Coaching Ads Misleading if Using Non-Enrolled Students Data Without Disclosure: CCPA

In re Motion Education Pvt. Ltd. (CCPA Delhi)

The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) initiated suo motu proceedings against Motion Education Pvt. Ltd. concerning alleged misleading advertisements published across its official website, social media platforms, and a newspaper dated 17.06.2025. The advertisements claimed high success rates in competitive examinations such as NEET and JEE, including specific percentages of qualified students and top-ranking achievements.

Upon preliminary inquiry, the CCPA observed that the institute prominently displayed names and photographs of successful candidates while simultaneously promoting various paid coaching programmes. However, the advertisements did not disclose critical details such as the specific courses undertaken by these students. The authority highlighted that under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and the 2022 Guidelines on misleading advertisements, all claims must be truthful, substantiated, and not omit material information.

Despite being issued notice and granted multiple opportunities, the institute delayed its response and later submitted documents claiming that the advertisements were factually accurate and supported by internal records. However, upon examination, the CCPA found that most featured students were enrolled in an “I-Eklavya (Online)” course, the nature and details of which were not adequately disclosed or even available on the institute’s website. Additionally, the institute failed to provide essential documents such as fee receipts and comprehensive student data.

The investigation conducted by the Director General (Investigation) revealed several irregularities. The institute did not cooperate fully and failed to submit required documents. It was found that many students shown in advertisements were not actual students but had only shared their details for an award initiative. In some cases, consent from students or parents was not obtained before using their names and photographs. Further discrepancies included unsigned declaration forms, lack of clarity on free or subsidised courses, and inconsistencies in enrolment records—such as students being enrolled after examination dates or on the date of result declaration.

The investigation also established that the institute concealed crucial information regarding the nature, duration, and cost of courses taken by successful candidates. This omission created a misleading impression that students achieved success through the institute’s advertised paid programmes. The authority noted that such practices deprived consumers, particularly students and parents, of accurate information necessary to make informed decisions.

The institute argued that any omissions were due to space constraints and that certain claims were merely marketing statements with disclaimers. However, the CCPA found no adequate disclaimers in the advertisements and rejected these arguments. It further held that disclaimers cannot contradict or neutralise misleading claims.

The CCPA concluded that the advertisements were misleading under Section 2(28) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as they falsely described services, lacked substantiation, and deliberately concealed important information. The conduct also constituted an unfair trade practice under Section 2(47), as it misrepresented the quality and effectiveness of services to attract consumers.

Considering the wide reach of the institute and the large number of students impacted, the CCPA issued directions to immediately discontinue the misleading advertisements, refrain from future violations, and ensure truthful disclosures in advertisements. Additionally, a penalty of ₹10,00,000 was imposed, along with a requirement to submit a compliance report within 15 days.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CENTRAL CONSUMER PROTECTION AUTHORITY

1. This is a suo-moto case taken up by the Central Consumer Protection Authority (hereinafter referred as `CCPA’) against Motion Education Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred as ‘opposite party’) with regard to alleged misleading advertisements on its official platforms including official website (www.motion.ac.in), Instagram, YouTube and Newspaper (Dainik Jagran dated 17.06.2025). The following claims were made in the advertisement —

i. “NEET Result 2025 Motion % of Qualified students 6972/7645 = 91.2 %”

ii. “NEET Result 2025- 19 in Top 500 All India Rank (General & OBC) & 7 of our students have secured All India Rank under 100”

iii. “JEE Advance Result 2025 Motion’s % of qualified students in JEE advanced 3231/6332 = 51.02%”

iv. “JEE (Mains) 65.8% 6930/10532”

2. Taking cognizance of the issue, the CCPA in exercise of power conferred under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) conducted a preliminary inquiry to examine authenticity of the claims in the impugned advertisement made by the opposite party.

