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 | 15-04-2026 | 15-04-2026 | 2026-3-10-1-C.52929 | ITC Limited | Bingo | Bingo! Mad Angles | Resolution | General Public | Informal Resolution | The YouTube advertisement is by ITC Limited - Bingo! Mad Angles. (2604-CCC.01) | The advertiser promptly assured compliance and confirmed that the advertisement has been withdrawn. | Digital Media | |||
| 2026-27 | 15-04-2026 | 15-04-2026 | 2026-2-24-1-C.52595 | PepsiCo India Holdings Private Limited | Lay's | Lay's Classic Salted and Lay's India's Magic Masala | Resolution | General Public | Informal Resolution | The YouTube advertisement is by PepsiCo India Holdings Private Limited - Lay's Classic Salted and Lay's India's Magic Masala. (2603-CCC.34) | The advertiser promptly assured compliance and confirmed that the advertisement featuring the line "Shakal se gora hai dil ka kala re [Colour Discrimination lyrics with a melancholic music]" has been withdrawn. | Digital Media | |||
| 2026-27 | 15-04-2026 | 15-04-2026 | 2026-2-9-4-C.52405 | Eagle Fleet Services Private Limited | Red Taxi | Red Auto | Resolution | Consumer Organization | Informal Resolution | The Facebook advertisement is by Eagle Fleet Services Private Limited - Red Taxi - Red Auto. (2602-CCC.33) | The advertiser promptly assured compliance and confirmed that the advertisement with the claim 0% / ZERO COMMISSION, has been withdrawn. | Digital Media | |||
| 2026-27 | 15-04-2026 | 15-04-2026 | 2026-3-10-5-C.52971 | Cheil India Private Limited | Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra | Cheil India Private Limited | Resolution | Suo Moto | Informal Resolution | The Instagram advertisement is by Cheil India Private Limited – Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra (Influencer - Aadya Reddy) (2603-CCC.35). | The influencer promptly assured compliance and confirmed that the advertisement has been modified. | Digital Media | |||
| 2026-27 | 13-04-2026 | 13-04-2026 | 2026-3-12-6-C.53051 | Cheil India Private Limited | Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra | Resolution | Suo Motu - NAMS (TAMS) | Not Upheld | The Instagram advertisement is by an influencer (Jai Arora) promoting ‘Cheil India Private Limited – Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra’. The advertisement is not in contravention of ASCI Guidelines for Influencer Advertising in Digital Media. (2603-CCC.35) | The ASCI had approached the advertiser (Cheil India Private Limited) and the influencer (Jai Arora) for their respective responses in addressing the objections raised in the complaint. The advertiser and the influencer were also offered an opportunity for a telecon with the ASCI Secretariat, which they did not avail, and the advertiser submitted their response. The advertiser in their response stated that the post is not a paid collaboration or endorsement on behalf of the brand. The content has been independently created and shared by the influencer without any material connection. The advertiser further provided a declaration confirming that there is no association with the influencer in relation to the advertisement. The Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) viewed the Instagram advertisement (https://www.instagram.com/p/DVMLSjFgSma/) considered the complaint, and the advertiser’s response. The CCC noted that there was no response from the influencer. The CCC observed that the advertisement shows an influencer promoting the advertiser’s product – `Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra’. The CCC noted that the advertiser has no connection with the influencer and does not endorse the comments made in the Instagram post. The advertiser submitted a declaration confirming the absence of any material relationship with the influencer. The feedback in the post reflects the influencer’s personal opinion indicating that the content was shared voluntarily. Based on these observations, the CCC concluded that the advertisement is not in contravention of ASCI Guidelines for Influencer Advertising in Digital Media. This complaint was NOT UPHELD. | Digital Media | ||||
| 2026-27 | 08-04-2026 | 08-04-2026 | 2026-2-11-6-C.52495 | L'Oreal India Private Limited | Maybelline New York Serum Lipstick | Resolution | Suo Motu - NAMS (TAMS) | Not Upheld | The Instagram advertisement is by L'Oreal India Private Limited - Maybelline New York Serum Lipstick (Influencer – Ranjana Singh). This advertisement is not in contravention of Chapter I ASCI Code and ASCI Guidelines for Influencer Advertising in Digital Media (2603-CCC.34). | The ASCI had approached the advertiser (L'Oreal India Private Limited) and the influencer (Ranjana Singh) for their respective responses in addressing the objections raised in the complaint. The advertiser and the influencer were also offered an opportunity for a telecon with the ASCI Secretariat, which they did not avail, and the advertiser and the influencer submitted their response. The advertiser provided a declaration confirming that there is no association with the influencer in relation to the advertisement. The influencer stated that the video is non-sponsored and provided a copy