Ratti Brands Private Limited - Melblok Pigmentation Control Day & Night System

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 for “12 Hours Sun Protection”, the claim is supported by a customised 12-hour sunscreen degradation study, an independent CRO opinion, and broad-spectrum SPF and PA++++ data. For “Protection against premature ageing”, the claim is a statement of the settled, category-level benefit of daily broad-spectrum sun protection and is supported by peer-reviewed evidence. For “Dermatologist Recommended”, the claim is supported by documentary proof of dermatologists actively purchasing and dispensing the product from their own clinics.

As claim support data, the advertiser provided the following documents – (1) Product label (all sides), (2) Cosmetic product approval / manufacturing licence, (3) Independent CRO Opinion & Certificate, (4) Peerreviewed reference, (5) Dermatologist sale invoice and clinic purchase orders.

Given the nature of the claims, the advertiser’s response, along with the claim support data, was referred to two Independent technical experts of ASCI for their opinion.

The expert opinions were subsequently shared with the advertiser to enable them to make additional submissions.

The advertiser then held an online meeting with one of the technical experts and the ASCI Secretariat to discuss their submissions relating to the claim, “………. aap premature aging se bach sakte ho sirf yah ek sunscreen lagake”.

Following the meeting, the advertiser addressed the queries raised by the expert. The advertiser stated that “12 hours” is a photostability claim and that the filters do not break down under sunlight through the day. For premature ageing, the advertiser stated that the claim addresses sun-induced ageing, the preventable component, and not intrinsic genetic ageing, and that “‘Bach sakte ho’ means ‘can guard against’ — reduction, not complete prevention.

The advertiser re-submitted the 12-hour photostability study, an independent CRO photostability certificate, an in-vitro SPF and PA-rating report, and the peer-reviewed study on sunscreen and skin ageing In response to the queries raised by the expert regarding the claim, “Dermatologist Recommended”, the advertiser stated that the claim means dermatologists increasingly recommend it and that it claims no comparative superiority. The purchase records show that dermatologists buy the product at their own cost, under their own GST registrations, and dispense it to patients, which it describes as recommendation evidenced by conduct rather than opinion. The advertiser also placed on record dermatologist endorsements on public platforms and video Interviews of practitioners recommending the product.

The additional submissions made by the advertiser were shared with the technical experts for final opinion.

The Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) viewed the Instagram advertisement, considered the complaint, the advertiser’s response along with the claim support data, and the expert final opinions presented at the meeting

Claims – “………..Kyonki isme ek aisi technology hai jisko kahte hain stable screen jo 12 ghante tak chalti hai……….”, “aap tanning se batch sakte ho, aap pigmentation se bach sakte ho, aap premature aging se bach sakte ho sirf yah ek sunscreen lagake”.

The CCC took note of the advertiser’s submission that “12 hours” is a photostability claim, that the sunscreen is stable for 12 hours under UV light, and that Stable-ScreenTM is their brand name for the product’s photostable UV-filter system. The study was conducted to show that the sunscreen is still effective after 12 hours.

The CCC discussed that the study submitted by the advertiser was conducted in a laboratory. However, no clinical study was provided in which the participants used the advertiser’s sunscreen product to establish its effectiveness for 12 hours in actual use.

The CCC further noted that, in daily use, sweating and wiping of the face will certainly clear the sunscreen and repeat application is needed, whereas the claim states that users need to apply the sunscreen only once daily, without mentioning any limitation to the duration of protection.

The CCC further discussed that there was no documentation provided to prove that the special technology called `Stable-Screen’ exists.

The CCC observed that, for the premature ageing claim, the advertiser submitted that the claim relates to suninduced ageing, the preventable component, and not intrinsic genetic ageing. It also stated that “Bach sakte ho” means “can guard against” and refers to reduction, not complete prevention.

The CCC was of the view that staying out of the sun and using physical barriers such as hats and protective clothing should be recommended along with sunscreen use. It is misleading to say that using sunscreen alone will prevent premature ageing. There were no clinical studies provided to establish that the advertiser’s sunscreen product can prevent or improve pigmentation, tanning, and premature ageing.

Based on the above assessment, the CCC concluded that the claims, “………..Kyonki isme ek aisi technology hai jisko kahte hain stable screen jo 12 ghante tak chalti hai……….”, “aap tanning se batch sakte ho, aap pigmentation se bach sakte ho, aap premature aging se bach sakte ho sirf yah ek sunscreen lagake”, were inadequately substantiated. The claims are misleading by exaggeration and are likely to lead to widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers. The said claims in the advertisement contravened Chapter I, Clauses

1.1, 1.4 and 1.5 of the ASCI Code. This complaint was UPHELD.

Claim – “To yahan pe Melblok ka pigmentation control day cream ek aisa anti pigmentation sunscreen hai jo dermatologist aajkal jyada recommend karte hain logon ko…….”

The CCC took note of the advertiser’s submission that purchases of its product by dermatology clinics and dermatologists, supported by GST invoices and purchase orders, established the claim “Dermatologist Recommended”. The CCC also noted that the advertiser submitted interviews and endorsements by dermatologists supporting the product. The advertiser also provided a list of dermatology clinics and dermatologists who had purchased the product, but did not state how many dermatologists or dermatology clinics had purchased the product in total.

The CCC discussed that purchases by a few dermatologists do not establish that the product is recommended by the majority of dermatologists. Similarly, interviews and endorsements by a few dermatologists do not establish such recommendation. The claim gives consumers the impression that the product is recommended by the majority of dermatologists.

The CCC further discussed that the advertiser has not provided market survey data on sunscreen sales and dermatologists prescriptions, to demonstrate that the advertiser’s sunscreen product was recommended more often than other sunscreens.

Based on the above assessment, the CCC concluded that the claim, “yahan pe Melblok ka pigmentation control day cream ek aisa anti pigmentation sunscreen hai jo dermatologist aajkal jyada recommend karte hain logon ko…….”, was inadequately substantiated. The claim is misleading by exaggeration. The said claim in the advertisement contravened Chapter I, Clauses 1.1, and 1.4 of the ASCI Code. This complaint was UPHELD.