Bright Lifecare Private Limited - MuscleBlaze Biozyme Performance Whey

Recommendation: Upheld | Medium: Suo Motu - NAMS (TAMS)

The ASCI had approached the advertiser (Bright Lifecare Private Limited) and the influencer (Siddhant Rai Sikand)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 replied that the advertisement has been modified by adding the required disclosure tag. The Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) viewed the YouTube advertisement (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSPRp2syroc) considered the complaint and the advertiser’s reply. There was no response from the influencer. The CCC observed that the advertisement shows an Influencer promoting a nutrition supplement brand. The CCC discussed that the influencer and the advertiser has not disclosed details regarding any material connection, monetary or non-monetary between them. The influencer has not mentioned any disclosure labels such as "Advertisement", "Ad", "Sponsored", "Collaboration", “Partnership”, "Employee", "Free Gift", “Paid Partnership”, “Affiliate”, “Includes paid promotion”, in the advertisement. The CCC further discussed that on receiving the complaint, the advertiser has had the Influencer modify the YouTube advertisement by adding an appropriate disclosure label. Based on these observations, the CCC concluded that the original advertisement under complaint is misleading by omission and exploits consumers' lack of knowledge. The advertisement contravened Chapter I, Clauses 1.4 and 1.5 of the ASCI Code, and Clause 1, 1.1(a), and 1.3(a) of ASCI Guidelines for Influencer Advertising in Digital Media. This complaint was UPHELD. The CCC was informed that the ASCI had previously contacted this influencer on multiple occasions advising that the post/story/video should contain disclosure of material connection. The CCC also noted that the influencer continued to avoid adding disclosures and did so only on receipt of a complaint from ASCI. It has been observed that the influencer is a repeat offender and frequently violates ASCI Influencer Guidelines.