Tag: Go Media2

New York, NY – December 5, 2023 – The National Advertising Division (NAD) of BBB National Programs determined that Dr. Squatch, LLC provided a reasonable basis for its “no harmful ingredients” claim for its Dr. Squatch brand of personal care products for men and that certain challenged claims, in context, do not convey a disparaging message as to competing brands.

However, NAD recommended that Dr. Squatch discontinue its use of the skull and crossbones imagery in the context of the “no harmful ingredients” and “Sh*t List” claims, certain comparative claims, as well as certain other claims that NAD found to be falsely disparaging, unsubstantiated, and/or misleading, including:

• “For generations, traditional mass-market brands have been avoiding using natural ingredients in personal care products to make production cheaper and faster.”
• “I’m never going back to aluminum deodorant again!”
• “No X ALUMINUM X TRICLOSAN X PHTHALATES . . . can’t go back to that other junk”
• “Don’t hit the showers with neon goop that looks like a sports drink.”
• “I can even pronounce all the ingredients unlike my last deodorant.”

Dr. Squatch markets natural personal care products and distinguishes itself from other personal care competitors through edgy and attention-grabbing content.

The claims at issue, which appeared on the Dr. Squatch website, in video advertisements, social media, and videos on YouTube, were challenged by Unilever U.S., Inc., manufacturer of Dove brand cleansers and body washes.

No Harmful/Harsh Ingredient Claims

NAD determined that the following challenged claims are monadic or appear in a monadic context and do not convey the implied message that competing products are harmful or dangerous:

• “No harmful ingredients”
• “We never use harmful ingredients or harsh chemicals…”
• “Blocks out B.O. without harsh chemicals” and “doesn’t burn my armpits or leave me with a rank B.O. mid-day”

NAD further determined that Dr. Squatch’s monadic “no harmful ingredients” claim was supported and that it provided a reasonable basis for the message that Dr. Squatch deodorant does not contain harsh chemicals and would, therefore, not burn a user’s armpits.

However, NAD determined that the skull and crossbones imagery that often accompanies the “no harmful ingredients” and “Sh*t list” claims does more than merely underscore a monadic message. The imagery reasonably conveys a message related to potential harms of ingredients found in personal care products and, when displayed in the context of the “Sh*t List,” further conveys a message that the ingredients listed, which include non-chemical and non-harmful ingredients, are harmful. As there was no support in the record that the ingredients Dr. Squatch excludes from its products result in the type of harm associated with skull and crossbones, NAD recommended that such imagery be discontinued.

NAD concluded that a comparative superiority message was not communicated by:

• Squatch’s reference to the “Sh*t List,” and
• The claim “Meet our Sh*t List, a roster of ingredients that we vow to never use in any of our products. We refuse to cut corners and we avoid both common and lesser-known chemicals, synthetics, and preservatives that can have a range of adverse effects on your skin and body.”

“The Personal Care Industry Needs Cleaning” Message

NAD found that Dr. Squatch’s claim that “the personal care industry needs cleaning” will likely be understood as a high-level reference to Dr. Squatch’s commitment to products with natural ingredients. Therefore, NAD found that the claim does not reasonably convey the message that competing products are harmful.

“For Generations, Traditional Mass Market Brands Have Been Avoiding Using Natural Ingredients in Personal Care Products to Make Production Cheaper and Faster” Claim

NAD determined that Dr. Squatch did not provide a reasonable basis for the claim “For generations, traditional mass market brands have been avoiding using natural ingredients in personal care products to make production cheaper and faster” and recommended that it be discontinued.

Free-From Claims

NAD concluded that Dr. Squatch’s claims “I’m never going back to aluminum deodorant again!” and “No X ALUMINUM X TRICLOSAN X PHTHALATES . . . can’t go back to that other junk,” as they appear in a comparative context in the challenged advertising convey the misleading message that other deodorant products are unsafe or pose potential risks or dangers.

As there was no evidence in the record that conventional deodorants (made by Unilever or other major brands) contain triclosan or phthalates, or that brands that contain these ingredients or aluminum are dangerous or unsafe, NAD recommended that Dr. Squatch discontinue these claims.