3. As per the preliminary inquiry report, CCPA prima facie observed that opposite party had published above mentioned claims and prominently featured the names and pictures of successful candidates of the JEE Mains, JEE Advanced 2025 and NEET UG 2025. Opposite party simultaneously also advertised various types of courses offered by it namely: “Full time classroom programme, Residential Programme, Nurture Batch, Enthuse Batch, Dropper/leader batch”.

4. It is relevant to state that the CCPA is established under Section 10 of the Act for the purpose of regulating matters relating to violation of consumer rights, unfair trade practices and false or misleading advertisements which are prejudicial to the interests of consumers as a class. Further, Section 18 read with Section 9 of the Act also empowers the CCPA to ensure transparency, accuracy and full disclosure in advertisements, and to protect the right of consumers to be informed, so as to enable them to make informed choices. The said provisions confer jurisdiction upon the CCPA to examine, inquire into and take action against misleading advertisements issued by service providers, including coaching institutes.

5. As per the Guidelines for Prevention of Misleading Advertisements and Endorsements for Misleading Advertisements, 2022, Clause 4 mandates that any claim made in an advertisement must be truthful and should not mislead consumers with unsubstantiated claims. Additionally, Clause 12 places a duty on service providers and advertisers to ensure that claims related to objectively verifiable facts are capable of substantiation and to produce such evidence if required by the CCPA, without exaggerating the accuracy, performance, or service of the product.

6. Accordingly, the CCPA issued a notice dated 11.07.2025 to the opposite party for alleged violation of the provisions of the Act, highlighting the issue of alleged misleading advertisements via concealing important information, i.e., the specific courses opted for by the successful candidates and making tall claims with respect to JEE Main, JEE Advanced 2025 and NEET UG 2025.

7. The opposite party was granted an opportunity to furnish a response within 15 days from the date of issuance of the notice and was directed to submit the following documents to substantiate its claims:

i. Detail of students as claimed by opposite party in its claims/advertisement.

ii. Type of course attended by such student.

iii. Date of joining of each such student.

iv. Duration of the course attended by such student.

v. Fees paid along with the copies of receipt.

vi. Requisite data/evidence to substantiate all the impugned claims.

8. The opposite party, vide its communications dated 13.08.2025 & 11.09.2025, sought extensions of time to file a detailed reply to the Notice on the grounds of administrative constraints, including the ongoing admissions season and relocation of its office records.

9. Considering the requests made, the CCPA, in the interest of natural justice, granted extensions and issued a reminder dated 26.08.2025, followed by a further communication dated 22.09.2025 granting an additional period to the opposite party to submit its detailed response.

10. It is thus evident that the CCPA has afforded sufficient and reasonable opportunities to the opposite party to submit its response and substantiate the claims made in the impugned advertisements.

11. Thereafter, opposite party vide letter dated 02.10.2025 filed its reply wherein it submitted the following:-

i. That the Notice referred to five advertisements in paragraph 7 along with four additional advertisements annexed thereto, and accordingly, a total of nine (09) advertisements were under consideration. The opposite party stated that it had prepared separate sets of documents for each of the said advertisements.

ii. That each document set comprised: (a) a copy of the concerned advertisement; (b) a list of students featured therein along with their particulars such as name, roll number and rank; and (c) supporting documents including provisional admission forms and registration forms containing details such as programme enrolled, session, date of admission and other relevant particulars.

iii. That for each advertisement, the details of the students were arranged systematically, and supporting documents in respect of each student were annexed to substantiate the claims made in the respective advertisements.

iv. Opposite party asserted that all the impugned advertisements were factually correct and duly supported by authentic records maintained in the ordinary course of its business.

v. It denied any violation of consumer rights as defined under Section 2(9) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and further denied that the impugned advertisements fall within the ambit of “misleading advertisement” under Section 2(28) of the Act.

vi. Opposite party submitted that no false or unsubstantiated claims had been made and, therefore, no action is warranted against it under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

12. The CCPA examined the documents submitted by the opposite party and observed that the majority of candidates featured in the advertisements enrolled in the “I-Eklavya online course”. The institute in its reply failed to disclose the nature and scope of this course. No information regarding this course is available on the institute’s website. Further, opposite party provided only a few enrollment forms and did not furnished other requisite information such as fee receipts. Opposite party failed to address the important issue of concealment of key information regarding the specific courses undertaken by the successful candidates featured in the impugned advertisements.

