Central Consumer Protection Authority Fines Vision IAS ₹11 Lakh For 'Misleading Ads' On UPSC Civil Services Exam Results

The Central Consumer Protection Authority has fined coaching institute Vision IAS (AjayVision Education Private Limited) Rs 11 Lakh for publishing "misleading advertisements" on its website wherein it is stated to have made certain claims with respect to the UPSC Civil Services Examination (CSE) results.

The authority had initiated a suo-moto case against Vision IAS with regard to alleged misleading advertisements on its official website (www.visionias.in) on which the following claims were made:

i. "7 in Top 10 & 79 in Top 100 SELECTIONS IN CSE 2023"

ii. "39 in Top 50 SELECTIONS IN CSE 2022"

The authority in its order noted that the institute had "concealed important information" regarding specific courses opted by the successful candidates from the institute. The institute is stated to be offering–Foundation Course, GTB Classroom Programme, Regular Batch 2025, Offline and Online Courses, including GS Foundation Course, Prelims cum Mains, NCERT GS Foundation Course (Prelims + Mains).

After considering the submissions, the authority in its order said:

"The CCPA after carefully considering the written submissions, the submissions made by the opposite party during the hearings and the investigation report submitted by Director General (Investigation) finds that the opposite party in total claimed 119+ candidates in UPSC CSE 2022 and 2023. Out of which only 3 candidates took foundation courses and remaining 116 students opted for Test Series for Preliminary 12 & Mains, Abhyaas test (one time test) and Mock Interview. Therefore, the impugned advertisement on their official website featuring successful candidate's names and pictures with tall claims is misleading and by projecting above mentioned claim without their proper authorization or consent, the opposite party misled prospective students. Such conduct has the effect of inducing students to enroll in the opposite party's programmes on the basis of false, inflated and unverified claims"

It further observed that "despite ample opportunities" the institute had "failed to submit the enrolment forms and consent forms of the successful candidates" whose names and pictures were used in its advertisement. It noted that the institute had furnished copies of fee receipts which are inadequate to establish any authorisation from the successful candidates.

"The failure to produce consent documents coupled with the continued use of the names and photographs of successful candidates, clearly demonstrates deliberate concealment of material facts and unauthorised attribution of success, thereby falling within the definition of a "misleading advertisement" under Section 2(28) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019...The omission of course details on the website, despite their disclosure in newspapers which is limited to a day or two, clearly indicates a deliberate and mala fide intention to conceal important information from consumers, thereby projecting tall claims in the impugned advertisement on its website relating to UPSC CSE 2022 and 2023. Such selective disclosure strengthens the inference that the opposite party intentionally withheld crucial facts on its widely accessible digital platforms to mislead prospective aspirants under false pretenses," the authority held.

CCPA had issued notice to the institute and granted opportunity to furnish a response within 15 days. The institute in its response stated that it had displayed the name of student, rank secured and course opted by such candidates in advertisements in newspapers. Further the advertisement published on the official website of Vision IAS, contains the webpage that has a limitation of creative size and is to be designed with some creativity and needs to cover more content in a single web page in order to give the complete details of a programme.

"In view of the above, the CCPA examined the opposite party's reply dated 19.06.2024 and found that most of the successful candidates showcased in the impugned advertisement on their website had only taken Interview Guidance Programme and Test Series for Preliminary and Mains stage of the UPSC CSE," the order states.

The order notes that in its advertisement, institute had mentioned the course opted by one candidate who is stated to have secured AIR- 1 of 2020 along with his photo and name. However, course opted by five other candidates was concealed in the advertisement on the webpage.

After conducting a detailed investigation and after considering the institute's response the CCPA in its order said:

"It may be noted that in advertisements pertaining to coaching services, particularly those relating to competitive examinations such as the UPSC Civil Services Examination, disclosure of material particulars concerning the nature of association between the institute and the successful candidates is of critical importance. Such material particulars, inter alia, include the specific course programme opted by successful candidates, duration for which such course was attended, and the fees paid for the said course...Non-disclosure of such information creates confusing & misleading impression that the successful candidates were comprehensively trained by the institute across all stages of the examination, including preliminary, mains, and interview stages, which may not be factually correct".

Taking note of various news reports that approximately 10-11 lakhs aspirants appear for the exam every year, the CCPA said that it was essential for the institute to provide details of specific course opted/duration of course/fees etc. on its impugned advertisement while claiming the success of successful candidates. It said,

"In the present case, course opted by successful candidates is an important information for the potential consumer i.e. UPSC aspirants. This concealment of important details has affected the ability of potential students (consumers) to make an informed choice about which courses to enroll in and at what stage of their preparation of Civil Service Examination...These facts are important for the potential students to decide on the courses that may be suitable for them and should not have been concealed in the impugned advertisement on their official website. The effect of which is violation of Consumer rights u/s 2(9) of the Act".

It noted that the institute had mentioned the specific course opted by one candidate who secured AIR 1- UPSC CSE 2020 who was enrolled as a GS Foundation Batch Classroom Student but it deliberately concealed information regarding the courses chosen by other successful candidates whose names & pictures were shown along with this candidate on their webpage.

"This concealment created misleading impression that all the remaining candidates were also enrolled in the 'GS Foundation Batch Classroom Student' course which was not true. Additionally, opposite party in the same advertisement advertised very prominently their "Foundation Course" which costs in lakhs. In the present case, the opposite party used the names and pictures of successful candidates on its website. However, opposite party failed to furnish any enrollment form and consent form of such candidates for the use of their names and pictures on its website. This conduct of the opposite party is in violation of Clause 12(c) of the Guidelines for Prevention of Misleading Advertisements and Endorsements for Misleading Advertisements, 2022"

It further rejected the authority's contention regarding limited space on its website, calling it factually incorrect but also "unacceptable as a justification for the failure to disclose material information".

Noting that the institute provides both online and offline coaching services, has 14 centres in 9 cities across, and that each year approximately 11,00,000 aspirants apply for the UPSC Civil Services Examination, and further noting that the authority had already passed an earlier order dated January 22 against institute concerning misleading claims related to UPSC CSE 2020 results, the CCPA said:

"Similar violation was established in the case of the opposite party in the immediately preceding year. Despite being expressly placed on notice regarding misleading advertisements, the opposite party continued to publish fresh misleading advertisements on their official website without correction or exercise of restraint. This conduct clearly indicates a continued pattern of non-compliance and reflects an "intention" to persist with the misleading practice even after the violations has been established...In light of the nature of the violations detailed in the foregoing paragraphs, it is necessary (as discussed in above paras) that the opposite party is directed to Pay a penalty of 11,00,000 for subsequent contravention with respect to publishing misleading advertisement on their official website".

The CCPA also directed the institute to desist from further publication of misleading advertisement and make truthful and complete disclosures in future, and submit a compliance report of the CCPA's directions within 15 days.

Case title: In the matter of: Misleading advertisement by Vision IAS (AjayVision Education Private Limited)

Click Here To Read/Download Order