Month: November 2022

New York, NY – November 15, 2022 – The National Advertising Division (NAD) of BBB National Programs recommended that T-Mobile US, Inc. modify or discontinue certain claims for its Magenta Max mobile wireless service plan, including claims that:

• “You’ll get T-Mobile’s Price Lock Guarantee, they won’t raise the rates of your rate plan, ever” (the “Price Lock Guarantee” claim).
• “When you switch your family to T-Mobile Magenta Max, you can get up to $1,000.”
• “Families [with T-Mobile] save 20% versus AT&T.”

The claims at issue, which appeared in two T-Mobile television commercials (the “Please Listen” ad and the “Cumpleanos” ad), were challenged by competitor AT&T Services, Inc.

“Price Lock Guarantee” Claim

At issue for NAD was whether T-Mobile’s Price Lock Guarantee claim, as it appears in the Please Listen ad, clearly communicates to consumers that T-Mobile’s Price Lock Guarantee refers only to the monthly rate that consumers pay for wireless service under the Magenta Max plan and does not include associated taxes and fees.

NAD found that while customers are accustomed to advertised prices of goods being exclusive of sales tax, reasonable consumers may not understand the meaning of “price” within the context of the Price Lock Guarantee claim in the Please Listen ad as referring to the service’s monthly rate only and excluding fees and other taxes. Further, NAD determined that T-Mobile’s disclosure is not effective in limiting the claim both as a matter of presentation and content.

NAD determined that the Price Lock Guarantee claim was unsupported and recommended that T-Mobile discontinue the “Price Lock Guarantee” claim or modify it to avoid conveying such a message.  NAD noted that nothing in its decision prevents T-Mobile from making a more limited claim that it will not increase the monthly rate under the Magenta Max plan for talk, text, and data services.

NAD also determined that T-Mobile’s Please Listen ad reasonably conveys the implied message that only AT&T and Verizon have recently imposed price hikes and fee increases on consumers for mobile wireless service. Because T-Mobile recently increased fees charged to consumers for mobile wireless service, NAD recommended that the commercial be modified to avoid conveying this unsupported message.

“Get up to $1,000 Back” Claims

Regarding the claim “when you switch your family to T-Mobile Magenta Max, you can get up to $1,000,” NAD considered whether the Please Listen and Cumpleanos ads make it clear that T-Mobile was offering switching customers $200 per line for up to five lines of service, or whether a reasonable consumer could take away the message that they are eligible for the full $1,000 regardless of the number of lines switched.

NAD found that both ads reasonably convey the message that a typical consumer who switches to T-Mobile’s Magenta Max plan is eligible to get $1,000. However, to the extent that the advertised offer can only be achieved by a certain class of consumer or under certain circumstances, the class of person or circumstances that can achieve the maximum level of performance claimed must be clearly and conspicuously disclosed.

Therefore, NAD recommended that the claim be modified to make it clear as part of the main claim, or in a similar font size in close proximity to the main claim, that the maximum amount advertised can only be attained by families switching five lines. Additionally, NAD recommended that the on-screen disclosures stating the material terms of the offer be modified to be clear, conspicuous, and easy to notice, read, and understand.

“Families with T-Mobile Save 20% Versus AT&T”

NAD considered whether T-Mobile’s 20% savings claim, in the context of its Cumpleanos ad, conveyed the broad message that all of T-Mobile plans offer a 20% savings over comparable wireless plans offered by AT&T, or whether it conveyed a more limited message that such savings are available with T-Mobile’s Essentials plan.

NAD determined that the Cumpleanos ad reasonably conveyed the message that consumers can save 20% when choosing T-Mobile plans over AT&T and Verizon plans and that the disclosure mentioning the Essentials Plan was not clear and conspicuous so as to limit the claim.

Additionally, NAD determined that because the Cumpleanos ad presents offers for the Magenta Max plan and the Essentials plan mere seconds apart, a consumer would reasonably understand these offers to be cumulative and not two completely distinct offers for two different plans. NAD found that the immediate proximity of the offers would reasonably convey the message that consumers would also save 20% with the Magenta Max plan as compared to AT&T

While the record established that consumers who switch 3-4 lines to Magenta Max can save 20% there was nothing in the record to support the broad 20% savings claim when choosing any T-Mobile plan over any AT&T and Verizon plans. NAD therefore recommended that the Cumpleanos ad be modified to avoid conveying such a message.

In its advertiser statement, T-Mobile stated that it “will comply with NAD’s decision.” The advertiser further stated that it is proud of its Price Lock guarantee and $1,000 switching offer and “believes the challenged advertisements appropriately communicated the terms of its offers and rate plan savings. T-Mobile nevertheless indicated that the challenged commercials are no longer running and that as a supporter of self-regulation, it “will take NAD’s recommendations into account with respect to its future advertising.”

All BBB National Programs case decision summaries can be found in the case decision library. For the full text of NAD, NARB, and CARU decisions, subscribe to the online archive.