NAD noted that nothing in its decision prevents Dr. Squatch from highlighting the ingredients its products do not contain in a purely monadic context.

Regarding the modified claim “Let’s talk aluminum . . . sure it’s great for wrapping up leftovers but we avoid it for skin and body,” NAD concluded that in a purely monadic context, the claim does not convey a disparaging message as to competing brands.

“Don’t Hit The Showers With Neon Goop That Looks Like A Sports Drink” Message

NAD determined that the claim “don’t hit the showers with neon goop that looks like a sports drink,” in context is falsely disparaging because it conveys an implied superiority message that mainstream personal care products (some of which may be brightly-colored) have a goop-like or unappealing consistency, do not smell good, and are ultimately worthless. NAD recommended that Dr. Squatch discontinue the challenged claim.

NAD noted that nothing in its decision precludes Dr. Squatch from highlighting the benefits of its products, provided, however, the advertising does not otherwise convey the message that competing products are worthless.

“I Can Even Pronounce All The Ingredients Unlike My Last Deodorant” Claim

As Dr. Squatch did not provide any support for the challenged claim “I can even pronounce all the ingredients unlike my last deodorant” NAD determined that the advertiser did not provide a reasonable basis for the claim and recommended that it be discontinued.

Finally, during the proceeding, Dr. Squatch agreed to permanently discontinue several challenged claims. Therefore, NAD did not review these claims on their merits and will treat them for compliance purposes as though NAD recommended they be discontinued and Dr. Squatch agreed to comply.

In its advertiser statement, Dr. Squatch stated that it “appreciates NAD’s careful review of its advertisements and will comply with NAD’s recommendations in its future advertising” although it disagrees with several of NAD’s findings.

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. This press release shall not be used for advertising or promotional purposes.

About BBB National Programs: BBB National Programs, a non-profit organization, is the home of U.S. independent industry self-regulation, currently operating more than a dozen globally recognized programs that have been helping enhance consumer trust in business for more than 50 years. These programs provide third-party accountability and dispute resolution services that address existing and emerging industry issues, create a fairer playing field for businesses, and a better experience for consumers. BBB National Programs continues to evolve its work and grow its impact by providing business guidance and fostering best practices in arenas such as advertising, child-and-teen-directed marketing, data privacy, dispute resolution, automobile warranty, technology, and emerging areas. 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:
Jennie Rosenberg
Media Relations
BBB National Programs
press@bbbnp.org

New York, NY – November 30, 2023 – In a challenge brought by Kingsford Products Company, the National Advertising Division (NAD) of BBB National Programs recommended that Royal Oak Enterprises, LLC:

• Discontinue the claim that Royal Oak Super Size briquets are 50% bigger than Kingsford Original briquets.
• Modify its advertising to avoid conveying a message that Royal Oak Super Size briquets provide the “best grilling experience” because they burn hotter and longer than competing briquets due to their larger size.
• Discontinue the claim that “a bigger briquet is a better briquet” or modify its advertising to limit the claim to consumer meaningful benefits for which Royal Oak has substantiation.

50% Bigger Claim

For Royal Oak’s advertisements, in which the object of comparison of its 50% bigger claim is not stated, NAD found that consumers may reasonably understand the comparison to be against Kingsford since Kingsford Original briquets comprise a significant share of the charcoal briquet market. Therefore, NAD assessed whether the 50% bigger claim was accurate with respect to Kingsford Original briquets.

NAD determined that Royal Oak’s testing in support of its “50% bigger” claim did not provide representative, statistically significant, and reliable support and recommended that the claim be discontinued.

NAD noted that Royal Oak is free to promote the size of its Super Size briquets or that its Super Size briquets are larger than competitive brands such as Kingsford, but any comparative size claims must not overstate the relevance of the size difference.

“Best Grilling Experience”

NAD found that in the challenged advertising the “best grilling experience” is linked to measurable product attributes; namely, the ability of the Super Size briquets to light fast and provide high heat and a long burn time. As the claim is linked to measurable performance within a comparative context, NAD concluded that it is not puffery and Royal Oak must have support for the claim.