13. Thereafter, CCPA observed that the institute continues to publish the impugned advertisements on its official platforms, including its website, while concealing crucial information regarding the specific courses opted for by the successful candidates.

14. It may be mentioned that on 13th November 2024, CCPA had issued Guidelines for Prevention of Misleading Advertisement in Coaching Sector, 2024 in order to prevent coaching centers from making false or misleading claims/advertisements to promote the sale of goods or service and engage in deceptive or unfair practices.

15. It is important to mention that Clause 3 & 4 of above-mentioned Guidelines provides “Conditions for Misleading Advertisement” and “Obligations of every person engaged in coaching” respectively, which include making false claims regarding number of selection, rank in exam or success rate, falsely represents that the services are of a particular standard or quality. The said Guidelines mandate to disclose rank secured by successful candidate, name of course opted by successful candidate, duration of course opted by successful candidate and any other important information prominently and the font of disclaimer and important information in the advertisement shall be the same as that used in the claim. Institute appears to be violating the said provision by making the impugned claims and simultaneously using successful candidates’ names & pictures without disclosing course opted by them.

16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the reply submitted by the opposite party, the CCPA was satisfied that a prima facie case of misleading advertisement under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 existed. Accordingly, vide letter dated 13.10.2025, the CCPA requested the Director General (Investigation) to conduct a detailed investigation into the matter.

17. Thereafter, DG (Investigation) directed the opposite party to submit following relevant documentary evidence before the Investigating Authority, in connection with the ongoing proceedings:

i. The total number of students enrolled for the academic years 2023-2024 and 2024-2025.

ii. Details regarding the courses offered by the Institute.

iii. Absence of certain student and parent declaration, indicating that no consent had been obtained.

iv. The eligibility criteria adopted for awarding scholarships and for granting free-of-charge education to a large number of students.

v. The official NEET 2025 result list, duly highlighting the names of students claimed in the Institute’s advertisements.

18. However, no response was received from the opposite party.

19. The Director General (Investigation) in its investigation report dated 12.02.2026 submitted the following:

i. The Investigation Wing, in furtherance of the ongoing investigation, sought information and relevant documents from the Institute. However, the Institute failed to provide any documentary evidence substantiating its claim, despite issuance of a final reminder. This conduct indicates a lack of cooperation in the investigation and reflects non-compliance with statutory obligations.

ii. During the investigation, it was observed that in certain student records (for example, Ramit Goyal and Ritesh Meena) the student and parent declaration form, though printed as part of the application form, were not signed. The absence of signatures indicates that no formal consent was obtained from the concerned students and/or their parents.

iii. The investigation further revealed that in majority of the student forms, the fees were mentioned as “NIL / FOC” and the Institute failed to specify the criteria or policy adopted for granting free-of-charge education to such students, particularly those who secured high ranks.

iv. Additionally, it was noted that a majority of the students featured in the advertisements were enrolled in the “I-EKLAVYA (ONLINE)” course. However, the institute has failed to disclose the nature and scope of this course and the said course is neither reflected nor advertised on the Institute’s official website.

v. The Investigation Wing contacted several students and their parents during the course of the investigation. It was observed that some parents were apprehensive about sharing information. Upon verification, it was found that several students who were publicly advertised as students of Motion Institute were not, in fact, enrolled with the Institute. These students had submitted their details pursuant to an invitation issued by the Institute seeking nominations of high ranking students for an award.