About BBB National Programs: BBB National Programs is where businesses turn to enhance consumer trust and consumers are heard. The non-profit organization creates a fairer playing field for businesses and a better experience for consumers through the development and delivery of effective third-party accountability and dispute resolution programs. Embracing its role as an independent organization since the restructuring of the Council of Better Business Bureaus in June 2019, BBB National Programs today oversees more than a dozen leading national industry self-regulation programs, and continues to evolve its work and grow its impact by providing business guidance and fostering best practices in arenas such as advertising, child-directed marketing, and privacy. To learn more, visit bbbprograms.org.

About the National Advertising Division: The National Advertising Division (NAD) of BBB National Programs provides independent self-regulation and dispute resolution services, guiding the truthfulness of advertising across the U.S. NAD reviews national advertising in all media and its decisions set consistent standards for advertising truth and accuracy, delivering meaningful protection to consumers and leveling the playing field for business.

New York, NY – Nov. 14, 2022 – The National Advertising Division (NAD) of BBB National Programs recommended that Genexa Inc. discontinue certain pediatrician preference claims and ingredient claims for its over the counter (OTC) Kids’ Pain & Fever medicine. Genexa will appeal NAD’s decision.

The challenged claims appeared on the advertiser’s website, in social media posts, on physical point-of-sale displays, and in digital video advertising.

The claims were challenged by Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc., McNeil Healthcare Division, manufacturer of competing OTC pain and fever medications for children. Both parties’ products contain the active ingredient acetaminophen but differ in the formulation of their inactive ingredients.

At issue for NAD was whether the challenged pediatrician preference claims were supported by a survey of pediatricians (the FRC Survey) and whether the challenged ingredient claims, which contrast the advertiser’s product with other children’s OTC medications including formulations of Johnson & Johnson’s Children’s TYLENOL Pain + Fever Oral Suspension, were falsely disparaging.

Pediatrician Preference Claims

Johnson & Johnson challenged the following pediatrician preference claims:

• “Pediatricians prefer Genexa’s Kids’ Pain & Fever over Children’s Tylenol Pain + Fever liquid products for their own children based upon comparing the ingredients”; and
• “The doctors have spoken.”

Stepping into the shoes of a reasonable consumer, NAD found that one message conveyed by the challenged claims is that the pediatricians prefer the advertiser’s product and not that such preference is limited to “ingredients.” NAD also found that another reasonable consumer message conveyed is that pediatricians recommend the advertiser’s product in their own practices and use it to treat their own children. NAD determined that the advertiser’s FRC survey was not a good fit for the challenged claims.

NAD recommended that the claims be discontinued or modified to make clear that the surveyed pediatricians expressed a preference only as to “ingredients.” NAD further recommended that the advertiser avoid stating or implying that pediatricians prefer or use the advertiser’s product over the challenger’s product in their practices or for their own children.

Ingredient Claims

NAD has recognized that there is a distinction between claims that underscore a product’s claimed benefit versus claims that state or reasonably imply that other products are unsafe or pose potential risks or dangers.

NAD found that the following challenged claims convey the message to a reasonable consumer that there are ingredients in competitors’ products, including Johnson & Johnson’s, that are dangerous and unsafe by indicating that the ingredient is in or made from products that would be harmful if ingested.

Because there was no evidence in the record to support claims that the FDA-approved non-active ingredients in competitors’ products, including Children’s TYLENOL, are harmful or unhealthy, NAD recommended that these claims be discontinued.

NAD also recommended that the advertiser discontinue the “MADE WITH REAL INGREDIENTS” claim in the context presented in the now discontinued video advertisement and avoid conveying the message that competing products with different inactive ingredients are generally unsafe, harmful, or dangerous. NAD noted that nothing in its decision prevents the advertiser from highlighting the “real ingredients” in its product provided, however, that the advertising does not otherwise convey the message that competing products contain inactive ingredients that are generally unsafe, harmful, or dangerous.

NAD determined that several remaining ingredient claims did not constitute mere puffery, but instead compared Genexa’s products to competitor’s products in a measurable way such that substantiation for the claims is required.

Therefore, NAD recommended that the advertiser discontinue the following claims in the context in which they appear in the challenged advertising:

• “When we looked around the medicine aisle, we found something that made us sick.”
• “Your kid’s pain medicine shouldn’t give you a headache.”
• “Things that shouldn’t exist, with a list of items like “showers that make you dirty,” “food that makes you hungry,” “all artificial dyes in medicine,” and “parabens in medicine.”

Finally, the advertiser informed NAD that it had previously discontinued the use of four additional claims “EWWW,” “SERIOUSLY?!,” “JUST WOW . . ..” “Ditch the dirty,” and “#pediatricianapproved” prior to the date of the challenge. During the challenge, the advertiser advised NAD and the Challenger that it permanently discontinued these claims.  Therefore, NAD did not review these claims on the merits.