of the invoice for the purchased product. The Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) viewed the Instagram advertisement (https://www.instagram.com/p/DUapKmakhfR) considered the complaint, and the responses submitted by the advertiser and the influencer. The CCC observed that the advertisement shows an influencer promoting the advertiser’s product – ‘Maybelline New York Serum Lipstick’. The CCC noted that the advertiser has no connection with the influencer and does not endorse the comments made in the Instagram post. The advertiser submitted a declaration confirming the absence of any material relationship with the influencer. The influencer stated that the content reflects her personal opinion and review of the product. She also provided a copy of the purchase invoice as proof that the product was purchased independently. Based on these observations, the CCC concluded that the advertisement is not in contravention of ASCI Guidelines for Influencer Advertising in Digital Media. This complaint was NOT UPHELD. | Digital Media | ||||
| 2026-27 | 06-04-2026 | 06-04-2026 | 2026-3-10-1-C.52969 | Nestle India Limited | Maggi | Maggi 2-Minute Noodles (Me & MAGGI So Good Together) | Resolution | General Public | Not Upheld | The YouTube advertisement is of Nestle India Ltd promoting `Maggi 2-Minute Noodles’. The said advertisement is not in contravention of the ASCI Code. | The Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) viewed the YouTube advertisement (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z22XBroW_SM) and considered the complaint. The CCC did not find the advertisement to be objectionable, and concluded that the advertisement is not in contravention of the ASCI Code. This complaint was NOT UPHELD. | Digital Media | |||
| 2025-26 | 17-09-2025 | 09-03-2026 | 2025-7-10-1-C.44116 | Godrej Consumer Products Limited | Good knight Flash Liquid Vaporiser | Good knight Flash Liquid Vaporiser | Resolution | General Public | Not Upheld | The advertisement is by ‘Godrej Consumer Products Limited - Good knight Flash Liquid Vaporiser claiming, Each refill lasts up to 45 days**’’ and India’s most powerful liquid vaporizer. The said claims are in contravention of Chapter I of the ASCI Code. (2509-CCC.16) | 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 availed and sought an extension of time to submit their response. As a special gesture, the advertiser was granted the extension. The advertiser in their response stated that the refill is used in normal mode for 8 hours daily and that usage patterns may vary among consumers. They added that the complete claim already clarifies the mode of usage and that the product leaflet states: To bring quick & proper results, close the doors and windows for 30 minutes initially. While using liquid vaporizer, doors and windows should be kept open. For the claim, India’s most powerful liquid vaporizer, they stated that the Goodknight Flash resulted in the highest knockdown and mortality percentage… followed by Goodknight Gold Flash, Mortein, All Out and Maxo. As claim support data, the advertiser provided the following documents – (1) Copy of the Ad, (2) Summary of the Study Report, (3) Product leaflet with Directions for Use, (4) ASCI’s previous recommendation on the India’s most powerful liquid vaporizer claim, (5) Summary of the Report on bio-efficacy study, (6) Artwork of the product packaging, (7) Certificate of Registration of Insecticides issued under Section 9(3) of the Insecticides Act, 1968, by the Central Insecticides Board and Registration Committee. A personal meeting between the advertiser’s representatives and the ASCI Secretariat was held at ASCI’s office following the submission of the advertiser’s response. The advertiser’s response along with the claim support data was referred to an Independent technical expert of ASCI for an opinion in the matter. The expert’s opinion was then shared with the advertiser for making additional submissions. The advertiser had a meeting with the ASCI Secretariat and the technical expert via zoom video conference to discuss their submissions. Post this meeting, the advertiser addressed the queries raised in the expert opinion. The advertiser submitted the study report and an in-house report showing that each refill lasts more than 45 days when used as stated. For the claim, "India’s most powerful liquid vaporizer", they provided a bio-efficacy report and a market report showing that Goodknight, Mortein, All Out, and Maxo together have a substantial market share. The additional submissions made by the advertiser were sent to the technical expert for final opinion. The Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) viewed the amazon 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 – Each refill lasts up to 45 days** Disclaimer: When used for 8 hours daily in normal mode under standard laboratory conditions". The CCC observed that the claim is accompanied by a disclaimer stating that the duration applies when the product is used for a fixed number of hours (8 hours) daily in normal mode under standard laboratory conditions. Based on the submitted data, the said claim appears to be