Ads watchdog upholds complaints against 134 campaigns
Advertising sector watchdog ASCI upheld complaints against 134 campaigns in January for misleading ads, including those of Philips, Dabur, Cadbury and Tata Motors
New Delhi: Advertising sector watchdog ASCI upheld complaints against 134 campaigns in January for misleading ads, including those of Philips, Dabur, Cadbury and Tata Motors.
According to the Customer Complaints Council (CCC) of Advertising Standard Council of India, health and personal care category continued to lead with 104 violations, which accounted for 77 per cent of the misleading ads.
It upheld a complaint against Tata Motors which claimed to be giving a discount of Rs 1.56 lakh. However, when enquired with its dealers, it was found that no one was following that scheme.
“On enquiring with the dealers mentioned in the ad, no one was able to supply the car with the said discount. They replied stating that the ad was given to create a hype and they cannot supply the said model at a discount mentioned in the ad,” said ASCI in its order.
It also found an ad of Philips Electronics India violating its code as it was misleading and not adequately/ scientifically substantiated.
Philips had claimed that its Kerashine range hair straightener “does not damage hair even when styled every day”.
Similarly, it took action against Dabur, which had claimed that Chyawanprash’s packaging provides “3 times more immunity”.
A complaint against Parle Products was also upheld, where in an ad of kachha mango bite, it had shown Bollywood megastar Amitabh Bachchan throwing a stone to get mangoes from the tree.
“This may be replicated by children which is not only harmful to them but also to people around them,” ASCI said.
It also pulled up Cadbury for its Bournvita ad, where it showed a boxer without a helmet, and said “this promotes an unsafe practice”.
Realtor Ansal Properties & Infrastructure’s claim of ‘flats starting from Rs 2.36 lakh in ‘Ansal API Sushant Golf City’ was found to be misleading and false.
“When the complainant enquired on phone they said it costs Rs 32 lakh. The Advertiser is misguiding the public,” the regulator said.