In its advertiser statement, Genexa stated that it will appeal NAD’s decision. The advertiser stated that although it is “pleased that NAD found that the FRC Survey supported an ingredient-based preference claim (e.g. ‘Pediatricians prefer the ingredients in Genexa’s Kids’ Pain & Fever over Children’s Tylenol Pain + Fever liquid products for their own children’)” and that “nothing in NAD’s decision prevents Genexa from highlighting the ‘real ingredients’ in its product,” it “fundamentally disagrees with the balance of NAD’s decision,” including the recommendations to modify or discontinue the challenged claims.

Appeals of NAD decisions are made to BBB National Programs’ National Advertising Review Board (NARB), the appellate-level truth-in-advertising body of BBB National Programs.

All BBB National Programs case decision summaries can be found in the case decision library.  For the full text of NAD, NARB, and CARU decisions, subscribe to the online archive.

About BBB National Programs:  BBB National Programs is where businesses turn to enhance consumer trust and consumers are heard.  The non-profit organization creates a fairer playing field for businesses and a better experience for consumers through the development and delivery of effective third-party accountability and dispute resolution programs.  Embracing its role as an independent organization since the restructuring of the Council of Better Business Bureaus in June 2019, BBB National Programs today oversees more than a dozen leading national industry self-regulation programs, and continues to evolve its work and grow its impact by providing business guidance and fostering best practices in arenas such as advertising, child-directed marketing, and privacy.  To learn more, visit bbbprograms.org.

About the National Advertising Division:  The National Advertising Division (NAD) of BBB National Programs provides independent self-regulation and dispute resolution services, guiding the truthfulness of advertising across the U.S. NAD reviews national advertising in all media and its decisions set consistent standards for advertising truth and accuracy, delivering meaningful protection to consumers and leveling the playing field for business.

 New York, NY – November 8, 2022 – Acting on a challenge brought by Kimberly-Clark Corporation, the National Advertising Division (NAD) of BBB National Programs recommended that The Procter & Gamble Company (P&G) discontinue two commercials for Puffs Ultra Soft Tissues or modify them to:

• Avoid conveying a misleading message about the softness, comfort, or safety of Kleenex tissues; and
• Avoid conveying the misleading message that Puff’s tissues have visible quilt-like puffing.

At issue before NAD was whether two short, whimsical video commercials featuring animated characters and side-by-side product comparisons between Puffs tissues and the “leading” competitor convey disparaging messages about Kleenex.

Although humor can be an effective and creative way for advertisers to highlight the differences between their products and those of competitors, humor and hyperbole do not relieve an advertiser of the obligation to support messages that their advertisements might reasonably convey.

NAD concluded that one reasonable message conveyed by the challenged commercials, “Linda’s Little Nose” and “Fire Department,” is that competing tissues, including Kleenex, are harsh, insufficiently soft, and harmful to the nose. Because this message was not supported by P&G’s evidence, NAD recommended that the advertising be discontinued or modified to avoid conveying a misleading message about the softness, comfort, or safety of Kleenex tissues.

NAD also considered whether the side-by-side demonstration scene in “Linda’s Little Nose,” a simulation of a structural feature of P&G’s product, conveys the message that Puffs have quilted puffing when the tissues are actually flat. NAD noted that an advertiser may artfully arrange a product to look appealing in the advertising but may not materially or artificially enhance the product beyond the scope of supporting evidence.

NAD determined that the side-by-side demonstration conveys a misleading message about the appearance of Puffs tissues not supported by the evidence and recommended that the advertising be discontinued or modified to avoid conveying the misleading message that Puff’s tissues have visible quilt-like puffing.

During the proceeding, P&G permanently discontinued the claim that Puff is “air fluffed with 40% more cushiony thickness” [“*vs. the Leading Ultra Soft Competitor”]. Therefore, NAD did not review this claim on the merits.

In its advertiser statement, P&G stated that it “will comply with NAD’s recommendations” and “appreciates NAD’s careful review of this matter.” The advertiser further stated that while it “respectfully disagrees with NAD’s decision, because P&G is a strong supporter of the self-regulatory process it will take NAD’s recommendations into account in future advertising for Puffs tissues.”

All BBB National Programs case decision summaries can be found in the case decision library. For the full text of NAD, NARB, and CARU decisions, subscribe to the online archive.

About BBB National Programs: BBB National Programs is where businesses turn to enhance consumer trust and consumers are heard. The non-profit organization creates a fairer playing field for businesses and a better experience for consumers through the development and delivery of effective third-party accountability and dispute resolution programs. Embracing its role as an independent organization since the restructuring of the Council of Better Business Bureaus in June 2019, BBB National Programs today oversees more than a dozen leading national industry self-regulation programs, and continues to evolve its work and grow its impact by providing business guidance and fostering best practices in arenas such as advertising, child-directed marketing, and privacy. To learn more, visit bbbprograms.org.

About the National Advertising Division: The National Advertising Division (NAD) of BBB National Programs provides independent self-regulation and dispute resolution services, guiding the truthfulness of advertising across the U.S. NAD reviews national advertising in all media and its decisions set consistent standards for advertising truth and accuracy, delivering meaningful protection to consumers and leveling the playing field for business.

