PEP Technologies Private Limited - mCaffeine Oil-Free 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 did not avail and replied requesting for an extension of time 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, the advertiser was granted an extension of additional two business days to respond. The advertiser in their response stated that, “In order to test the product efficacy in terms of moisturization, an In-vivo test was conducted with 32 healthy female subjects aged between 18 and 48 years. The said subjects had dry skin on forearm. The product in question was applied on the randomized forearms of the subjects. It is pertinent to mention that said test was conducted for 72 hours. It is pertinent to mention that upon comparison said product versus untreated Control, a significant difference is observed in favour of the said product at all the given time points. In order to test the product efficacy in terms of effects on acne marks and blemishes, an user based test was conducted with group of 50 individuals, aged between 18-35, where the female to male ratio was 70:30.86% users saw visible reduction in acne overtime, blemishes and clearer skin.82% saw improvement in post acne scars and skin redness”. As claim support data, the advertiser submitted the following documents – (1) Technical Report (test reports and detailed analysis of the product), (2) Copy of product packaging, (3) Product approval license 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. On receiving the expert opinion, the advertiser had a telecon/meeting with the technical expert and the ASCI Secretariat via zoom video conference. Post this meeting, the advertiser has submitted a research on `Product Test for Matcha Acne Moisturiser & feedback on usage Attributes’. The CCC viewed the Website advertisement (https://www.mcaffeine.com/products/5-niacinamide-5-panthenol-matcha-tea-oil-free-moisturizer) considered the complaint, the advertiser’s response along with the claim support data, and the expert opinion presented at the meeting. Claim – “72 hrs moisturization*” - the CCC observed that the claim is qualified with a disclaimer to mention, “* Based on a consumer study”. The advertiser has submitted a study done to evaluate the in-vivo safety and efficacy of skin care formulations versus untreated control in terms of the moisturizing effect upto 72 hours on 32 healthy Female subjects. The CCC discussed that the trial was a single blind study, therefore the subjects were unaware of the product being used. This was a comparative study comparing the product application results to untreated controls. The corneometry results provided in the clinical study protocol indicate that the capacitance (measure of hydration values or water content) increased significantly after 72 hours of application of the product. The CCC further discussed that during the study, the participants were instructed to not wash the forearm with water for the next 72 hours, not to use any additional products until the completion of the study, and not to wipe or clean the inside forearm. If these conditions are met then the product is able to deliver the benefit of 72 hours moisturization. However the study did not demonstrate the product's efficacy on normal skin, when wiping or washing the skin, and in actual usage conditions. Claim – “Reduces Acne Marks & Blemishes” – the CCC observed that the advertiser has provided an user based test which was conducted with group of 50 individuals. The CCC discussed that this is a survey conducted utilizing computer assisted web interviewing (CAWI). According to the research methodology, the respondents utilized each product and evaluated it based on texture, application, and absorption, among other factors. The frequency of application of the product is mentioned as one application per day for three days. The advertiser has not stated the degree and kind of acne of the subjects involved in the study, as this will affect the product's performance in three days. Also it is not known whether this degree and type of acne is the same in all subjects. The CCC further discussed that the survey results consist of self-evaluation responses recorded using a CAWI methodology. There was no dermatologist present to observe the effects of the product after its application. Based on this assessment, the CCC concluded that the claims, “72 hrs moisturization*”, and “Reduces Acne Marks & Blemishes” [Pack claim and Ad claim], 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.