SharkNinja Operating, LLC (Shark Rotator Powered
Lift-Away and Shark Rocket Powerhead Vacuum Cleaners), NAD
Case No. 5948 (Apr. 25, 2016)
NAD reviewed several claims made by Shark, including the claim
that "Americans now choose Shark 2-to-1 over Dyson."
Noting that "NAD has cautioned advertisers in prior decisions
that total sales are not always synonymous with consumer
preference," NAD found the consumer preference claim
unsupported and recommended that the advertiser discontinue the
claim. However, NAD observed that Shark could make a comparative
claim based on unit sales (e.g., "Shark outsells Dyson
2-to-1"), provided that the claim is accurate and does not
imply a head-to-head preference. In addition, NAD recommended that
Shark modify a commercial depicting a head-to-head comparison
demonstration by changing the references from "Dyson" to
"Dyson Cinetic Big Ball" to prevent consumers from
concluding that the demonstration applies to other Dyson vacuums.
View the press release.
Intraceuticals LLC (Atoxelene Skin Care
Products), NAD Case No. 5953 (May 12, 2016)
NAD reviewed claims that Atoxelene Skin Care Products
"instantly reduce the visible signs of premature skin
aging." NAD found that the claims "reasonably convey the
[unsubstantiated] message that a single application [of the
product] will result in a visible reduction in wrinkles and/or
other signs of aging skin" and recommended that the claims be
discontinued. Assessing claims substantiation, NAD noted that
testing data on individual ingredients generally cannot support
overall performance claims for the product, and also that
laboratory testing (or in vitro testing) is unlikely to be
sufficient to demonstrate the results that consumers can expect
when using the product themselves. View the press release.
Applegate Insulation (Cellulose Insulation
Products), NAD Case No. 5961 (June 3, 2016)
NAD reviewed certain claims made by Applegate Insulation stating
that cellulose insulation provides superior energy savings over
fiberglass insulation and thereby reduces consumers' heating
and cooling bills. Applegate's advertising cited the results of
several studies to support its claims. NAD found that the
references to the studies in the comparative performance claims
reasonably convey that consumers "will actually experience the
same energy savings as reported in these studies" and
recommended that the claims be discontinued. NAD also recommended
that the advertiser discontinue unsupported claims that the fire
retardants used in manufacturing its product are
"non-toxic." However, the advertiser was not precluded
from making "an appropriately qualified claim about the safety
of its product." NAD also determined that the advertiser
provided a reasonable basis for its "R-value-per-inch
claims," (R-values are a measure of a material's
resistance to heat flow) and found that the FTC's regulations
on insulation manufacturers did not prohibit the advertiser from
making R-value-per-inch claims. View the press release.
Verizon Communications, Inc. (FiOS), NAD Case
No. 5886, NARB Case No. 209 (Apr. 11, 2016)
NARB reviewed an NAD decision finding that certain of
Verizon's advertising communicated that FiOS internet speed and
HD picture quality were superior to its competition's. The
challenged claims included the following: "In customer
satisfaction studies FiOS is rated #1 in Internet speed ... 8 years
running," and "TV service rated number one in HD picture
quality ... based on customer satisfaction studies ...." NARB
found that in the television advertisements containing visuals
touting the No. 1 ratings in internet speed and HD picture quality,
reasonable consumers could conclude that the rating was based on a
direct measurement or comparison. NARB therefore recommended
"the challenged advertisement[s] be modified to more clearly
communicate that the higher rating with respect to Internet
speed" and "HD picture quality" represents "a
customer satisfaction rating based on consumers' rating of
their own Internet service providers." View the press release.
The Clorox Company (Glad Tall Kitchen Drawstring
Bags), NAD Case No. 5951 (May 10, 2016)
NAD reviewed the claim that Glad Tall Kitchen Drawstring Bags
provide "Antimicrobial Protection of the Drawstring from
Odors." The challenger objected to the implied claim that the
product protects against food-borne or disease-causing microbes.
NAD found the challenger's consumer perception survey to be
insufficiently reliable in its sample and methodology. Instead, NAD
used its own expertise to evaluate the advertisement's message
and concluded that, although the message is literally true, the
design (including a prominent Clorox label) conveys a confusing
message as to the product's specific antimicrobial protection
and has the potential to convey an inaccurate message as to the
nature of Clorox's partnership with the advertiser. NAD
recommended that the packaging be modified to state that the
product contains an antimicrobial agent to control drawstring odor.
NAD also recommended that the font size be increased so as not to
be "overshadowed by the presence of the Clorox logo." View the press release.
Joyus, Inc. (Dr. Brandt's Needles No More Wrinkle
Relaxing Cream), NAD Case No. 5956 (May 19,
2016)
NAD reviewed a form of native advertising by an online shopping
retailer for a product that appeared in "Stuff We Love"
in People magazine's online edition. The section
contained a list of videos; only once a reader clicks on a link
does the video reveal elements indicating that it is a shopping
video. NAD was concerned that consumers may interact with this
content thinking that it was purely editorial. NAD recommended that
the advertiser disclose that the page is a shopping page and that
each "link itself or text surrounding the link should advise
consumers that the content to which consumers are linking is an
advertisement or make clear that the links are 'shopping'
links." NAD also referenced the FTC's recently issued
Enforcement Policy Statement on Deceptively Formatted
Advertisements stating that "advertising should be
identifiable as advertising to avoid misleading consumers into
believing that an advertisement is independent and impartial."
View the press release.
Sprint Corporation (Advertising by Sprint
Corporation), NAD Case No. 5958 (May 20, 2016)
NAD reviewed broadcast, radio, internet and social media
advertising containing pricing claims about Sprint's wireless
service compared to the competition's. The advertiser
voluntarily discontinued claims that switching to Sprint would
"cut your bill in half," and NAD recommended that
Sprint's comparative television commercials be discontinued
because the "references to the limitations are blurred by the
fast-moving audio and visual elements of the commercials which also
make the supers, which refer to rate plans as well as limitations
and restrictions, difficult to read, notice and understand."
NAD also noted that sweeping rate comparisons may simply be too
complex to explain in 15- to 30-second broadcast commercials. NAD
found the advertiser's "50% off most T-Mobile rate
plans" claim in print and internet advertising was reasonably
substantiated but should "clearly and conspicuously state the
basis of its comparison." Additionally, the disclosure should
include both "the $36-per-line activation fee" and
"the material differences in its plans versus" its
competitors' plans. View the press release.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