vi. It was further revealed that, in connection with the said award activity, the Institute had offered a free test series to students and collected their personal information. However, the Institute had neither obtained consent from the students nor from their parents before publishing the students’ names and photographs on its website, portraying them as students of the Institute.

vii. The parents also revealed that while the face appearing in the photograph on the website is that of their children, the body depicted in the image does not belong to them.

viii. Even after initiation of the inquiry, the Institute continues to publish impugned advertisements on its official platforms, while still concealing crucial information regarding the specific courses opted for by the successful candidates.

ix. In India, over 11 lakh students apply for IIT- JEE and 15-20 lakhs apply for NEET exam annually and with such intense competition, students from all over India rely on coaching institutes for guidance. Coaching institutes attract potential aspirants through advertisements on various platforms. However, concerns arise when such claims/advertisements are without full disclosure. Motion Education Pvt. Ltd. leverage advertising to attract consumers, making bold claims that appeal to the minor students.

x. The investigation reveals that the Institute prominently advertised the results of successful students while deliberately concealing material information regarding the specific courses opted by them. This omission deprived prospective students of accurate and complete information necessary to make an informed choice and, consequently, amounts to a violation of consumer rights under Section 2(9) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

xi. Such representations raise serious concerns and mislead students and parents regarding the Institute’s performance and success rate, amounting to a violation under section 2(28) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The same constitutes an unfair trade practice under Section 2(47) as they exploit the trust and aspirations of students who invest their time and resources based on such claims.

xii. Furthermore, Clauses 3 and 4 of the Guidelines for Prevention of Misleading Advertisement in Coaching Sector, 2024 require every coaching provider to disclose essential details-such as rank, course name and duration, and whether the course was paid-when using a candidate’s photograph in advertisements. Motion Education Pvt. Ltd. violated these obligations by deliberately concealing material information about the specific courses opted by successful candidates, thereby engaging in misleading advertisement.

xiii. Additionally, the Institute’s conduct is in violation of Clauses 4 and 12 of the Guidelines for Prevention of Misleading Advertisements and Endorsements for Misleading Advertisements, 2022 as its advertisements exaggerate the accuracy of the students’ achievements and make claims which likely to mislead consumers regarding the institute’s performance, thereby failing duties of service provider or advertiser to ensure truthful and honest representation. In view of the above, as per the investigation conducted, a case relating to the violations of abovementioned provisions and under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 stands established.

20. The Investigation Report submitted by DG (Investigation) was shared with the opposite party vide letter dated 17.02.2026 to furnish its comments.

21. Thereafter, hearing was scheduled on 05.03.2026 during which Mr. Ankit Lahoty and Mr. Saahil Kumar, appeared on behalf of the opposite party, sought adjournment and additional time to submit comments on the DG (Inv.) Report. The CCPA considered the request and granted the opposite party additional time to file its comments on the DG (Inv.) Report.

22. Thereafter, an opportunity of hearing was provided to the opposite party on 10.03.2026. The opposite party was represented by Mr. Ankit Lahoty and Mr. Saahil Kumar and made the following submissions:

i. They submitted that the opposite party had already furnished a reply to the notice issued by CCPA, along with supporting documents, in respect of the students whose names and photographs were used in the impugned advertisement.

ii. They further submitted that the communication dated 17.02.2026 issued by CCPA, seeking comments on the report of the DG (Investigation), was missed by them.

iii. With respect to the claim ___________ they submitted that the same was never intended to imply a guarantee of 100% selection upon joining the institute, They stated that the claim was merely a part of branding and marketing. It was further submitted that the advertisement contains a disclaimer clarifying that no guarantee of 100% selection is provided.

iv. They further submitted that, upon the issue being pointed out by CCPA, the opposite party has discontinued the aforesaid claim. They also expressed their willingness to make any further modifications as may be directed by the Authority.

v. With regard to the alleged concealment of the course name in the impugned advertisement, they submitted that due to space constraints, detailed course information could not be included in the advertisement.

vi. With respect to the absence of fee receipts and the mention of free courses in the enrolment forms of successful candidates, they submitted that the opposite party identifies meritorious and talented students and offers them free courses. It was stated that such students generally avail online courses and are not enrolled in the offline classroom programme. The institute conducts tests to identify such students and grants scholarships up to 100%.

vii. The opposite party again sought additional time to file its comments on the DG (Investigation) report.

