MAM
CCPA and ASCI join hands to strengthen Advertising Regulation in India
Mumbai: The Department of Consumer Affairs (DoCA) and The Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) both operate with a mutual goal of protecting consumer interests. This objective is central to the missions of both ASCI and the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) when it comes to the issue of misleading advertisements.
It is noteworthy that ASCI’s code and associated guidelines in the area of advertising are harmonious with several guidelines enforced by the Central Consumer Protection
Authority. These encompass guidelines concerning misleading advertisements, dark
patterns, influencer guidelines, coaching institutes, greenwashing and more. In light of this alignment, the CCPA has recognized that any violation of ASCI’s code pertaining to misleading advertisements may potentially contravene the Consumer Protection Act of 2019 and its related guidelines.
Therefore, the CCPA has requested ASCI to forward any advertisement that is non-compliant with the ASCI Code and could potentially violate the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, along with its accompanying guidelines, to CCPA for appropriate action. Any such case escalated by ASCI concerning misleading advertisements will be promptly addressed and handled in strict accordance with the Consumer Protection Act 2019 by the CCPA.
This collaboration comes amidst the growing complexity of the advertising landscape, especially with respect to digital advertising. Commenting on this development, Shri Rohit Kumar Singh, Secretary DoCA said, “The alignment between ASCI’s code and CCPA’s guidelines highlights a collective effort towards promoting transparency and fairness in advertising. With similar objectives, CCPA and ASCI can work in complementary ways to ensure that any infringements are addressed effectively. New challenges are being created by digital advertising, and keeping pace demands a collaborative approach with like-minded bodies. Regulators working closely with self-regulators is an established best practice, and we hope that with this partnership, the regulation of Indian advertising keeps getting more effective. Where voluntary compliance with the CCPA guidelines is not forthcoming, or in the case of repeat offenders, the CCPA has the power to impose fines and penalties. We will not shy away from enforcing the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act as needed.”
ASCI CEO and secretary-general Manisha Kapoor said, “We have been working closely with DoCA and CCPA on several issues, and we are truly delighted to deepen this relationship. ASCI has deep expertise and specialization in advertising regulation and we thank CCPA and DoCA for their trust and their collaborative approach. A robust self-regulatory system helps all stakeholders and this partnership is a positive step in taking self-regulation to the next level.”
DoCA and ASCI have, in recent times, held joint consultations and collaborations on several issues surrounding advertising such as Influencer Guidelines, Greenwashing, Dark Patterns and Surrogate Advertising, creating greater dialogue and alignment between industry, civil society and regulators. Advertising self-regulators around the world work closely with governments in models of co-regulation in formal and informal ways. Given the complex nature of advertising today and the borderless nature of the online space, issues like disguised advertising, deepfakes and scams are coming to the fore, such partnerships gain significance in effective advertising regulation.
Brands
Maharashtra panel orders Lodha to refund Rs 5 crore to homebuyers
Consumer court flags unfair practices in long-running property dispute case
MUMBAI: In a sharp rebuke to one of India’s biggest real estate players, the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed Macrotech Developers to refund nearly Rs 5 crore to a senior citizen couple, Uttam and Anindita Chatterjee. The ruling, delivered on March 13, 2026, calls out the developer for “deficiency in service” and “unfair trade practices”, bringing closure to a dispute that has stretched over a decade.
The case traces back to 2015, when the couple booked a 3-BHK flat at World Towers in Lower Parel for Rs 12.22 crore, with possession promised within a year. What followed was a series of changes that complicated matters. After deciding to exit the project, they were persuaded to shift to a 4-BHK in another development priced at Rs 8 crore, with delivery scheduled for 2018. However, within months, the price was allegedly increased to Rs 10 crore. After demonetisation reshaped the market, similar flats were reportedly being offered at lower prices, but the couple were not given the benefit.
Despite paying over Rs 2.83 crore, the couple neither received possession nor clarity. Instead, in 2018, the developer unilaterally cancelled the booking, retained part of the amount as earnest money, and argued that the buyers were investors rather than consumers. The commission rejected this claim, observing that casual references to “investment” do not take away consumer rights when the purchase intent is residential.
The bench also held that the developer could not penalise buyers for payment delays while failing to meet its own delivery commitments. It noted the lack of formal documentation for revised terms and termed the prolonged retention of funds without delivering a home as exploitative.
As part of its order, the commission directed the developer to refund Rs 2.83 crore paid by the couple, along with interest at 10 per cent per annum, amounting to around Rs 2.12 crore. In addition, Rs 1 lakh has been awarded for mental agony and Rs 50,000 towards litigation costs, taking the total payout to over Rs 5 crore. The developer has been asked to comply within two months.
For now, the ruling serves as a reminder that in real estate, shifting terms and delayed promises can carry a significant cost.