Given that variables other than size may affect the performance of each briquet, NAD determined that Royal Oak’s comparative performance claim cannot be supported by reference to the products’ differences in size alone. Rather, the claim should be supported by properly conducted testing demonstrating that the briquets burn hotter and longer than competing briquets.

As Royal Oak did not provide such support, NAD recommended they modify advertising to avoid conveying a message that Royal Oak Super Size briquets provide the “best grilling experience” because they burn hotter and longer than competing briquets due to their larger size.

“A Bigger Briquet is a Better Briquet”

NAD determined that consumers may reasonably understand a “bigger is better” claim to mean more than just that a bigger briquet size is valuable but that a bigger briquet size is comparatively better in some recognizable or measurable way with respect to overall grilling performance. In some advertising, Royal Oak specifically ties the “bigger is better” claim to burn time and speed of combustion and thus reasonably conveys the message that a bigger briquet size corresponds to superior performance with respect to longer burn time and faster lighting.

Royal Oak did not present sufficient evidence to show that a bigger briquet size provides an overall performance advantage over smaller briquets or superior burning or combustion. Therefore, NAD recommended that Royal Oak either discontinue the claim that a bigger briquet is a better briquet or modify its advertising to limit the claim to consumer meaningful benefits for which Royal Oak has substantiation.

During the proceeding Royal Oak permanently discontinued several other challenged claims. Therefore, NAD did not review these claims on the merits.

In its advertiser statement, Royal Oak stated that that it “will comply with the NAD’s recommendations for the claims addressed in this Final Decision.”

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. This press release shall not be used for advertising or promotional purposes.

About BBB National Programs: BBB National Programs, a non-profit organization, is the home of U.S. independent industry self-regulation, currently operating more than a dozen globally recognized programs that have been helping enhance consumer trust in business for more than 50 years. These programs provide third-party accountability and dispute resolution services that address existing and emerging industry issues, create a fairer playing field for businesses, and a better experience for consumers. BBB National Programs continues to evolve its work and grow its impact by providing business guidance and fostering best practices in arenas such as advertising, child-and-teen-directed marketing, data privacy, dispute resolution, automobile warranty, technology, and emerging areas. 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:
Jennie Rosenberg
Media Relations
BBB National Programs
press@bbbnp.org  

New York, NY – November 28, 2023 – A panel of the National Advertising Review Board (NARB), the appellate advertising body of BBB National Programs, recommended that Mint Mobile, LLC discontinue or modify the claim that its Unlimited plan is “now just $15/mo.”

The advertising at issue had been challenged by AT&T Services, Inc. before the National Advertising Division (NAD) as part of NAD’s Fast Track SWIFT expedited challenge process, designed for single-issue advertising cases. Following NAD’s decision (Case No. 7250), Mint Mobile appealed NAD’s recommendations.

Mint Mobile offers prepaid phone plans, which, unlike those offered by AT&T and other major wireless carriers, require customers to pay upfront before receiving service. Mint Mobile’s $15/mo. price for its Unlimited plan is a promotional rate that is only in effect for three months. After three months of service, the monthly rate increases, with the exact amount of the increase dependent on which plan the consumer selects. 

At issue in the Fast-Track SWIFT challenge and appeal is whether the nature of Mint Mobile’s promotional offer was adequately disclosed.

In banner ads, on social media, and in a television commercial, Mint Mobile advertised that the price of its Unlimited plan is “now just $15/mo.” The NARB panel determined that the claim in the various advertisements conveyed that the $15/mo. price is a permanent price for Mint Mobile’s unlimited phone plans that were previously $30 to $35/mo., depending on the duration of the plan.

Further, in agreement with NAD, the NARB panel found that the current disclosure appearing in the advertisements does not meet the well understood standard requiring clear and conspicuous disclosure of material limitations for an advertised price offer. Accordingly, the disclosure was inadequate to modify the misleading claim that Mint Mobile has reduced the price of its unlimited plan to $15/month going forward.

