This Dataset contains company, company brand, product name, complaint type, subject, recommendation, guideline type, guideline violation, media type wise complaints registered with Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) Note: case_created_date and case_updated_date are as per Advertising Standards Council of India Website
| fiscal_year | case_created_date | case_updated_date | case_id | company_name | brand_name | product_name | complaint_status | complaint_type | resolution | subject | recommendation | guideline_type | guideline_violation | media_type | notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-27 | 29-04-2026 | 29-04-2026 | 2026-1-12-1-C.51863 | Marico Limited | Parachute | Parachute Advansed Gold Coconut Hair Oil | Resolution | General Public | Not Upheld | 2604-CCC-R.01 - Review Recommendations: | CCC-R RECOMMENDATION ON REVIEW AS REQUESTED BY ADVERTISER The Consumer Complaints Council Review (CCC-R) panel through a personal hearing, heard the arguments of the advertiser. The advertiser was present during the deliberations to make their submissions with the CCC-R panel. The technical expert who reviewed the supporting evidence provided to the CCC-R panel was not present during the deliberations. The CCC-R panel noted the following submissions made by the advertiser: The advertiser submitted that the issue in question did not arise from a direct consumer complaint but originated from a LinkedIn post by an influencer which was subsequently picked up and tagged, and therefore, in their view, did not reflect any actual consumer grievance.The advertiser explained that the claim, With 100% pure coconut oil for long and strong hair, had been misinterpreted. They argued that the expression 100% should be understood as referring to the purity and quality of the coconut oil used in the product, and not to the overall composition or quantity of coconut oil in the formulation. According to them, the claim should be read as a complete claim, with the word with playing a key role in conveying the meaning, and should not be broken down or read selectively.The advertiser also highlighted that the product packaging discloses the full composition on the back of the pack, comprising 79.4% vegetable oil including coconut oil, and 20% paraffinum liquidum. The product is classified as a Type 3 hair oil under BIS standards which permits a blend of vegetable and mineral oils.The advertiser further submitted that the claim is presented on the pack in a uniform font and style, without any emphasis that could lead consumers to read 100% separately. It stated that expressions such as 100% are commonly used in consumer advertising to indicate quality rather than product composition, as reflected in dictionary meanings and industry practice. They also cited market examples from the personal care sector where similar expressions are used alongside full ingredient disclosures on the back of pack. The CCC-R DecisionThe CCC-R panel discussed that the claim, With 100% pure coconut oil for long & strong hair, appearing on the front panel of the product pack, Parachute Advansed Gold Coconut Hair Oil, is to be read as a complete claim. The word `with’ indicates an ingredient-specific referencing that the coconut oil used in the formulation is 100% pure, rather than a representation of the overall product composition.The CCC-R panel further noted that the full ingredient details are transparently disclosed on the back of the pack and that the product is classified as a Type 3 hair oil under BIS standards.The CCC-R panel also considered the supporting documents submitted by the advertiser, including the cosmetic licence and test reports. The panel noted that the coconut oil used in the product complies with the relevant BIS standard and meets established quality requirements. The test results indicate that it is free from other admixtures confirming that the coconut oil used is 100% pure.Based on the advertiser’s submissions, the CCC-R panel concluded that the claim, With 100% pure coconut oil for long & strong hair, when read in its entirety and in the context of the overall packaging, is not misleading. The said claim is not in contravention of Chapter I of the ASCI Code. The complaint is Not Upheld on Review. | Digital Media | |||
| 2026-27 | 29-04-2026 | 29-04-2026 | 2026-4-21-2-C.53784 | People Interactive (I) Private Limited | Shaadi.com | Marathishaadi.com | Resolution | Industry Member | Informal Resolution | The TV commercial is by People Interactive (I) Private Limited – Marathi Shaadi (2506-CCC.04) | The advertiser promptly assured compliance and confirmed that the advertisement with the claim- 30 years of Matchmaking has been withdrawn. | Television | |||
| 2026-27 | 29-04-2026 | 29-04-2026 | 2026-4-21-2-C.53779 | People Interactive (I) Private Limited | Shaadi.com | GujaratiShaadi.com | Resolution | Industry Member | Informal Resolution | The TV commercial is by People Interactive (I) Private Limited – Gujrati Shaadi (2506-CCC.04) | The advertiser promptly assured compliance and confirmed that the advertisement with the claim- 30 years of Matchmaking has been withdrawn. | Television | |||