New York, NY – November 7, 2022 – The National Advertising Division (NAD) of BBB National Programs analyzed comparative savings claims made by Comcast Cable Communications, LLC about its Xfinity Mobile Wireless service plan. NAD recommended that Comcast either discontinue a claim that Xfinity Mobile is 30% less than T-Mobile or modify the advertising to clearly and conspicuously disclose the T-Mobile t plan that is the basis of comparison and the material differences between the plans.

NAD also recommended that Comcast:

• Discontinue its “Unlimited data for $30/line” claims in the challenged advertising or modify the claims to disclose all material information associated with the plan.
• Modify its advertising to avoid conveying the unsupported implied message that Xfinity is less expensive than T-Mobile regardless of how many mobile lines are purchased, and that Xfinity is less expensive than T-Mobile when four mobile lines are purchased.

The express and implied claims at issue appeared in a print mailer, an online paid Google ad, a commercial featuring the singer Becky G, and a commercial featuring characters from the animated movie “The Bad Guys.”

$30/Line Claims

At issue for NAD was whether Comcast properly disclosed all material information relating to its $30/Line claims in the context of the challenged advertising. NAD found that the following material conditions must be disclosed:

• The advertised price of $30/Line applies only when the consumer purchases four lines;
• A consumer must be an Xfinity Internet subscriber to obtain the $30/Line claim offer; and
• The “unlimited data” promised by the $30/Line claim is subject to data throttling after 20GB of usage.

In both the mailer and the Google ad, NAD determined that the four-line purchase requirement is adequately conveyed because the claim itself included the information. And though the mailer clearly and conspicuously discloses the data throttling condition in a disclosure in close proximity to the $30/Line claim, the Google ad does not adequately convey the data throttling condition.

However, NAD found that both the mailer and Google ad do not adequately inform consumers that the $30/Line claim is limited to only Xfinity Internet subscribers.

NAD also recommended that Comcast disclose clearly and conspicuously the Xfinity Internet subscription and data throttling conditions in close proximity to the $30/Line claim.

30% Less Claims

The Becky G commercial also contains claims that Comcast’s Xfinity Mobile Unlimited plan is 30% less than T-Mobile’s Essentials plan. NAD noted that consumer expectation of “apples-to-apples” comparisons is predicated on the presumption that when an advertiser compares its product or service against those of its competitor, the advertiser is selecting the objects of comparison that are most relevant to consumers, i.e., the product or services that the consumer is most likely comparing when making a purchasing decision in the marketplace.

NAD assessed whether T-Mobile’s recently introduced Base Essentials plan, which offers a line of mobile wireless service with unlimited data for the same price as the Xfinity Mobile Unlimited Plan, renders Comcast’s 30% Less claims false. NAD concluded that T-Mobile’s Base Essentials plan is not a consumer-meaningful option because information about the plan is difficult for consumers to locate and there are hurdles to purchasing the services, such as the need to visit a T-Mobile store or call, that are not present with respect to T-Mobile’s other plans. Therefore, NAD concluded that the Base Essentials plan pricing does not prevent Xfinity Mobile from making its 30% Less claims.

However, because NAD determined that Comcast’s disclosures do not clearly communicate the basis of comparison to which the 30% Less claims are limited, NAD recommended that Comcast clearly and conspicuously disclose that the 30% Less claims are based on a comparison of the Xfinity Mobile Unlimited and T-Mobile Essentials plans in a way that is easy for consumers to notice, read, and understand. NAD noted that comparative price and savings claims must be narrowly drawn to avoid overstating comparative benefits.

Implied Claims

NAD determined that the Bad Guys commercial conveys the message that the price for four lines, or any number of lines, purchased through the Xfinity plan will be less expensive than the price currently available (inclusive of discounts) for the same number of lines under a competing mobile wireless plan. NAD found that such a message was unsupported since, at the time of the challenge, T-Mobile was offering a four-line price with autopay discounts that were less expensive than the four-line price under the Xfinity Mobile Unlimited plan. Therefore, NAD recommended that Comcast modify its advertising to avoid conveying these implied claims.

In its advertiser statement, Comcast stated that it “agrees to comply with NAD’s recommendations.” The advertiser further stated that it “appreciates NAD’s review and, in particular, is pleased that NAD followed the FTC’s .Com Disclosures guidance concerning search engine advertising and space-constrained ads.”

All BBB National Programs case decision summaries can be found in the case decision library. For the full text of NAD, NARB, and CARU decisions, subscribe to the online archive.

About BBB National Programs: BBB National Programs is where businesses turn to enhance consumer trust and consumers are heard. The non-profit organization creates a fairer playing field for businesses and a better experience for consumers through the development and delivery of effective third-party accountability and dispute resolution programs. Embracing its role as an independent organization since the restructuring of the Council of Better Business Bureaus in June 2019, BBB National Programs today oversees more than a dozen leading national industry self-regulation programs, and continues to evolve its work and grow its impact by providing business guidance and fostering best practices in arenas such as advertising, child-directed marketing, and privacy. To learn more, visit bbbprograms.org.