acceptable and supported for the specific samples tested. The advertiser has provided data on batch testing results which show that the quantity of active ingredient released was consistent across various batches.Claim – India’s most powerful liquid vaporizer The CCC observed that the advertiser has submitted a bio-efficacy test report in support of the claim, comparing `Goodknight Flash’ with other major brands in the liquid electric mosquito repellent category. The CCC noted that the advertiser’s product was evaluated using two standard performance measures, namely, highest knockdown and percentage mortality which reflect the speed of action and the overall effectiveness. The results demonstrated superior performance on both counts. The advertiser has also submitted additional data confirming that the tested products represent a substantial share of the market. Based on this assessment, the CCC concluded that the claims, Each refill lasts up to 45 days**, and India’s most powerful liquid vaporizer, were substantiated and are not in contravention of Chapter I of the ASCI Code. This complaint was NOT UPHELD. | Promotional Material | |||
| 2025-26 | 12-09-2025 | 09-03-2026 | 2025-7-24-1-C.44625 | EMotorad | EMotorad | EMotorad Lil E Electric Kick Scooter | Resolution | General Public | Not Upheld | The advertisement is by ‘EMotorad (EM) - EMotorad Lil E Electric Kick Scooter (by Influencer - Aashish Jhunjuwala). The said advertisement is in contravention of Chapter I of the ASCI Code and ASCI Guidelines for Influencer Advertising in Digital Media. (2508-CCC.15) | The ASCI had approached the brand owner - advertiser (EMotorad) and the influencer (Aashish Jhunjuwala) for their respective responses in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded the details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser and the influencer with a request to respond to the same. The advertiser and the influencer were also offered an opportunity for a telecon with the ASCI Secretariat, which they did not avail, and the influencer and the advertiser submitted their response. The influencer stated that the product mentioned was bought independently without any sponsorship or collaboration, and thus does not require disclosure under ASCI guidelines. The advertiser provided a declaration confirming that there is no association or commercial arrangement with the influencer in relation to the post. The Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) viewed the LinkedIn advertisement (https://www.linkedin.com/posts/aashish-jhunjhunwala_for-most-90s-kids-summer-vacations-were-activity-7350387703907069952-OPpr/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAACjp43UB4ArJdeQvaDUUs5qNs70kxfd6n4c) considered the complaint, and the response from the influencer and the advertiser. The CCC discussed that the advertiser has no connection with the influencer and that the brand does not endorse the comments made in the LinkedIn post. This indicates that the LinkedIn post is a personal content voluntarily shared by the influencer. Based on these observations, the CCC concluded that the advertisement is not in contravention of ASCI Guidelines for Influencer Advertising in Digital Media. This complaint was NOT UPHELD. | Digital Media | |||
| 2025-26 | 12-09-2025 | 09-03-2026 | 2025-8-8-1-C.45071 | Kalyan Jewellers India Limited | Kalyan Jewellers | Kalyan Jewellers Gift voucher | Resolution | General Public | Upheld | The advertisement is by ‘Kalyan Jewellers (Gift Card), claiming Fee Kalyan Gift Card! Worth Rs. 2100 on every Rakhi order*. The said claims are in contravention of Chapter I of the ASCI Code. (2508-CCC.15) | 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. The advertiser was also offered an opportunity for a telecon with the ASCI Secretariat, which they did not avail and neither did they submit their written response. The Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) viewed the Swiggy Instamart App advertisement and considered the complaint. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date as specified by the ASCI Secretariat. The CCC observed that the promotional gift card offered by Swiggy Instamart, valued at Rs. 2100/- is presented as a cash voucher. The communication suggests that the amount can be applied towards a jewellery purchase. However, it was noted that the voucher is applicable only to making charges and not towards the actual cost of the jewellery. This limitation is not clearly disclosed in the initial communication. The CCC discussed that a lay consumer is likely to interpret such a gift card as a direct discount on the total purchase value, without expecting it to be restricted to making charges. The promotion lacks prominent disclosure of the applicable terms and conditions, which may mislead consumers regarding the actual benefit being offered. Based on these observations, the CCC concluded that the claim of, Fee Kalyan Gift Card! Worth Rs. 2100 on every Rakhi order*, is misleading. The said claim in the advertisement contravened Chapter I, Clause 1.4 of the ASCI Code. This complaint was UPHELD. | Others |
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
