CCPA cracks down on misleading coaching ads, fines motion education Rs 10 lakh, CLC Rs 5 Lakh

New Delhi, May 15 The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) on Friday imposed penalties on two major coaching institutes -- Motion Education Private Limited and Career Line Coaching (CLC) -- for allegedly publishing misleading advertisements and indulging in unfair trade practices under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

The consumer watchdog levied a penalty of Rs 10 lakh on Motion Education Private Limited and Rs 5 lakh on Career Line Coaching (CLC), Sikar, after finding that both institutes made exaggerated claims about student success in IIT-JEE and NEET examinations while concealing crucial details regarding the actual courses attended by successful candidates.

The orders were passed by the CCPA, headed by Chief Commissioner Nidhi Khare and Commissioner Anupam Mishra, with the aim of protecting consumer rights and ensuring transparency in the coaching sector.

In the case of Motion Education, the Authority took suo motu cognisance of advertisements published on the institute’s official website, YouTube channel, Instagram account and newspapers.

The institute had prominently advertised claims such as “51.02 per cent qualified students in JEE Advanced”, “91.2 per cent qualified students in NEET”, and highlighted toppers and high-ranking students while simultaneously promoting its paid classroom and residential programmes.

However, the investigation conducted by the Director General (Investigation) found that many of the students featured in these advertisements were actually enrolled in “I-Eklavya”, a special rankers’ batch offered free of cost to selected students through tests and interviews. The CCPA observed that the institute failed to disclose this important fact in its advertisements, thereby creating a misleading impression that the success was linked to its paid programmes.

The Authority further found that some students whose names and photographs were used in advertisements had joined the institute only after appearing for the examinations. According to the investigation, this falsely attributed their success to the coaching institute for promotional purposes. It was also observed that the institute had used names and photographs of students without obtaining proper consent from the students or their parents.

The CCPA noted that Motion Education failed to substantiate several claims despite repeated directions to provide documentary proof. It held that concealment of information regarding the actual courses undertaken by successful candidates amounted to misleading advertisement and unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Similarly, Career Line Coaching (CLC), Sikar, came under scrutiny over claims such as “1650+ CLCians in MBBS, IIT & Others”, “2 CLCians in NEET AIR-100”, and “3 CLCians at AIIMS Delhi”. The Authority observed that the institute prominently showcased successful students while promoting classroom programmes without clearly disclosing whether those students had attended full-time coaching, crash courses or merely test series programmes.

The investigation revealed that several students featured in the advertisements were enrolled only for test series courses, a fact that was allegedly concealed from consumers. The Authority also pointed out contradictions in the institute’s submissions regarding its claim of “1650+ CLCians”. While the institute initially stated that the figure represented cumulative selections since 1996, it later claimed during hearings that the number referred only to the year 2024.

The CCPA held that such contradictory statements rendered the claims misleading and unsubstantiated. It also found that the institute failed to produce documentary evidence proving that written consent had been obtained from successful candidates after declaration of results, as required under the Guidelines for Prevention of Misleading Advertisement in Coaching Sector, 2024.

The Authority directed both institutes to immediately discontinue the misleading advertisements, refrain from publishing similar advertisements in future, and ensure truthful and complete disclosures in all promotional material. Both institutes have challenged the CCPA’s orders before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor