Baypure Lifestyle Private Limited - Deconstruct

Recommendation: Not Upheld | Medium: General Public

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 claim in the advertisement and on the product packaging, or alternately to substantiate the claim with supporting data. The advertiser was also offered an opportunity for a telecon with the ASCI Secretariat, which they did not avail and requested for an extension of 10 days to submit their response. The deadlines stipulated by Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) procedure exist keeping in mind the immediate and widespread impact that advertisements have on the public. Consequently, any action which is needed to be taken with respect to the same is required to be prompt and urgent. It is for this purpose that the deadlines, as stipulated, are set for advertisers/broadcasters etc., and the CCC itself makes it a priority to deal with every complaint before it as expeditiously as possible. However, as a special gesture, the advertiser was granted an extension of additional six business days to respond. The advertiser in their response stated that, “We wish to clarify that Diheptyl Succinate is a natural, biodegradable emollient derived from castor oil through an esterification process. In the context of personal care products, the term "Oil-Free”, is commonly understood by consumers to imply a lightweight, non-comedogenic that does not contribute to pore-clogging”. As claim support data, the advertiser submitted the following documents – (1) Technical & Regulatory Product Dossier on `Diheptyl Succinate, (2) Third party report explaining how Diheptyl Succinate is being sourced, and that castor oil is not expected to be present in LexFeelTM/ Diheptyl Succinate, (3) Product license copy, (4) Copy of third party lab report to evaluate the in-vivo efficacy of the skin care formulations in terms of non-comedogenic effect on healthy human subjects. 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. However, the advertiser did not respond to the technical opinion. The Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) viewed the Product Packaging, Website advertisement (https://thedeconstruct.in/products/oil-free-moisturizer-for-oily-skin?srsltid=AfmBOopSAbW IiNXLQ34Ds63joGI44DwFk60pr4_pp2hANT3137nfHB0), considered the complaint, the advertiser’s response along with the claim support data, and the expert’s opinion presented at the meeting. The CCC observed that the advertiser’s response refers to the submitted documents that explain the process of producing Diheptyl Succinate specifically clarifying that castor oil is not present in the final product. The CCC discussed that the ingredient - Diheptyl Succinate is made using castor oil, but through an esterification process. Although the production of Diheptyl Succinate involves castor oil, the end product (Diheptyl Succinate) is not an oil itself. Instead, it is a chemical compound with emollient (moisturizing) properties but does not exhibit the characteristics of an oil. The advertiser has submitted data that proves castor oil is not included in the final product after its production process. Based on the advertiser’s response with the supporting data provided, the CCC concluded that the product claiming to be “Oil-Free Moisturizer” on the product packaging and in the advertisement, was substantiated. The said claim is not in contravention of Chapter I of the ASCI Code. This complaint was NOT UPHELD.