| 2026-27 | 29-04-2026 | 29-04-2026 | 2024-12-23-2-C.37496 | Nutricia International Private Limited | Protinex | Protinex Health Supplement for Adults | Resolution | Industry Member | Upheld | IRP Recommendation (2503-IRP.03) - on Amazon & YouTube advertisement of Nutricia International Pvt. Ltd.- Protinex Health Supplement And Nutritional Protein Mix For Adults | The nature of Complaint: 1. Nutrucia International Private Limited ("Nutmcia") published an advertisement for their product "Protinex Health Supplement And Nutritional Proteins Mix For Adults" ('the Product"). The advertisement showed nutrients- protein and calcium entering bones and muscles and calls out - Scientifically Designed Protinex improves strength in 8 weeks. Further the "Strength" here has not been qualified by the Advertiser, and alongside the image of muscles and bones would clearly indicate Muscle and Bone Strength. Additionally, the claim "Protinex hai to mumkin bai" has been over exaggerated, since the claim shows a direct co-relation between the possibility of undertaking a multitude of tasks (almost anything) and Protinex.2. Hindustan Unilever Limited lodged a complaint against this advertisement with ASCI. Cognizance of which was taken on the ground that prima facie the advertisement could potentially violate Chapter I of the ASCI Code, ASCI Guidelines on Advertising of Foods & Beverages (F&B) and ASCI Guidelines for disclaimers made in supporting, limiting or explaining claims made in advertisements. ASCI then sought a response from the advertiser. The clain1 objected to (1) Improves Strength in 8 weeks and (2) Protinex hai to mumkin hai.3. The claim made "Improves Strength in 8 Week" as seen in the advertisement clearly falls within the scope of Product Claims under the Food Safety and Standards (Advertising and Claims) Regulations, 2018 ("'FSS Claims Regulations).Regulation 7(5): "Where a claimed health benefit is attributed directly to the product, it shall be based on statistically significant results from well-designed human intervention studies, conducted by or under guidance of established research institutions, in line with the principles of GCP (Good Clinical Practices) and peer reviewed or published in a peer reviewed reputed scientific journal." The Advertiser has failed to cite a relevant clinical study substantiating the product claim as above. Though the Advertiser has provided a cryptic disclaimer as "Protinex clinically proven to increase muscle mass in 8 weeks. Data on file" alongside a Clinical Study reference, the study so cited does not substantiate the claim. While we gathered details of the publication referred to as "Data on file", (Document B), the same also does not support the extensive claim of "Improve Strength in 8 weeks". Though the clinical study shows that having Protinex as directed in the clinical improves muscle mass, it does not show any statistical change in strength (both muscle and bones as shown in the ad) as claimed by the Advertiser. In fact, in absence of clinical proof, the Advertiser has, with malice, attempted to bridge muscle mass from their Clinical with muscle strength and power mentioned in another non-product related generic scientific study. This is not only a gross extrapolation but a clear attempt by the Advertiser to flout both FSSAI Regulations and ASCI Code.4. As regards on the subject of Objection 2, I did not hear submissions of the parties and therefore, I am inclined to keep Objection 2 aside.5. The advertisers in response to the objection mentioned above, stated that the objection was incorrect as the claim made by the advertisers was based on the research article titled "The Effect of 8-Week Protein Supplementation with a Simple Exercise Program on Body Composition, Muscle Strength, and Amino Acid OMICS among Healthy Sedentary Indians: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial" by Sucharita Sambashivaiah, Madhavi Marathe, Rohini Bhadra, Shinjini Bhattacharya, and Sumitra Selvam, published in Wiley Journal of Nutrition and Metabolism, Volume 2024, Article ID 5582234.6. The advertiser further mentioned that the said article was published in a "peer-reviewed journal". The clinical trial was conducted with 82 participants. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of 12 g of additional protein in the form of a protein supplement compared to a placebo, combined with a simple exercise program on plasma amino acid level, body composition, and muscle strength among healthy Indian adults having a relatively sedentary lifestyle. This was a double-blind randomized controlled trial. Out of 82 randomized participants, 58 completed the intervention. Blood tests were conducted for the amino acid OMICS measurement followed by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) for body composition and isokinetic dynamometry for muscle strength. A significant improvement \Vas observed in the lean mass (kg) and appendicular muscle mass (AMM) adjusted for weight in the intervention group compared to the control group (p<0.05). The muscle strength and contractile quality were comparable in the 2 groups, with the Protinex group showing directional improvement in muscle strength compared to placebo group. Furthermore, Plasma BCAA showed a significant negative association with body fat % and a positive association with lean body mass %. In conclusion, this