About the National Advertising Division: The National Advertising Division (NAD) of BBB National Programs provides independent self-regulation and dispute resolution services, guiding the truthfulness of advertising across the U.S. NAD reviews national advertising in all media and its decisions set consistent standards for advertising truth and accuracy, delivering meaningful protection to consumers and leveling the playing field for business. 

Contact: Abby Hills, Director of Communications, BBB National Programs

703.247.9330 / press@bbbnp.org

Chicago, IL. RudiCoder LLC, una empresa de logística para comercio electrónico con sede en el centro de Chicago, se complace en anunciar el lanzamiento de PriorNotify, una aplicación habilitada para comercio electrónico que automatiza el proceso regulatorio de la venta y el envío de alimentos y bebidas internacionales a clientes de EE. UU.

“PriorNotify representa un cambio revolucionario”, afirmó Holly Urban, directora ejecutiva y cofundadora de RudiCoder. “Quienes venden o envían alimentos y bebidas de origen no estadounidense a clientes de EE. UU. saben lo difícil que puede ser el proceso regulatorio del país y el tiempo que puede llevar. Con nuestra aplicación PriorNotify, el proceso puede realizarse en segundos”, agregó Urban.

PriorNotify está diseñada para productores de alimentos y bebidas, así como para comerciantes, distribuidores, proveedores de servicios de logística y envío, y de triangulación de envíos (dropshipping). Las empresas internacionales ahora pueden vender y enviar productos comestibles a minoristas, distribuidores y consumidores estadounidenses.

PriorNotify ofrece una integración perfecta con Shopify, WordPress (WooCommerce), Magento, PrestaShop y WiX para completar automáticamente el proceso regulatorio tan pronto como se compra el producto.

La aplicación funciona sin problemas con cualquier sistema de gestión de pedidos y con mercados en línea, como Amazon. Aunque no haya una integración directa, la información de los pedidos de clientes se puede cargar fácilmente, lo que permite que los vendedores con mucho volumen operen de manera rápida y eficiente.

PriorNotify está diseñada para comercio electrónico y permite que productores internacionales, empresas de envío y mensajería, proveedores de servicios de triangulación de envíos y otros comerciantes colaboren entre sí con facilidad.

Por ejemplo, los productores de alimentos o bebidas pueden realizar automáticamente el proceso regulatorio tan pronto como se compran los productos a los negocios que los venden. De manera similar, PriorNotify permite que los proveedores de servicios de triangulación de envíos informen a los productores de cada pedido y completen el proceso regulatorio de cada uno automáticamente en el momento en que se compran los productos. Además, posibilita que las empresas de envío y mensajería completen automáticamente el proceso regulatorio tan pronto como se compran los productos de sus clientes.

PriorNotify también les da a los usuarios la posibilidad de generar facturas comerciales de manera sencilla. Además, todas las páginas de la aplicación pueden traducirse automáticamente a varios idiomas.

“PriorNotify permite que las empresas aumenten su oferta de productos, amplíen sus ventas y su clientela en EE. UU., y reduzcan considerablemente sus gastos generales en el proceso con facilidad”, dijo Urban.

El precio es competitivo, con descuentos desde $0,10 por aviso previo. No hay tarifas de configuración, cargos mensuales mínimos, cargos por usuario ni cargos adicionales por las gamas de productos preestablecidas. Se pueden hacer pruebas gratuitas de PriorNotify.

RudiCoder LLC es una empresa de automatización de comercio electrónico orientada a alimentos y bebidas, con sede en el centro de Chicago, IL, EE. UU. Para obtener más información sobre RudiCoder, visite RudiCoder.com y, sobre PriorNotify, visite PriorNotify.com.

New York, NY – November 2, 2022 – A panel of the National Advertising Review Board (NARB), the appellate advertising law body of BBB National Programs, recommended that Sanofi Consumer Healthcare not use claims that:

• Zantac 360° contains, or that famotidine is, “the #1 Doctor Recommended ingredient;” or
• Zantac 360° contains, or that famotidine is, “the #1 Doctor Recommended ingredient among H2 Blockers.”

Related advertising claims had been challenged before the National Advertising Division (NAD) of BBB National Programs by Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc., manufacturer of the competing Pepcid products. Following NAD’s decision (Case No. 7088), Sanofi appealed NAD’s finding that it did not have proper support for the claim that famotidine is “the #1 Doctor Recommended ingredient (among H2 blockers).”

The parties manufacture and market leading brands of OTC heartburn medication containing Histamine-2 (H2) Blockers. In 2020, Sanofi introduced Zantac 360°, an H2 blocker formulated with the active ingredient famotidine – the same active ingredient used in the challenger’s Pepcid products.

As support for a doctor-recommended ingredient claim, Sanofi relied on the results of IQVIA survey data that recorded the number and percentage of physicians’ average weekly recommendations in the acid reducer category, a category that includes store/generic brands as well as branded products.