The NARB panel recommended that Mint Mobile discontinue the claim that its Unlimited plan is “now just $15/mo.” or clearly and conspicuously disclose that the offer is a promotional or introductory offer for the first three months of service as part of the main claim or in similar size text and font in close proximity to the main claim.

Mint Mobile stated that while the challenged advertising was discontinued last month, Mint Mobile is committed to the self-regulatory process and will comply with NARB’s decision should it use the challenged claim again.

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, a non-profit organization, is the home of U.S. independent industry self-regulation, currently operating more than a dozen globally recognized programs that have been helping enhance consumer trust in business for more than 50 years. These programs provide third-party accountability and dispute resolution services that address existing and emerging industry issues, create a fairer playing field for businesses, and a better experience for consumers. BBB National Programs continues to evolve its work and grow its impact by providing business guidance and fostering best practices in arenas such as advertising, child-and-teen-directed marketing, data privacy, dispute resolution, automobile warranty, technology, and emerging areas. 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 22, 2023 – A panel of the National Advertising Review Board (NARB), the appellate advertising body of BBB National Programs, recommended that Dr. Squatch, LLC discontinue referring to products that may compete with its Jukebox Soap products as consisting of, containing, or being detergents. However, the NARB panel determined that Dr. Squatch provided a reasonable basis for its “natural” claims for Jukebox Soap.

Dr. Squatch’s Jukebox brand distinguishes itself from competing bars and cleansers as “real” soap made with natural ingredients. The advertising at issue had been challenged by Unilever U.S., Inc., manufacturer of Dove brand cleansers and body washes. Following a decision by the National Advertising Division (NAD) (Case No. 7195), Dr. Squatch appealed and Unilever cross-appealed.

Detergent Claims

In agreement with NAD, the NARB panel concluded that referring to competitive products as being or containing detergents communicates the unsupported message that competitive products are harsh to the skin. The NARB panel further agreed with NAD that consumers are not likely aware of the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) technical definitions, and accordingly, it is misleading for Dr. Squatch to refer to the FDA’s definition in referencing competing products as “synthetic detergents.”

Natural Claims

In agreement with NAD, the NARB panel concluded that Dr. Squatch provided a reasonable basis for its “natural” claims. In so finding, the NARB panel noted that:

• An analysis of consumer expectation is the proper standard for what is or is not natural.
• Saponification would be regarded by reasonable consumers as minimal processing, and therefore consistent with identifying the product as natural.
• Jukebox products are made almost entirely from natural or naturally derived ingredients.

Claims about Jukebox’s Leadership

In the underlying decision, NAD recommended that the statement “Who run the world? Girls” in conjunction with the statement “From our world-class natural perfumers and in-house artisan soap makers to our bubbly leadership, we’re a band of music & soap-lovin’ ladies” be modified to avoid conveying the message that Jukebox is a women-run brand. The NARB panel determined that NAD reached the correct conclusion on this issue.

During the appeal, Dr. Squatch presented the NARB panel with modified advertising in which the heading “Who run the world? Girls?” has been replaced with “Meet the Band.” The NARB panel concluded that the revised advertising communicates a different message than the claim language that had been challenged and is properly supported because it refers to the hands-on, directly responsible personnel who, based on the evidence, are primarily women.

Dr. Squatch stated that it “appreciates NARB’s careful review of the record in this appeal and will comply with the recommendations made by NAD and NARB in 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, a non-profit organization, is the home of U.S. independent industry self-regulation, currently operating more than a dozen globally recognized programs that have been helping enhance consumer trust in business for more than 50 years. These programs provide third-party accountability and dispute resolution services that address existing and emerging industry issues, create a fairer playing field for businesses, and a better experience for consumers. BBB National Programs continues to evolve its work and grow its impact by providing business guidance and fostering best practices in arenas such as advertising, child-and-teen-directed marketing, data privacy, dispute resolution, automobile warranty, technology, and emerging areas. 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.

Contact:
Jennie Rosenberg
Media Relations
BBB National Programs
press@bbbnp.org