study highlighted the value of incorporating a lifestyle intervention including protein supplementation with simple exercises to optimize body composition in sedentary healthy individuals. The advertiser asserted that muscle mass and muscle strength are correlated as and refuted the Complainant's case that though clinical study showed improvement in muscle mass, it did not show any statistical change in strength of muscles and bones.8. ASCI referred the case to an Expert Dr. Shoven Ganguly. He opined that the Claim made in the Advertisement "Improves the Strength in 8 Weeks" was not substantiated. The Expert made following additional comments:Strongly worded product claim based on a well-designed clinical trial with "muscle strength and contractile quality" one of the primary measurable outcomes in conjunction with "lean muscle mass". Although the lean mass increased significantly in "protinex+exercise" vs Placebo (only exercise) there was only directional improvement in muscle strength and the discussion section of the paper hypothesised that extended duration of trial ,would have shown positive results compared to the eight weeks trials conducted. Noted the fact that there is a link between muscle mass and strength as shown in the supporting papers, but it is well proven there are several other factors which contributes to strength which is activated by exercise alone. Based on this the claim based on "muscle mass increase" is more appropriate rather than Improved Strength in 8 weeks which is not supported by clinical data using the product.However, the expert revisited the additional data provided by the advertiser and post the call with the advertiser, the expert opined that the claim is without any superlative claim and in line with a well-designed clinical study with a very rigorous measurement of muscle strength. While the improvement was a directional improvement, the results showed the improvement in muscle strength in Protinex supplemented group was higher compared to control. The advertiser also provided an extensive literature that supported the claim that Muscle mass has positive correlation with muscle strength in number of clinical studies and the same has been deliberated by the Consumer Complaints Council below.The case was then referred to for hearing before the Consumer Complaints Council t"CCC") at their meeting held in February 2025. Upon hearing both the sides and after considering the expert's opinion, the CCC recorded its findings on the claim improves the strengths in 8 week as under:"Improves Strength in 8 Weeks"The CCC observed that the said claim in the advertisement is supported by the research article titled, 'The Effect of 8-Week Protein Supplementation with a Simple Exercise Program on Body Composition, Muscle Strength, and Amino Acid OMICS among Healthy Sedentary Indians: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial', published in a peer-reviewed journal. This study provides scientific evidence for the effects of protein supplementation combined with exercise on body composition and muscle strength. The CCC discussed that the study done to evaluate the effects of protein supplementation combined with a simple exercise program on various health parameters in sedentary Indian adults. The key findings indicated that the group receiving the protein supplement (Protinex) showed significant improvement in lean mass and appendicular muscle mass compared to the placebo group. While muscle strength and contractile quality were comparable berneen the two groups, the protein supplement group exhibited a slight directional improvement in muscle strength. The key finding was the significant increase in lean muscle mass in the group that took the protein supplement after the intervention. The literature references provided supports the claim that muscle mass is positively correlated with muscle strength, as evidenced by numerous clinical studies. The CCC further discussed that the advertisement emphasizes that an active lifestyle combined with protein supplementation, like Protinex, can positively benefit the body. The advertisement on Amazon has a disclaimer that 'Protinex should be consumed as a part of a well-balanced diet and healthy lifestyle'. The claim is presented without using superlative terms. It suggests that, with regular consumption over an 8-week period, Protinex can contribute to improvements in muscle strength. Based on this assessment, the CCC concluded that the claim, "Improves Strength in 8 Weeks", was substantiated.The said claim is not in contravention of Chapter I of the ASCI Code. This complaint was NOT UPHELD.9. Aggrieved by the findings recorded by the CCC, the Complainant sought Independent Review Process. The case was referred to me. I heard submissions of both the sides. I also went through the documents submitted before me. I have already mentioned above that the main dispute between the parties is about the claim "Improves Strength in 8 Weeks". The parties made submissions only on this claim.Gist of the Complainant's submissions:10. The clinical study made by the advertiser only indicated that there was improvement in muscle mass, but the study did not indicate significant improvement in muscle strength. Therefore, the claim that improvement