In agreement with NAD, the NARB panel determined that the IQVIA data relied on by Sanofi is not a good fit for the #1 Doctor Recommended ingredient claim because:

• The IQVIA survey was a brand/product survey, and therefore did not ask directly about ingredient preferences or recommendations; and
• In context, the responses concerning generic recommendations cannot be considered independently because the responses indicating brand recommendations could have impacted or influenced generic responses, or vice-versa.

Sanofi stated that it “will comply with the NARB’s decision and thanks the NARB for its attention to this matter.” Sanofi further stated that it “respectfully disagrees with the NARB’s ruling that the IQVIA survey did not provide a reasonable basis to make an unqualified claim that famotidine is the #1 doctor recommended ingredient among H2 blockers, given that famotidine is overwhelmingly the #1 doctor recommended H2 blocker whether looking at branded or generic acid reducer recommendations.” The advertiser further stated that it was disappointed that the process did not provide clarity on its proposed modified claim.

All BBB National Programs case decision summaries can be found in the case decision library. For the full text of NAD, NARB, and CARU decisions, subscribe to the online archive.

About BBB National Programs: BBB National Programs is where businesses turn to enhance consumer trust and consumers are heard. The non-profit organization creates a fairer playing field for businesses and a better experience for consumers through the development and delivery of effective third-party accountability and dispute resolution programs. Embracing its role as an independent organization since the restructuring of the Council of Better Business Bureaus in June 2019, BBB National Programs today oversees more than a dozen leading national industry self-regulation programs, and continues to evolve its work and grow its impact by providing business guidance and fostering best practices in arenas such as advertising, child-directed marketing, and privacy. To learn more, visit bbbprograms.org.

About the National Advertising Review Board (NARB): The National Advertising Review Board (NARB) is the appellate body for BBB National Programs’ advertising self-regulatory programs. NARB’s panel members include 85 distinguished volunteer professionals from the national advertising industry, agencies, and public members, such as academics and former members of the public sector. NARB serves as a layer of independent industry peer review that helps engender trust and compliance in NAD, CARU, and DSSRC matters.

New York, NY – November 2, 2022 – The National Advertising Division (NAD) of BBB National Programs recommended that S3 Marketing, LLC and Beyond Finance, LLC d/b/a Accredited Debt Relief discontinue claims on www.accrediteddebtrelief.com that convey strong unqualified messages regarding the typical results experienced by users of the Accredited Debt relief program, including:

• “Debt Relief Can Cut Your Monthly Payments in Half”
• “Reduce your total debt by up to 50%”
• “Be debt free in as little as 12 months”

NAD also recommended that S3 Marketing discontinue the format of its rankings website www.debt-consolidation-reviews.org because it appears to be an independent review site ranking debt consolidation services according to objective factors, but is owned and operated by an affiliate of the advertiser.

The claims at issue were challenged by NAD as part of its routine independent monitoring of truth and transparency in U.S. national advertising.

Debt settlement companies, such as Accredited Debt Relief, market their services to reduce or eliminate unsecured consumer debt to heavily indebted consumers. Such companies attempt to negotiate with creditors to reduce or eliminate a consumer’s unsecured debt, such as credit cards, medical bills, or utility bills.

Advertising for debt settlement services must disclose the risks involved as well as avoid overpromising results by truthfully explaining the results consumers can reasonably expect to achieve.

“Debt Relief Can Cut Your Monthly Payments in Half”

NAD’s inquiry focused on whether the advertiser’s evidence was a good fit to support the claim, “Debt Relief Can Cut Your Monthly Payments in Half.”  Based on the advertiser’s evidence, NAD concluded that cutting “monthly payments in half” is not representative of the typical consumer experience. NAD also found that:

• Beyond Finance does not make clear that its support for debt reduction claims is based on enrolled debt, which is a subset of the customer’s total debt (debts enrolled consist of more than 50 percent of the debt included in a consumer’s credit report); and
• Detailed and lengthy disclosures about the program and its material limitations appear at the bottom of the webpage and are not sufficiently prominent and in close proximity to the claim.

Therefore, NAD recommended that the advertiser discontinue the claim “Debt Relief Can Cut Your Monthly Payments in Half.” NAD noted that nothing in its decision prevents the advertiser from advertising the monthly payment reductions consumers can reasonably expect to achieve using calculations that reflect the typical experience of consumers and clearly and conspicuously disclosing any material limitations in close proximity to the main claim.

“Reduce your total debt by up to 50%”

NAD noted that the term “up to” can have different meanings based on the context in which the claim appears and the product category to which it is being applied. While some advertisers use “up to” to tout a product’s absolute best possible results, others use it to express realistic consumer benefits in an environment with highly variable results.

NAD determined that “Reduce your total debt by up to 50%” promises that consumers who enroll in the Accredited Debt Relief program will reduce their total debt by 50 percent. NAD noted that consumers cannot evaluate whether they will be able to achieve the 50 percent total debt reduction before entering the program and committing to pay the substantial fees associated with the program.