23. In view of the above, CCPA during the aforementioned hearing and vide email dated 11.03.2026, granted one week’s time to the opposite party to submit its comments on the DG (Investigation) report or any written submissions in the present case.

24. Thereafter, CCPA received mails dated 17.03.2026 and 21.03.2026 from the opposite party wherein following submissions were made:-

i. Please find the attached sheet for your kind reference. It contains certain information requested from our end. In light of the foregoing submissions, it is respectfully submitted that the essential ingredients of a “misleading advertisement” as defined under Section 2(28) of the Act are not attracted in the present case. There has been no false representation or fabrication of data. The requirements of substantiation under the 2022 Guidelines stand fully complied with. No unfair trade practice has been established, nor has any consumer prejudice or demonstrable harm been shown.

ii. Without prejudice to the foregoing, it is respectfully submitted that any concerned observation, if at all, may kindly be viewed as pertaining to a technical or procedural aspect of format or presentation, rather than any substantive violation of the law. In light of the full compliance demonstrated and the absence of any consumer harm, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Authority may be pleased to close the present proceedings

25. It may be mentioned that Section- 2(28) of the Act defines “misleading advertisement” in relation to any product or service means an advertisement, which—

i. falsely describes such product or service; or

ii. gives a false guarantee to, or is likely to mislead the consumers as to the nature, substance, quantity or quality of such product or service; or

iii. conveys an express or implied representation which, if made by the manufacturer or seller or service provider thereof, would constitute an unfair trade practice; or

iv. Deliberately conceals important information.

26. The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, defines “misleading advertisements” under Section 2(28) of the Act. Further, the Act confers upon consumers the right to be informed, which includes the right to receive truthful and accurate information enabling them to make informed choices. Misleading advertisements undermine this right and adversely affect consumer interest, particularly in the field of education where aspirants invest significant time, effort, and financial resources.

27. It may be noted that what constitutes “important information” in an advertisement varies on a case-to-case basis and must be assessed from the consumer’s perspective. In the present case, specific course opted by successful candidates is an important information for the potential consumer i.e. IIT JEE & NEET aspirants. Reason being this will directly influence the perception of prospective aspirants regarding the efficacy, scope, and quality of the services offered by the Institute. Non-disclosure of such information creates misleading impression that the successful candidates.

28. The documents submitted by the opposite party along with its email dated 17.03.2026 and 21.03.2026, including the scholarship criteria and student data sheet, have been examined. While the scholarship criteria indicates the existence of an internal policy for grant of fee waivers and free courses to meritorious students, and the student data sheet reflects enrolment of certain candidates in various courses including “I-Eklavya (Online)”, these documents do not address the core issue under consideration.

29. The opposite party has failed to demonstrate that such material information, including the nature of the course, duration, and whether the course was paid or free, was concealed in the impugned advertisements. Further, the documents do not rebut the findings of the DG (Inv.) regarding lack of consent from the students. Accordingly, the submissions made by the opposite party do not substantiate its claims.

30. It is important to note that based on the student data sheet submitted by the opposite party, the course-wise distribution of students is as follows:

31. The course-wise data submitted by the opposite party reveals that a majority of the students featured in the impugned advertisements were enrolled in the “I-Eklavya (Online)” course. During the course of investigation as well as at the stage of hearing, the opposite party was specifically called upon by the Director General (Investigation) and this Authority to furnish details regarding the nature, duration, and type of the said courses. However, the opposite party failed to reply before the DG (Investigation), and no satisfactory clarification was provided during the hearing. It was merely stated that such courses are conducted throughout the year.