in strength in 8 weeks is false and unsubstantiated. It is also submitted that muscle mass improvement cannot be equivalent to muscle strength improvement. The Complainant placed reliance on Regulation 7(5) of the Food Safety and Standards (Advertising and Claims) Regulations, 2018 (FSSAI Regulation) for product claims alongside ASCI Guidelines on F&B, which states:Regulation 7(5): ''Where a claimed health benefit is attributed directly to the product, it shall be based on statistically significant results from well-designed human intervention studies, conducted by or under guidance of established research institutions, in line with the principles of GCP (Good Clinical Practices) and peer reviewed or published in a peer reviewed reputed scientific journal."Guideline 2, ASCI Guidelines on Advertising of Foods & Beverages (F&B): Advertisements that include what consumer, acting reasonably, might interpret as health or nutritional claims shall be supported by appropriate scientific evidence and meeting the requirement of basic Food Standards laid down under the Food Safety Standards Act and Rules, wherever applicable.11. They argued having regard to the above provisions, it is clear that the claim did not fulfill requirements of a product claim. They also argued that there is no co-relation between muscle mass improvement and muscle strength in1provement. On this point they tried to show me an article on scientific study, but I am not inclined to look into it because this article was not before the CCC. In any case, it is not in doubt that improvement in muscle mass would necessarily improve muscle strength. There are various other physiological factors which would increase strength in muscles. They however, attack the clinical study, its data and its conclusion. They pointed out that the clinical study which was of a short duration could only indicate that the participants who consun1ed the product gained muscle mass, but there was no significant or statistical improvement in strength of muscle. The scientific study indicated that there was only directional improvement in muscle strength and further mentioned that extended duration of trial would have shown positive results compared to 8 weeks trial conducted.12. As against this, the advertisers tried to justify the claim on the basis of the scientific study and its results. They tried to show me Table No.I of the Report which recorded data in respect of change in body composition, muscle strength and muscle quality across groups (who participated in the test). They admitted that the data relating to the muscle strength is not significant.13. The question before me is whether the claim satisfies the provisions of Regulation 7(5) of the Food Safety and Standards (Advertising and Claims) Regulations, 2018 (FSSAI Regulation) for product claims alongside ASCI Guidelines on F&B? The answer to this question is in the negative. The relevant provision is quoted below:"Where a claimed health benefit is attributed directly to the product, it shall be based on statistically significant results from well-designed human intervention studies, conducted by or under guidance of established research institutions, in line with the principles of GCP (Good Clinical Practices) and peer reviewed or published in a peer reviewed reputed scientific journal."14. There is no dispute that the advertiser made claim about a health benefit which they attributed directly to the use of the product so, it was incumbent upon them to base that claim on statistically significant results from well-designed Human Intervention Studies.15. There is no doubt that the advertiser conducted a human intervention study under guidance of their research tean1and it can also be said that they followed the line with the principles of Good Clinical Practices ("GCP"), but the study did not show positively that there was statistically significant results about improvement in the muscle strength. They admitted in the Report that such result would be visible and can be statistically recorded if the study could continue for a longer duration. They simply stated that if they could prove that the use of the product improved the muscle mass, they could guess that such improvement in muscle mass would automatically improve the muscle strength. As said above, these two aspects are certainly co-related but not directly related. The expert opined "noted the fact that there is a link between muscle mass and strength as shown in the supporting papers, but it is well proven that there are several other factors which contributes to the strength which is activated by exercise alone.16. Let me now peruse the Self-regulation Guidelines on Advertising on Food and Beverages (F&B) contained in ASCI Code. The same read as under:Preamble Communication and advertisements related to F&B can have significant impact on the lives of the public in general, and their physical and material well-being in particular. It is therefore imperative that F&B advertisements fulfil their intended roles, and advertisers adopt strict principles of self-regulation, and not mislead the general public in any manner detrimental to well-being. Caution and care should be observed in advertising of F&B, especially ones containing relatively High Fat, Sugar