NAD recommended, therefore, that the claim “Reduce your total debt by up to 50%” be discontinued because:

• The advertiser’s support demonstrates that most consumers will not reduce their debt by 50 percent; and
• The claim refers to “total debt” but is calculated based on only enrolled debt.

NAD noted that nothing in its decision prevents the advertiser from advertising about the percentage reduction of debt its customers achieve provided, however, the advertising truthfully describes the reduction in debt consumers can expect to achieve using the advertised service and clearly and conspicuously discloses all material limitations in close proximity to any claimed benefit.

“Be debt free in as little as 12 months”

Customers in the advertiser’s program are heavily indebted consumers. NAD noted that the unqualified debt-free claim promises these consumers that they will have no debt in a short period of time (one year).

Given that the advertiser has thousands of customers, NAD determined that data showing a comparatively small number of people who are debt-free in less than 12 months does not represent the typical consumer experience. Therefore, NAD recommended that the claim “Be debt free in as little as 12 months” be discontinued.

Affiliate Disclosure

NAD questioned whether consumers would be misled regarding the relationship between Accredited Debt Relief and S3 Marketing because the website www.debt-consolidation-reviews.org did not clearly disclose material information about their relationship.

NAD noted that the website, which lists Accredited Debt Relief as #1, is presented as though it is sponsored by an independent organization that ranks debt consolidation services according to objective factors. However, the disclosures at the bottom of the website state that S3 Marketing, the operator of the site, “is an affiliate marketer, which means S3 gets paid if you choose to purchase products or services from the companies or websites advertised through placement of links on this site. Also, S3 is owned by the same company that owns Accredited Debt Relief/Beyond Finance.”

NAD noted that any disclosure that the website is paid advertising content contradicts the implied message of independence otherwise conveyed by a rating or ranking website. Because a disclosure that the review site is owned by the advertiser, even if clear and conspicuous, cannot cure the misleading takeaway that the site is independent, NAD recommended that the advertiser discontinue the format of the rankings website.

In its advertiser statement, S3 stated although it “disagrees with NAD’s recommendation to discontinue the format of the website, it agrees to comply.” Beyond Finance also stated while it disagrees with NAD’s recommendations it agrees to comply, noting that it “remains focused on its priorities of consumer trust and transparency throughout its operations.”

All BBB National Programs case decision summaries can be found in the case decision library. For the full text of NAD, NARB, and CARU decisions, subscribe to the online archive.

About BBB National Programs: BBB National Programs is where businesses turn to enhance consumer trust and consumers are heard. The non-profit organization creates a fairer playing field for businesses and a better experience for consumers through the development and delivery of effective third-party accountability and dispute resolution programs. Embracing its role as an independent organization since the restructuring of the Council of Better Business Bureaus in June 2019, BBB National Programs today oversees more than a dozen leading national industry self-regulation programs, and continues to evolve its work and grow its impact by providing business guidance and fostering best practices in arenas such as advertising, child-directed marketing, and privacy. To learn more, visit bbbprograms.org.

About the National Advertising Division: The National Advertising Division (NAD) of BBB National Programs provides independent self-regulation and dispute resolution services, guiding the truthfulness of advertising across the U.S. NAD reviews national advertising in all media and its decisions set consistent standards for advertising truth and accuracy, delivering meaningful protection to consumers and leveling the playing field for business.

Contact: Abby Hills, Director of Communications, BBB National Programs

703.247.9330 / press@bbbnp.org

McLean, VA – November 1, 2022 – The Children’s Advertising Review Unit (CARU) of BBB National Programs has found Gameloft S.A., owner and operator of the Disney Getaway Blast mobile app, in violation of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) and CARU’s Self-Regulatory Guidelines for Advertising and for Children’s Online Privacy Protection. Upon receipt of CARU’s inquiry, Gameloft proactively implemented changes to address CARU’s concerns regarding its advertising and privacy practices and continues to take other corrective actions to address the remaining violations.

The Disney Getaway Blast app, featuring Disney and Pixar movie characters licensed by The Walt Disney Company, came to CARU’s attention through its routine monitoring of child-directed content. Given the app’s child-directed subject matter, intended for ages four and up, its use of animated characters, colorful visual content, fun background music, and simplistic nature of the gameplay, CARU determined that the Gameloft app was a child-directed app and as such is subject to COPPA and CARU’s Guidelines. CARU further determined that the App qualifies as a “mixed audience” child-directed app because children under 13 may not be its primary audience.

Children’s Privacy Issues

As the operator of a child-directed app, Gameloft is required under COPPA and CARU’s Privacy Guidelines to ensure that either no personal information is collected, used, or disclosed from users under age 13, or that notice is provided and verifiable parental consent is obtained prior to such collection, use, or disclosure. As a mixed-audience online service, Gameloft is permitted to implement an age screen in order to provide these protections to children under 13, however even after CARU created a test account identifying as a 10-year-old child, a prompt was generated by Apple’s App Tracking Transparency Framework that asked for permission to track the user’s “activity across other companies’ apps and websites” for the purpose of delivering personalized ads. CARU found that even after identifying as a child under age 13, there was nothing preventing a child from enabling this setting and potentially allowing the app to collect personal information from children under 13 without first obtaining verifiable parental consent.

