L'Oreal India Private Limited - L'Oreal Paris Glycolic Bright Dark Spot Brightening Serum

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 did not avail and requested for an extension 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 one business day to respond. The advertiser in their response stated that, “….. We ….. have rectified the same by adding #Ad as the first word of the caption. However, currently it is removed from the caption for and shall add it later along with the appropriate disclaimers. We have data from the clinical study to support that the density of pigmentary spot is seen continuously declining over the period of product use. This suggests that no increase in the spot density”. As claim support data, the advertiser submitted the following documents – (1) Executive Summary report from the CRO, (2) Product label, (3) Product approval License, (4) Celebrity Due Diligence Undertaking. 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 telecon/meeting with the ASCI Secretariat and the technical expert via zoom video conference to discuss their submissions. Post this meeting, the advertiser responded that, “The words used in this phrase i.e. ‘Goodbye’ and ‘Hello’ are playfully used to convey the dark spots fading or reduction with time with the use of the product and gives even, glowing skin. Also, ‘Dark spots’ under cosmetic domain is a generic term used to refer spots like ‘PIH spots’ in easy-to-understand consumer-centric language. The clinical study provided also test PIH spots on subjects to substantiate the above claim. Basis the clinical evaluation done by a trained dermatologist using L’Oréal skin aging atlas volume 4 India type (available in public domain), we observe a significant decrease in density of spots until 12 weeks of usage. Also, the studies performed are coded and hence the same is mentioned on the report throughout. We hereby declare that the code mentioned in the study belongs to the product - L'Oréal Paris Glycolic-Bright Brightening Serum”. The advertiser further submitted the following annexures – (1) Executive Report which includes the inclusion/exclusion criteria, (2) L’Oréal skin aging atlas, (3) Document confirming that the code mentioned in the clinical study test report correspondences to marketed formula, and composition of the formula, (4) Equivalence certificate. The additional submissions made by the advertiser were shared with the technical expert for final opinion. The CCC viewed the Instagram advertisement (https://www.instagram.com/reel/DD9TIqxgdoS/?igsh=MWc1YmZ1MDQ4eXZhbg%3D%3D), 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 disagreed with the advertiser’s argument that the words, 'Goodbye' and 'Hello' were used playfully to convey the fading or reduction of dark spots over time with the use of the product. The CCC observed that the explanation provided by the advertiser seems to be focused on data from their study related to post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH) and spot density. The advertiser has provided a clinical study which was done to evaluate the efficacy of the skin serum in Spot Reduction in healthy participants over a period of 12 weeks. The findings of the study concluded that, `the tested product was efficacious in providing significant reduction in the density of spots with 1week of regular usage. The efficacy continued through Week 2 and was seen progressive at Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12, which implies there is no significant increase in density of spots over 12 weeks of usage when compared to the baseline’. The CCC discussed that the data provided shows that spot density (the number of spots or pigmented areas) started to decrease from week 2 and continued to decrease through the 12-week period. While spot density decreased, this does not conclusively prove that no new spots were formed, as the reduction could simply reflect fading of existing spots, rather than the absence of new spots. There is no data showing that the product can treat dark spots appearing on facial skin arising from all the different causes listed (post-inflammatory pigmentation, melasma, lentigines, etc.). This suggests that the product has not been tested across all types of dark spots. Further there is no evidence provided to demonstrate that the product completely eliminates dark spots. The CCC further discussed that the celebrity in the advertisement saying that `the ingredient Melasyl in the serum not only fades existing dark spots but also prevents the formation of new ones’, is not substantiated by the available data. The product has not been tested on every type of dark spot, and there is no evidence to prove its effectiveness for all the various causes of dark spots. While the observed reduction in spot density over 12 weeks may suggest that existing spots faded or became less noticeable, it does not necessarily indicate that new spots were prevented. Based on this assessment, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Say goodbye to dark spots and hello to even, glowing skin!”, and the voice over claim, “L'Oreal Paris introduced me to their glycolic bright serum which has a new ingredient called Melasyl that reduces all types of dark spots. It's been a few weeks now and let me tell you, I'm genuinely impressed. My spots have significantly faded and I haven't seen any new ones too”, were inadequately substantiated. The voice over claim, “………….. I haven't seen any new ones too”, is misleading by implication that this serum prevents appearance of dark spots. The said claim and the voice over claim is misleading by exaggeration and is likely to lead to widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers. The source and date for the claims is not indicated in the advertisement. The claims contravened Chapter I, Clauses 1.1, 1.2, 1.4 and 1.5 of the ASCI Code. This complaint was UPHELD. As for the celebrity (Mandira Bedi) shown in the advertisement, the CCC observed that the advertiser has provided a Celebrity Due Diligence Undertaking that `she has personally used the product and the statements made in the advertisement are a reflection of her own experience. She has mentioned the same in the advertisement and not tried to generalize the claim, as others’ experience could be different’. Based on this evidence, the CCC concluded that the celebrity in the advertisement does not contravene ASCI Guidelines for Celebrities in Advertising. This complaint was NOT UPHELD. The CCC discussed that the advertisement carries a disclosure label `#Ad’ in the advertisement. However this disclosure label is inserted at the end of the description in the advertisement and is buried in a group of hashtags. It is not stated upfront and hence could be missed by an average viewer. The disclosure label would not be visible to an average consumer when viewed from a mobile phone and the viewer would need to scroll down to view the same. Based on these observations, the CCC concluded that as the disclosure label was not mentioned at the start of the advertisement, it 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, 1.2 (a, c) of the ASCI Guidelines for Influencer Advertising in Digital Media. This complaint was UPHELD.