32. CCPA observed that opposite party’s website describes “I-Eklavya” course as a premier rankers’ batch for JEE and NEET aspirants, offered in both online and offline formats, and provided free of cost to selected students through a rigorous test and interview process. Similarly, with regard to “CPS (Conceptual Problem Sheet)”, it has been stated that the course is intended to provide sub-topic-wise practice to improve performance in competitive examinations. Further, in one instance concerning a student associated with the “Saarathi” programme, the enrolment record reflects participation in a One Year Classroom Programme.

33. CCPA further observed that, in the newspaper advertisement (*Dainik Jagran* dated 17.06.2025), the opposite party prominently displayed the names and photographs of successful candidates along with tall claims regarding results, while simultaneously advertising its paid courses, namely “Full Time Classroom Programme”, “Residential Programme”, “Nurture Batch”, “Enthuse Batch” and “Dropper/Leader Batch”. The opposite party is promoting these courses through such advertisements and inviting students to enrol in them at its institute. Such a practice creates a misleading impression that the success of the featured candidates is attributable to these paid programmes, without disclosing the actual courses undertaken by them. The concealment of the specific courses opted by the successful students, coupled with such promotional strategy, amounts to a misleading advertisement under Section 2(28) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and constitutes an unfair trade practice under Section 2(47) of the Act.

34. It is important to note that specific course opted by the successful candidates, its nature (whether online or offline), duration, and whether the course was paid or free of cost, was not disclosed in the impugned advertisements. The omission of this crucial information deprived prospective consumers, particularly minor students and their parents, of the ability to make an informed choice, and thereby renders the advertisements misleading in nature.

35. Upon examination of the documents submitted by the opposite party, the CCPA has further observed certain material inconsistencies which raise serious concerns regarding the authenticity of the claims made in the impugned advertisements and the documents submitted by the opposite party.

i. In the case of Mr. Maulik Jain (AIR-52, JEE Advanced 2025), the enrolment form submitted by the opposite party indicates that the date of enrolment is 27.05.2025, whereas the JEE Advanced 2025 examination was conducted on 18.05.2025. It is, therefore, evident that the said student was enrolled with the opposite party subsequent to the conduct of the examination. In such circumstances, portraying the said student as a successful candidate attributable to the opposite party in its advertisement for JEE Advanced 2025 is misleading and lacks factual basis.

ii. Similarly, in the case of Mr. Arush Anand (AIR-64, JEE Advanced 2025), it is observed that the JEE Advanced 2025 examination was conducted on 18.05.2025 and the result was declared on 02.06.2025. As per the records submitted by the opposite party, the said student was enrolled on the very same date, i.e., 02.06.2025. The enrolment of the student on the date of declaration of results, and his inclusion in the advertisement as a student of the opposite party for the said examination, clearly indicates misrepresentation.

iii. In the case of Ms. Nivedita Gupta (AIR-149, NEET 2025), it has been observed that while the enrolment form bears the date 15.12.2024, the photograph affixed on the said form carries a later date of 09.02.2025. The presence of a photograph bearing a subsequent date raises doubts regarding the genuineness of the enrolment records.

iv. A similar discrepancy has been noted in the case of Mr. Md. Arshan (AIR-108, NEET 2025), wherein the enrolment date is recorded as 19.10.2024, whereas the photograph affixed on the enrolment form bears the date 01.01.2025.

v. Likewise, in the case of Mr. Tanmaiy Tejus (AIR-116, NEET 2025), the enrolment date is stated to be 15.12.2024, whereas the photograph affixed on the enrolment form reflects a later date of 14.02.2025.

36. The aforesaid discrepancies in the enrolment records and supporting documents submitted by the opposite party indicate lack of authenticity and reliability of the material relied upon to substantiate the claims made in the impugned advertisements. The inclusion of candidates who were enrolled after the examination was held, as well as inconsistencies in documentary evidence, establish that the opposite party has made representations which are misleading in nature and have the tendency to deceive consumers.

