Earlier this month, the National Advertising Division of BBB National Programs (NAD) recommended that Amyris Clean Beauty, Inc.’s (Amyris) Biossance skincare products modify or discontinue several claims regarding their “clean” and “ethically and sustainably sourced” ingredients, including:

  • “Clean ingredients and clean formulas—we ban over 2000 ingredients that are known to be toxic to you and the environment. All of our ingredients are also ethically and sustainably sourced.”
  • “Our 100% sugarcane derived squalane is ethically and sustainably sourced, keeping 2 million sharks every year safe from liver harvesting.”
  • “Did you know our squalane is sugarcane derived and it’s a hero ingredient in *every* Biossance formula? This miracle multitasker locks in weightless moisture, calms and protects, and improves elasticity.”

Continue Reading NAD Issues Decision Addressing “Clean,” “Ethically and Sustainably Sourced,” and Efficacy Claims for Amyris Clean Beauty, Inc. Biossance Skincare Products

The National Advertising Division of BBB National Programs (NAD) recommended last month that Stihl Incorporated USA (Stihl), a manufacturer of equipment and tools, discontinue or modify its unqualified “Made in America” claims. Modified claims would need to make clear that “not all (or virtually all) of its products are made in the United States and that not all (or virtually all) of the parts of those products are from the United States,” according to the recommendations.

The Claims at Issue

NAD reviewed “Made in America” claims made on Stihl’s website, social media, commercials, and print ads. In addition to claiming “Made in America,” Stihl ran ads stating, “It’s just three words. But they tell you everything you need to know…Not everyone can say them. But we can. MADE IN AMERICA.”Continue Reading In “Made in America” Case NAD Finds That Advertisers Should Not Rely on Disclosures to Cure a False or Misleading Claim

On September 19, Sam Levine, the director of the Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, outlined the agency’s priorities at the annual conference of the National Advertising Division. Here are the highlights:

Levine outlined three pillars of the enforcement agenda:

  • Focus on the practices that cause the most consumer harm
  • Obtain relief that not only halts the violative conduct but also changes incentives to engage in such conduct in the future
  • Use tools beyond case-by-case enforcement to change behavior (think rule making)

After also noting that the pace of enforcement at the FTC had increased, Levine then focused on some substantive areas of concern, starting with junk fees and dark patterns.Continue Reading FTC Consumer Protection Chief Sam Levine Outlines FTC Priorities at the NAD Conference

As the rest of us prepare for the Super Bowl by buying avocados to make guacamole, installing new big-screen TVs, and donning Ram/Bengal-themed face paint, select corners of corporate America are preparing for the biggest advertising day of the year.

In 2021, companies spent approximately $485 million on ad slots during the big game, and the average cost of a 30-second commercial slot was about $5.6 million. With such high stakes, plus the intensive “Standards and Practices” review employed by the TV networks, one would assume that anything that makes the cut is above reproach. (The review board won’t even let advertisers use “Super Bowl” because it’s trademarked, which is why you often hear “the Big Game” in ads.)

However, the following examples of legal challenges to your favorite Super Bowl commercials demonstrate that the world of advertising law can be tricky to navigate, and companies that advertise simply cannot mitigate their litigation risk to zero.Continue Reading Defending Against the Blitz: Examining the Legal Issues Surrounding Super Bowl Ads

Spring 2021 Edition: Not a Symposium, but a Virtual Ad Law CLE Bonanza

In a recent series of webinars, members of Venable’s advertising law practice, Reed Freeman, Len Gordon, and Shahin Rothermel, along with some leading industry figures, explored and addressed key issues of concern to companies in the advertising space.

Our attorneys along with Panelists Mary Engle and Laura Brett from BBB National Programs, which administers the National Advertising Division (NAD), the investigative unit of the industry’s system of self-regulation; Lou Mastria from the Digital Advertising Alliance (DAA); and Daniel Kaufman from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) also answered some audience questions. Below are some highlights from each session.

Session #1: NAD at 50 Years: Regulation and Self-Regulation Over the Past 50 Years

Q: To what extent does the NAD support the work of the FTC in enforcing self-regulation?

A: There has always been a strong relationship between the FTC and the NAD in supporting self-regulation. The FTC has limited resources, and it considers the NAD to be another cop on the street. There are always going to be cases that the FTC will want to pursue, regardless—for example, when it’s important to get money back to consumers. But anytime the NAD can define advertising as misleading and cause an advertiser to modify or discontinue the advertising, it frees up resources for the FTC. To show its support, the FTC prioritizes referrals from the NAD (as opposed to letters from competitors sent directly to the FTC). Similarly, after cases are referred to the FTC, it encourages the advertiser to participate in the NAD process and comply with the NAD’s decisions. So broadly speaking, the FTC really believes in the NAD’s role in encouraging self-regulation and in promoting truthful and non-misleading advertising.Continue Reading You Asked. We Answered.

