Heavenly Secrets Private Limited - Pilgrim Swiss Aqua Rush Moisturizer

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 availed and submitted their response. As claim support data, the advertiser submitted the following documents – (1) 120 hrs claim certificate, (2) Copy of test report for `120 hrs moisturisation’, (3) Copy of product approval license, (4) Copy of product label. The claim support data submitted by the advertiser 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. In response to the expert opinion, the advertiser responded that, “The ingredients are listed in a different order as per percentage but all are included. These ingredients are used in various concentrations to enhance skin hydration and improve barrier function, promoting overall skin health and appearance. To ensure unbiased results, the exact concentrations of these ingredients were not disclosed, and therefore, the specific composition is not detailed in the report. The glow assessment done by dermat is not biased because the dermat was not aware of the test products. The product application duration is mentioned as 5 days because the study duration is 5 days, however, the product was only applied once on site on Day 0”. The advertiser further provided the following additional information – (1) Carton label, (2) 120 H Moisturiser Declaration, (3) 120 H Moisturiser Report The advertiser’s additional submissions were referred to the technical expert for final opinion. The Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) viewed the Website advertisement (https://discoverpilgrim.com/products/swiss-aqua-rush-120h-moisturizer) and considered the complaint, the advertiser’s response along with the claim support data, and the expert’s final opinion presented at the meeting. The CCC observed that the advertiser has provided copy of clinical study conducted for evaluation of the in vivo safety and efficacy of four skin care formulations and comparison of Treated versus Untreated area. The CCC discussed that the clinical trial involved female individuals with dry skin. The study was a comparative, single blind study. The subjects were unaware of the product used, and their results were compared to those of untreated controls. The subjects were instructed not to wash or clean the area where the formulation was applied during the study period. The advertiser has clarified that the product was applied only once during the study period of 5 days. The CCC further discussed that for skin softness, none of the products tested exhibited a significant difference in 15 minutes when compared to the control; nevertheless, there was a substantial increase in skin softness after T30, which was sustained for 120 hours. The products exhibited a substantial change in skin smoothness after 15 minutes when compared to the control, which lasted upto 120 hours. As it was a single blind study, the dermatologist who assessed the smoothness and softness of the skin may have known the product being tested. It is possible that these evaluations are biased. The CCC then deliberated that according to corneometry investigations, which were used to assess skin hydration, the products under evaluation demonstrated a significant increase in capacitance from 15 minutes to 120 hours, as compared to the control. As per the Tewametry experiments used to assess skin barrier function, the products under test significantly reduced water loss. This suggests that skin barrier function improved from 15 minutes after comparison to the control group and remained stable for 120 hours. Although the corneometry and tewametry results support the claims, there is a discrepancy in the product ingredient list and uncertainty in the clinical research regarding product application. The CCC noted that the label of the moisturiser does not list ingredients such Xylitilglucoside, Anhydroxylitol, Xylitol, and glucose, that are added as skin conditioning agents, but are listed in the product composition details as reported to the FDA. The CCC discussed that the effectiveness of the product may be impacted by this alteration in the ingredients. There is a discrepancy in the product ingredient list on the carton and on the product container. This discrepancy between the carton label and the container label needs to be addressed even though the advertiser has declared that the product contains all ingredients. Based on this assessment, the CCC concluded that the claims, 120 Hours Moisturizer [Pack claim], “120 Hours of Increased Hydration”, and “Strengthens Skin Barrier”, were inadequately substantiated. The claims are misleading by exaggeration and are likely to lead to widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers. The source for the claims is not indicated in the advertisement. The said claims in the advertisement contravened Chapter I, Clauses 1.1, 1.2, 1.4 and 1.5 of the ASCI Code. This complaint was UPHELD.