37. Opposite party published following claims on its official platforms including official website (www.motion.ac.in), Instagram, YouTube and Newspaper (Dainik Jagran dated 17.06.2025):-

i. “NEET Result 2025 Motion % of Qualified students 6972/7645 = 91.2 %”

ii. “NEET Result 2025- 19 in Top 500 All India Rank (General & OBC) & 7 of our students have secured All India Rank under 100”

iii. “JEE Advance Result 2025 Motion’s % of qualified students in JEE advanced 3231/6332 = 51.02%”

iv. “JEE (Mains) 65.8% 6930/10532”

38. However, the opposite party has failed to substantiate the aforesaid claims. Despite making tall assertions such as “NEET Result 2025 Motion % of Qualified students 6972/7645 = 91.2%” and other similar claims, the opposite party did not furnish the complete list of students corresponding to such claims, nor did it disclose the specific courses undertaken by those students. Further, no fee receipts or other requisite documentary evidence were provided to substantiate the claims made in the impugned advertisements, despite repeated opportunities and specific directions issued by the CCPA from the initial stage of the proceedings.

39. The submission of the opposite party during the hearing dated 10.03.2026 that the claim “Ail1 c izlacwm t” was merely a part of branding and marketing, and that the advertisement contained a disclaimer clarifying that no guarantee of 100% selection is provided, is not tenable. Upon examination of the impugned advertisements, the CCPA observes that no such disclaimer is present in the advertisements. Therefore, the said contention is factually incorrect and cannot be accepted. Further, as per the Guidelines for Prevention of Misleading Advertisements and Endorsements for Misleading Advertisements, 2022, disclaimers must be clear, prominent, and presented in a manner that is easily noticeable and understandable by consumers. Disclaimers cannot be used to contradict or dilute the main claim of the advertisement, nor can they be employed to remedy an otherwise misleading representation.

40. In the present case, the impugned claim ” ___________ conveys an assurance of success, which is likely to mislead consumers. In the absence of any visible and adequate disclaimer, such a claim amounts to a misleading advertisement, as it creates a false impression regarding the outcome of the services offered by the opposite party.

41. In terms of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, such conduct falls within the ambit of a “misleading advertisement” as defined under Section 2(28) of the Act, as the opposite party has made representations which are not supported by adequate substantiation and has deliberately concealed material information. The non­disclosure of crucial details, including the nature of the course, duration, and whether the courses were paid or free, amounts to concealment of important information, thereby misleading consumers. Further, such representations constitute an “unfair trade practice” under Section 2(47) of the Act, as they involve making false or misleading statements concerning the standard and quality of services, with the intent to promote the services offered by the opposite party.

42. Moreover, in the newspaper and website advertisements, the opposite party, alongside the aforesaid claims, simultaneously advertised its programmes such as “Full Time Classroom Programme, Residential Programme, Nurture Batch, Enthuse Batch, Dropper/Leader Batch”, while concealing the actual courses opted for by the successful candidates. These representations, taken together, created a misleading impression among consumers that the successful candidates had achieved such results after enrolling in the regular, high-priced programmes offered by the opposite party. Such omission and misrepresentation are likely to influence the decision-making of prospective minor students and parents, thereby violating the right of consumers to be informed and making the advertisements misleading in nature.

43. The contention of the opposite party that the course details could not be disclosed due to space constraints is untenable and devoid of merit. While the opposite party has prominently displayed the photographs of students, along with claims and other particulars in the impugned advertisements, it has evidently failed to disclose the specific courses opted for by such students. This selective disclosure of information indicates a deliberate omission and reflects mala fide intent.

