and UVB rays”, were substantiated. The claims are not in contravention of Chapter I of the ASCI Code. This complaint was NOT UPHELD. Claim – “India's 1st Sunscreen Jacket” 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. 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 claim, “India's 1st 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. For the celebrity (Milind Soman) featured in the advertisement, the CCC noted that the advertiser submitted a copy of the endorsement agreement entered into with the celebrity. The agreement pertained to the engagement of the celebrity for promotion of the advertiser’s brand and products through digital and offline campaigns and the scope of work, content usage rights, and other contractual terms. However, the document did not contain any provision or confirmation demonstrating that the celebrity had undertaken due diligence to ensure that the descriptions, claims and representations made in the advertisement were capable of being substantiated. Based on these observations, the CCC concluded that the advertisement contravened Clauses (c), (d) of the ASCI Guidelines for Celebrities in Advertising. This complaint was UPHELD.