and Salt (HFSS). Recognizing the need to promote high standards of busine s ethics, to ensure commercial communications to consumers are responsible and the need to provide honest and truthful information about food and beverage products are met, the following guidelines are issued.GuidelinesJ. Advertisements should not be misleading or deceptive. Specifically, advertiserne11ts should not mislead consumers to believe that consumption of product advertised will result directly in personal changes in intelligence, physical ability or exceptional recognition. Such claims. if made in advertisements, sho11/d be supported and substantiated with evide11ce and with adequate scientific basis.2. Advertisements that include what consumer, acting reasonably, might interpret as health or n11tritional claims, shall be supported by appropriate scientific evidence and meeting the requirement of basic food standards laid down under the Food Safety Standards Act and Rules, wherever applicable.3. Advertisements should not disparage good dietary practice or the selection of options, such as fresh fruits and vegetables that accepted dietary opinion recommends should form part of the normal diet.4. Advertisements should not encourage over or excessive consumption or show inappropriately large portions of any food or beverage. It should reflect moderation in consumption and show portion sizes appropriate to the occasion or situation.5. Advertisements should also not undermine the importance of healthy lifestyles or mislead as to the nutritive value of the food or beverage.6. Advertisement should not undermine the role of parental care and guidance in ensuring proper food choices are made by children.7. Advertisements for food or beverages, unless nutritionally designed as such, should not be promoted or portrayed as a meal replacement.8. Claims in advertisements should not be inconsistent with information on the label or packaging of the food or beverage.9. Advertisement for food and beverages should not claim or imply endorsement by any government agency, professional body, and independent agency or individual in a particular profession in India, unless there is prior consent, the claim is current, the endorsement is verifiable, and the agency body is named. 17. These guidelines are strict and should be read with Regulation 7 of the Food Safety and Standards (Advertising and Claims) Regulations, 2018. On careful consideration of the rival contentions, I came to a conclusion that the claim made in the advertisement regarding muscle strength is surely an exaggeration. The advertisement in bold letters mentions '1mproves Strength in 8 weeks". This statement is grossly misleading and false because the advertiser's own clinical studies did not prove that during 8 weeks trial, there was improvement in the strength of muscle power. So the statement is contrary to what is stated in the report of the clinical study. There is off-course a disclaimer which reads as under:a. Protinex Clinically proven to increase muscle mass in 8 weeks.b. Muscle mass is strongly co-related to muscle strength and power.c. Result may vary based on consistent strength training regimed. Protinex should be consumed as a part of a well-balanced diet and healthy lifetime.The disclaimers would not take the case of the advertisers further because the statement (or claim made in the advertisement improves strength in 8 weeks) is completely alien to the study and to the disclaimers. The disclaimer faintly suggests the consumer to read certain report which would indicate that increase muscle mass is strongly co-related to the muscle strength and power. As discussed above, the co-relation between the two is arguable and not directly related. There are several factors which would improve strength of muscle. In any case the statement in bold letters improves the strength in 8 weeks is misleading and therefore is violative of the provisions quoted above. I uphold the Complaint to the extent that the claim (improves strength in 8 weeks) is misleading and should be deleted. | Digital Media | |||
| 2026-27 | 29-04-2026 | 29-04-2026 | 2026-4-17-2-C.53718 | People Interactive (I) Private Limited | Bengalishaadi.com | Bengali Shaadi | Resolution | Industry Member | Informal Resolution | The TV commercial is by People Interactive (I) Private Limited – Bengali Shaadi (2605-CCC.04) | The advertiser promptly assured compliance and confirmed that the advertisement with the claim/s "30 years of Matchmaking" has been withdrawn. | Television | |||
| 2026-27 | 29-04-2026 | 29-04-2026 | 2026-3-8-4-C.52835 | PEP Technologies Private Limited | mCaffeine | mCaffeine Super Glow Flash Facial Mask | Resolution | Consumer Organization | Informal Resolution | The Instagram advertisement is by PEP Technologies Private Limited - mCaffeine Super Glow Flash Facial Mask. (2604-CCC.03) | The advertiser promptly assured compliance and confirmed that the advertisement with the claims Get brighter, glowing skin at home in just 5 minutes with our flash facial mask; 5 Mins Facial – Like Glow at Home; Before –and–after image of the model, have been withdrawn. | Digital Media | |||