CARU also found the Operator’s privacy policy language to be unclear and inconsistent with its actual privacy and data collection practices regarding children. The App’s privacy policy indicates that Gameloft uses the information it collects to serve behaviorally-targeted advertising, enabling Gameloft to “provide you with advertising that better suits your interests and profile and is age-/gender-appropriate and targeted to your general location.” However, in another provision addressing children, Gameloft states it “will prevent the collection and use of their precise geolocation data and display to them contextual advertising only (excluding any behavioral advertising).” CARU recommended the Operator amend its Privacy Policy to make clear its actual privacy and data collection practices with respect to children.

After a review of the evidence in the record, CARU determined that Gameloft violated COPPA and CARU’s Privacy Guidelines by its failure to provide parents with notice of its children’s information collection and use practices that is clearly and understandably written, complete, and contains no unrelated, confusing, or contradictory materials, and obtain verifiable parental consent before any collection or use of personal information from children, as required by COPPA.

Children’s Advertising Issues

CARU’s Advertising Guidelines make clear that advertisers must not manipulate or deceive children. Conduct that would violate this provision includes the use of emotional manipulation and other tactics that either pressure or manipulate a child into engaging with ads, downloading and installing unnecessary apps, or making unintended purchases.

CARU found that the Disney Getaway Blast app served ads periodically after players completed a level, with promises of free “rewards” and in-game boosters for watching the ad. Once in the ad, users cannot easily exit the full-screen, 30-second video ad during which an “install now” button appears, taking users away from the app to the app store. Many of these ads are non-avoidable.

In addition to the use of bright colors to draw children to click on ads, the app also uses emotional manipulation tactics to persuade children to watch ads and make in-app purchases. When a user runs out of moves to complete a puzzle, the app character demonstrates visual disappointment providing the user two options: to continue or “give up.” In contrast, when players solve a puzzle, they are rewarded with screens that feature their characters celebrating and congratulating them with a message such as “LEVEL COMPLETED!” If a user gives up, it costs one “life” (represented by a heart-shaped icon), and they are prodded to purchase additional moves. However, if a user chooses to continue and complete the puzzle, they are rewarded with screens that feature their characters celebrating and congratulating them with encouraging language.

CARU found these practices to be emotionally manipulative tactics in violation of CARU’s Advertising Guidelines that prey on children’s weaknesses and insecurities to persuade them to watch excessive ads and make in-app purchases so their character will feel happy and praised, able to continue playing with their virtual friends.

CARU also found that some ads displayed in the App are not easily identifiable as advertising because they lacked clear and conspicuous disclosures and that the methods provided in the App to exit ads are neither clear nor conspicuous to children, in violation of the Ad Guidelines.

CARU recommended that Gameloft take the following corrective actions, some of which it proactively implemented early in CARU’s investigation:

• Provide a clear and understandable notice of its children’s information collection and use practices that contains no unrelated, confusing, or contradictory materials.
• Design its app with children in mind to ensure that it does not deceive, manipulate, or pressure children into watching or engaging with excessive ads, making costly and unnecessary in-app purchases, and downloading and installing unnecessary apps.
• Provide clear and conspicuous disclosures of all ads to ensure they are easily identifiable as advertising to children.
• Ensure any exit methods offered by the App are clear and conspicuous by using such design techniques as color, text size, language, borders, and shading to make them recognizable to children.

Gameloft participated in and cooperated fully with CARU’s self-regulatory program.

All BBB National Programs case decision summaries can be found in the case decision library. For the full text of NAD, NARB, and CARU decisions, subscribe to the online archive.

About BBB National Programs: BBB National Programs is where businesses turn to enhance consumer trust and consumers are heard. The non-profit organization creates a fairer playing field for businesses and a better experience for consumers through the development and delivery of effective third-party accountability and dispute resolution programs. Embracing its role as an independent organization since the restructuring of the Council of Better Business Bureaus in June 2019, BBB National Programs today oversees more than a dozen leading national industry self-regulation programs, and continues to evolve its work and grow its impact by providing business guidance and fostering best practices in arenas such as advertising, child-directed marketing, and privacy. To learn more, visit bbbprograms.org.

About the Children’s Advertising Review Unit: The Children’s Advertising Review Unit (CARU), a division of BBB National Programs and the nation’s first Safe Harbor Program under the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), helps companies comply with laws and guidelines that protect children from deceptive or inappropriate advertising and ensure that, in an online environment, children’s data is collected and handled responsibly. When advertising or data collection practices are misleading, inappropriate, or inconsistent with laws and guidelines, CARU seeks change through the voluntary cooperation of companies and where relevant, enforcement action.