44. It is further noted that a website is accessible globally and remains available for as long as the advertisement is displayed. It also serves as the primary medium through which aspirants, particularly in the present era of digitalisation, research coaching institutes and make informed choices. In such circumstances, the failure of the opposite party to disclose material information cannot be justified on the ground of space constraints. On the contrary, such omission amounts to a deliberate attempt to withhold essential information, thereby misleading consumers and violating their right to be informed under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

45. On 13th November, 2024, CCPA has issued “Guidelines for Prevention of Misleading Advertisement in Coaching Sector, 2024” in order to prevent coaching centers from making false or misleading claims/advertisements to promote the sale of goods or service and engage in deceptive or unfair practices.

46. Clause 3 and Clause 4 of the abovementioned Guidelines provide the “Conditions for Misleading Advertisement” and “Obligations of every person engaged in coaching” respectively requiring disclosure of rank secured by the successful candidate, name and duration of the course attended, whether such course was paid, along with the candidate’s photograph and appropriate disclaimer prominently in the advertisement. The opposite party’s institute violated the said provisions.

47. 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:-

i. The advertisement is false & misleading as it deliberately conceals important information with respect to the course opted by the said successful candidates from the coaching Institute and mislead potential consumers regarding the nature and quality of the institute’s services.

ii. The opposite party has violated the provisions related to misleading advertisement of the Consumer Protection Act 2019:-

a. Section 2(28) (i) -Falsely describes such product or service

b. Section 2(28)(iv) — Deliberately conceals important information

c. Section 2(28)(iii) – Unfair Trade Practice

d. Section 2(47)- Unfair Trade Practice

e. Guidelines for Prevention of Misleading Advertisements and Endorsements for Misleading Advertisements, 2022

f. Guidelines for Prevention of Misleading Advertisement in Coaching Sector, 2024

48. The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 was enacted to address the challenges posed by new and evolving markets. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the 2019 Act recognizes the need for the creation of an authority to protect consumer interests, in the following terms:

“4. The proposed Bill provides for the establishment of an executive agency to be known as the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) to promote, protect and enforce the rights of consumers; make interventions when necessary to prevent consumer detriment arising from unfair trade practices and to initiate class action including enforcing recall, refund and return of products, etc. This fills an institutional void in the extant regulatory regime. Currently, the task of prevention of or acting against unfair trade practices is not vested in any authority. This has been provided for in a manner such that the role envisaged for the CCPA complements that of the sector regulators and duplication, overlap or potential conflict is avoided.”

49. The CCPA is empowered under Section- 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 to issue directions to the advertiser of false or misleading advertisement to discontinue or modify the advertisement and if necessary, it may, by order, impose a penalty which may extend to ten lakh rupees and for every subsequent contravention may extend to fifty lakh rupees. Further, Section 21 (7) of the above Act prescribes that following may be regarded while determining the penalty against false or misleading advertisement:-

a) the population and the area impacted or affected by such offence;

b) the frequency and duration of such offence;

c) the vulnerability of the class of persons likely to be adversely affected by such offence.

50. As of 30.03.2026, CCPA observed that the opposite party continues to publish above-mentioned claims and concealed specific courses opted by successful students on its official platforms. The opposite party operates more than 80 coaching centres across India and also provides online coaching services. It has a substantial digital presence, including approximately 9.55 lakh subscribers on its YouTube channel. It is further noted that more than 11 lakh students apply for the 11T-JEE examination and approximately 15-20 lakh students apply for the NEET examination every year, thereby highlighting the vast target audience that will be influenced by such advertisements. In view of the wide reach and impact of the impugned advertisements, the CCPA is of the opinion that imposition of a penalty on the opposite party is necessary in the interest of consumers.

51. In view of the above, under Section- 20, 21 read with Section 10 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, CCPA hereby issues the following directions:-

a. Discontinue the misleading advertisements with immediate effect.

b. 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 X10,00,000 with respect to publishing misleading advertisements.

c. The opposite party shall desist from further publication of misleading advertisement and make truthful & complete disclosures in future advertisements.

d. Submit a compliance report of the directions (a) & (c) above within 15 days of receipt of the Order.