How to file a complaint for Fraudulent Advertisements


Overview: With brands dependence on advertisements for pushing revenues, it happens often that we come across advertisements which may not be truthful in their depiction. Ads work as links between sellers and consumers and are usually a mouthpiece for the company. They have not restricted only to television anymore and have expanded reach over the mobile phone, internet, newspapers, billboards, train stations etc.

 

Due to intense competition between brands, companies may indulge in the malpractice where they out fraudulent and misleading advertisements to win over consumers. This has consequences to the effect that it may not only mislead consumers leading them to buy the product on a false pretext but also eat away into the competitor's profits in the process.    

 

Purpose: To ensure that there is a legal and regulatory framework to address the problem of fraud and misleading advertisements. Persons/companies indulging in such practices should not be allowed to get away with it. Under the Indian law, an aggrieved person can approach the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI), a specialized body set up to address the problem of fraudulent advertisements.   

 

Areas of Application of Law: Guidelines and code of advertising practice under the Advertising Standards Council of India.

 

Process: Below is the step by step process for filing a complaint about fraud/misleading advertisements:

 

  1. To begin with engage a lawyer who will understand your situation as an aggrieved person/company and how the fraudulent advertisement would hold consequences for you.
  2. The lawyer will send a legal notice to the person/company running the alleged misleading advertisement in which he will bring to their attention its negative effect on the complainant and make a claim for damages in money.
  3. On failure to receive a reply, either written or through mail, the complainant through his lawyer will approach ASCI.
  4. The complaint will be addressed to the Secretary General, the Advertising Standards Council of India, Mumbai. It can also be filed online at www.ascionline.org.
  5. It will consist of details including reasons for the advertisement being dishonest/misleading/fraud and its effect on the complainant and the viewers at large.
  6. On receipt of a complaint, the consumer complaints council which consists of 12 members including doctors, lawyers, journalists, academicians, consumer activists, etc. requests the advertiser or agency to provide comments regarding the advertisement in question.
  7. The parties will then be given a chance to explain their stand for which they will be given a personal hearing.
  8. After this, the complaint council will decide on whether the advertisement is, in fact, fraudulent/dishonest/misleading or not, usually within a period of 4 to 6 weeks. Their decision is final.
  9. If the complaint is upheld, ASCI will issue directions including pulling down the advertisement immediately or within a certain time frame, allowing the ad to be aired after modifying it, and/or payment of compensation to the complainant- depending on the quantum of loss caused.
  10. An appeal from the decision of the ASCI can be brought through a civil suit at the respective state high court. Similarly, an appeal from that decision will be made at the Supreme Court.

Documents required to be submitted, if any: The complainant must share the following documents with the lawyer:

1.    Original copy of the advertisement

2.    Statements showing its impact on his company- profit and loss, balance sheet.

3.    Documents showing misleading effects of advertisement on consumer.

 

Punishment/Expected Relief: ASCI, depending on each case may order the ad to be pulled down immediately, its modification, and/or provide compensation to the complainant for loss suffered by him.

 

Landmark Judgments:

1. The Supreme court came to a conclusion that comparative ads, namely of Colgate and Pepsodent were not disparaging or making false claims against each others’ brands. : Hindustan Lever Ltd vs Colgate Palmolive ( https://indiankanoon.org/doc/226414/) 

2. Karnataka high court granted an injunction restraining Pentair Water India defendant from disparaging either UV water purifiers in general or the plaintiffs product, Aquaguard in particular: Eureka Forbes Ltd., A Company vs Pentair Water India Pvt. Ltd (https://indiankanoon.org/doc/136720/) 

User Comments


×

C2RMTo Know More

Something Awesome Is In The Work

0

DAYS

0

HOURS

0

MINUTES

0

SECONDS

Sign-up and we will notify you of our launch.
We’ll also give some discount for your effort :)

* We won’t use your email for spam, just to notify you of our launch.
×

SAARTHTo Know More

Launching Soon : SAARTH, your complete client, case, practise & document management SAAS application with direct client chat feature.

If you want to know more give us a Call at :+91 98109 29455 or Mail info@soolegal.com