Slick Organics Private Limited - Arata
Recommendation: Upheld | Medium: Consumer Organization
The ASCI had approached the advertiser for its response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded the details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. 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 -
Claim - “01 Wash to Balance Scalp Microbiome” read with its footnote, is a bounded statement about a laboratorymeasured tendency following a single exposure not an unqualified guarantee of an in-vivo, human clinical outcome. The claim is substantiated by an independent scientific study conducted by independent contract research organisation.
Claim - “87% Increase in Healthy Scalp Bacteria” - The figure is drawn directly from the report relied upon for claim 1.
Claim - “With 1% N-DurHanceTM” is a factual declaration regarding the composition of the finished cosmetic product. The formulation contains 1% N-DurHanceTM, a proprietary cosmetic ingredient, at the stated concentration.
As claim support data, the advertiser provided the following documents – product pack with ingredient declaration, independent in-vitro study, keratin study, and a technical brochure on Panthenol. 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 addressed the queries raised by the expert regarding the product claims.
Claim - “01 Wash to Balance Scalp Microbiome” - the advertiser confirms that the study was conducted on the Arata Damage Defence Super Shampoo; the reference to `Serum’ was a typographical error. The claim is founded on a single treatment, in which the shampoo promoted a bacterium associated with a healthy scalp microbiome and suppressed another. The simultaneous increase and decrease observed after a single treatment therefore proves a shift towards a balanced microbiome is occurring.
Claim – “87% Increase in Healthy Scalp Bacteria” - the advertiser states that 87% is the tabulated 24-hour result for growth recorded in the study and is therefore a traceable, measured scientific result, not a generic or estimated figure. As the bacterium is itself a healthy scalp bacterium, its measured increase is precisely an increase in a healthy scalp bacterium.
Claim – “With 1% N-DurHance™” - the advertiser states that the claim is a factual declaration regarding the composition of the finished product and that the claim does not imply that this ingredient alone is responsible for all the product’s benefits. The concentration is thus evidenced from ingredient manufacture through to the finished product.
The advertiser further submitted product packaging, a revised independent microbiome study report, a corresponding correction letter from the testing agency, a manufacturer’s statement confirming the dosage of Panthenol, a manufacturer’s certification relating to the concentration of N-DurHanceTM in the product, and a supplier certificate confirming the identity and specifications of N-DurHanceTM.
The additional submissions made by the advertiser were shared with the technical expert 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’s final opinion presented at the meeting.
Claim – “01 Wash to Balance Scalp Microbiome”
The CCC observed that the advertiser submitted an in vitro study which evaluated the effect of the product, Arata Damage Defence Super Shampoo, on the growth of S. epidermidis and C. acnes following incubation for the specified time periods, compared with untreated controls. However, the shampoo’s typical scalp contact time is approximately 2–5 minutes, which is substantially shorter than the 8 and 24 hour exposure periods used in the study. A discrepancy was also noted in the experimental protocol, where the test product was referred to as Arata Damage Defence Super Serum, whereas the study title and the claim referred to Arata Damage Defence Super Shampoo.
The CCC further observed that the advertiser subsequently submitted additional documents and a detailed response. It was noted that their response confirmed that the study was conducted using Arata Damage Defence Super Shampoo. The advertiser cited literature stating that certain shampoo ingredients such as Piroctone Olamine can remain on the scalp after rinsing. However, the advertiser did not submit evidence confirming that the ingredient Piroctone Olamine (PO) is present in their shampoo, and remains on the scalp in sufficient quantity after washing to produce the claimed microbiome effects. The CCC further noted that the cited studies reported associations between shampoos containing the PO ingredient, changes in the scalp microbiota and clinical improvement. However, these findings could not be directly applied to the product under review without establishing its composition, exposure and comparable study conditions.
The CCC further observed that the shampoo contains the ingredient Panthenol at the stated concentration. The advertiser cited a study showing that Panthenol can be retained on the hair and may support scalp microbial balance. However, the study supporting its retention on the scalp and its role in microbial balance was not submitted. The study measured bacterial growth using optical density, which does not distinguish between live and dead bacteria and may be affected by other particles or the product itself.
Based on the above assessment, the CCC concluded that the product packaging claim in the advertisement, “01 Wash to Balance Scalp Microbiome”, was inadequately substantiated. The claim is misleading by exaggeration and is likely to lead to widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers. The said claim contravened Chapter I, Clauses 1.1, 1.4 and 1.5 of the ASCI Code. This complaint was UPHELD.
Claim – “87% Increase in Healthy Scalp Bacteria”
The CCC observed that the advertiser submitted an in vitro study evaluating the effects of the product on S. epidermidis and C. acnes, compared with untreated controls. The study reported inhibition of S. epidermidis at 8 and 24 hours and growth of C. acnes at the same time points. The CCC discussed that an in-vitro growth increase of a single bacterial strain (C. acnes) in a test tube cannot be directly equated to a total "87% increase in healthy scalp bacteria" on human scalps. Both C. acnes and S. epidermidis form part of normal scalp flora, so inhibiting one and promoting another in a lab does not prove overall health improvement. The product’s typical scalp contact time is approximately 2–5 minutes, which is substantially shorter than the 8 and 24 hour periods used in the study. Following the submission of further documents and a detailed response, the CCC noted that the advertiser stated that the reported 87% increase in C. acnes represents an increase in a bacterium associated with a healthy scalp microbiome, while reducing over-abundant S. epidermidis may be beneficial in dandruff associated scalps. The advertiser also cited literature on the retention of the ingredient piroctone olamine following rinse-off. The CCC discussed that the findings from studies involving piroctone olamine-containing shampoos could not be directly applied to the product under review without establishing its composition, scalp exposure and comparable study conditions.
The CCC further discussed that the bacterial growth was assessed using optical density, which does not directly establish whether the bacteria were viable and may be affected by other factors, including the product formulation.
Based on this assessment, the CCC concluded that the product packaging claim in the advertisement, “87% Increase in Healthy Scalp Bacteria”, was inadequately substantiated. The claim is misleading by exaggeration and is likely to lead to widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers. The said claim contravened Chapter I, Clauses 1.1, 1.4 and 1.5 of the ASCI Code. This complaint was UPHELD.
Claim – “With 1% N‑DurHance™”
The CCC noted the advertiser’s response that the claim is a factual declaration regarding the composition of the finished product and that N-DurHance™ is a proprietary cosmetic ingredient. The advertiser clarified that the claim does not imply that the ingredient alone is responsible for the product’s benefits or microbiome maintenance.
The CCC observed that the advertiser submitted manufacturer certification confirming that N-DurHance™ is present in the finished product at 1%, along with supplier documentation confirming the identity and specifications of the ingredient. The CCC discussed that these documents validated the presence of N-DurHance™ at 1% in the finished product.
Based on this evidence, the CCC concluded that the product packaging claim in the advertisement, “With 1% NDurHance™”, was substantiated, and is not in contravention of Chapter I of the ASCI Code. This complaint was NOT UPHELD.