| 2026-27 | 29-04-2026 | 07-05-2026 | 2026-4-23-6-C.53864 | K. R. Trans Energy Private Limited | VIBUH Auto LPG Conversion Kit | Resolution | Suo Motu - NAMS (TAMS) | Informal Resolution | The (TAMIL) TV commercial is by K. R. Trans Energy Private Limited – VIBUH Auto LPG Conversion Kit, which appeared on THANTHI TV for 20 Seconds, (18.26.16) on March 06, 2026. (2605-CCC.04) | The advertiser promptly confirmed compliance and withdrew the objected advertisement | Television | ||||
| 2026-27 | 28-04-2026 | 28-04-2026 | 2026-2-26-5-C.52793 | William Grant And Sons India Private Limited | Glenfiddich | Glenfiddich | Resolution | Suo Moto | Upheld | The YouTube advertisement is by William Grant And Sons India Private Limited – Glenfiddich (2603-CCC.35) | 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 advertisement. 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 the advertisement does not promote alcoholic beverages or Glenfiddich whisky. The advertisement pertains solely to their brand line extension, House of Glenfiddich – Art, Travel & Beyond, positioned as a luxury lifestyle brand. The brand extension launched on March 31, 2023, operates through exclusive stores in India and an online platform, and continues to engage in art, travel, design, and experiential luxury. The advertiser further stated that, due to internal corporate policies, they are unable to provide details of advertising expenditure or the Advertising-to-Turnover Ratio, but submitted that the turnover documentation already provided demonstrates the legitimate market presence and sale of the brand extension. In support of their response, the advertiser submitted a CA certified year wise turnover for the brand line extension. The Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) viewed the YouTube advertisement. (https://www.youtube.com/shorts/AKiDQr4Rz0Q) considered the complaint and the advertiser’s response. The CCC observed that the advertiser is promoting the brand line extension House of Glenfiddich, positioned as a luxury lifestyle brand, and present in the market for more than two years, having been launched in March 2023. The advertiser submitted a CA certificate providing year-wise turnover for the brand extension. Upon review, the CCC noted that the turnover figures for FY 2022–23, FY 2023–24, and FY 2024–25 are based on audited financial statements, while the turnover for FY 2025–26 (April 2025 to February 2026) is unaudited. The CA certified figures indicate that the brand extension has generated turnover; however, the CCC observed that it does not meet the scale required under the Brand Extension Guidelines to qualify as a valid brand extension. Regarding the requirement related to advertising spends, the CCC noted the advertiser’s response, wherein they stated that, due to internal corporate policies, detailed information on advertising expenditure or the Advertising-to-Turnover Ratio was not provided, but that the turnover documentation submitted reflects the brand extension’s market presence. The CCC referred to the ASCI Guidelines for Qualification of Brand Extension – Product or Service, which state: The scale of advertising for such an extension should be proportionate to the sales of that extension. Hence, the Advertising budget for such a brand extension should not exceed 200% of sales turnover in year 1&2 of launch, 100% in year 3, 50% in year 4, and 30% thereafter. For this purpose, the advertising budget would include: Media spends across all media for the prior 12 months, Payments contracted to celebrities appearing in the ad and for brand endorsement, on annualised basis, Annual average of money spent on advertising production for the brand in the previous 3 years. The CCC observed that the advertiser has not submitted details of the advertising budget or media spends for the relevant period, and no certification from an independent Chartered Accountant firm has been provided. Based on these observations, the CCC concluded that the advertisement contravened Clauses 1(A)(I), 1(A)(II), 2, 2 (a) of ASCI Guidelines for Qualification of Brand Extension - Product or Service. This complaint was UPHELD. | Digital Media | |||
| 2026-27 | 28-04-2026 | 07-05-2026 | 2026-4-20-6-C.53792 | INDcool Electricals Private Limited | INDcool Air Conditioner | Resolution | Suo Motu - NAMS (TAMS) | Informal Resolution | The (HINDI) TV commercial is by INDcool Electricals Private Limited – INDcool Air Conditioner, which appeared on NDTV INDIA for 10 Seconds, (9.22.24) on March 07, 2026. (2604-CCC.03) | The advertiser promptly assured compliance and withdrew the objected advertisement. | Television | ||||
| 2026-27 | 27-04-2026 | 27-04-2026 | 2026-3-24-1-C.52934 | Easy Trip Planners Limited | EaseMyTrip | EaseMyTrip - Flight Ticket Booking | Resolution | General Public | Informal Resolution | The Website advertisement is by Easy Trip Planners Limited - EaseMyTrip - Flight Ticket Booking. (2604-CCC.03) | The advertiser promptly assured compliance and confirmed that the advertisement with the claims 1. No Cost EMI and 2. Pay the lock fee now & pay rest of the amount later after booking, has been modified. | Digital Media |
Ministry of Consumer Affairs Food and Public Distribution. Status of Advertisement Complaints Registered with Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) [Data set]. Dataful. https://dataful.in/datasets/20112