We’re sorry not to be meeting up with you in person, but we hope you can join us for our spring 2021 edition of “Not a Symposium, but a Virtual Ad Law CLE Bonanza.” Combining the experience and thought leadership of one of the nation’s largest advertising law practices with key figures in advertising regulation, these three CLE-packed sessions are designed to educate and innovate. Topics will cover broad trends and anticipated developments, as well as industry-specific hurdles, highlights, and more.

Register today for any or all sessions!Continue Reading Spring 2021 Edition: Not a Symposium, but a Virtual Ad Law CLE Bonanza

Earlier this month, NAD issued its first decision under its Fast-Track SWIFT program, its expedited review track for single well-defined advertising issues. (Here are more details on NAD’s Fast-Track SWIFT program.) In its first substantive Fast-Track SWIFT decision, NAD dealt with a dispute between energy bar manufacturers Kind and Clif and reviewed the claim “A Better Performing Bar–Clif Bar For Sustained Energy,” which appeared as the top AdWords result for internet keyword searches for “Kind Bars” and “energy bars.”

Kind argued that this constitutes an express claim comparing the performance of Clif Energy Bars (either generally or with respect to sustained energy) to the performance of Kind Bars or all energy bars on the market, that must be supported by head-to-head product testing. Clif argued that the claim was not appropriate for SWIFT treatment because the challenged claim was too complex. Specifically, Clif argued that expert testimony and a consumer perception survey were necessary to determine whether the word “better” conveyed a comparative performance message or was merely an expression of the advertiser’s opinion of its product, and that these questions could not be obtained within the shortened SWIFT timeline. NAD concluded that the claims were appropriate for SWIFT treatment because they did not require NAD to evaluate complicated product testing (the advertiser did not argue that it had product testing to support a comparative performance claim), and any legal arguments were limited because the challenge involved a single claim in a single context.Continue Reading NAD Issues First Decision under Fast-Track SWIFT Program

Two recent decisions by the National Advertising Division (NAD) provide a helpful reminder to companies that material connections must be disclosed on their seemingly independent websites — so-called native advertisements. Notably, one of the cases arose from the NAD’s routine monitoring program, but both serve as a good reminder that without proper disclosures, consumers may

Last month, the National Advertising Division (NAD) launched its much-anticipated NAD Fast-Track SWIFT process (“Single Well-defined Issue Fast Track”). As we blogged previously, the Fast-Track SWIFT program reflects NAD’s plans to resolve advertising disputes more quickly and efficiently. The most significant aspect of Fast-Track SWIFT is its expeditious resolution process. Parties receive a NAD decision within 20 business days from the initiation of a challenge, i.e., the time that the advertiser receives the challenge.

Under the new rules, any person or entity may seek Fast-Track SWIFT review, but the Fast-Track SWIFT process is limited to issues in national advertising that do not require complex substantiation, such as clinical or technical testing or consumer perception evidence. Specifically, only the following three types of claims are eligible for fast-track review: the prominence or sufficiency of disclosures; misleading pricing and sales claims; and misleading express claims that do not require review of complex evidence or substantiation. NAD also provides hypothetical case examples it might find appropriate for fast-track determination.Continue Reading NAD Launches Fast-Track SWIFT Process

A recent decision from the National Advertising Division (“NAD”) regarding claims made by SmileDirectClub, LLC (“SDC”) in online advertising for its Smile Direct Club Clear Aligners provides guidance on a variety of key advertising issues, including comparative and savings claims, guarantees and consumer reviews and testimonials. NAD recommended the modification or discontinuation of many of the claims challenged by Align Technology, Inc. (“Align”), maker of Invisalign clear aligners.

First, Align argued that SDC’s advertising misled consumers by claiming that its products and services provide smile correction for the same severity levels, or for a comparable range, as Invisalign. According to the challenger, claims such as “SmileDirectClub invisible aligners straighten most smiles in an average of 6 months” conveyed a message that SDC can fix most teeth issues, including complex conditions, without proper disclosure that SDC’s product is actually intended to treat milder and less complex cases of teeth malocclusion.

In recommending that the advertiser modify its claim by disclosing its limitation to mild-to-moderate malocclusion cases, NAD explained that “[a]dvertisers are free to make ‘apples-to-oranges’ comparisons in order to highlight features or attributes of their products, provided that the advertiser disclose the material differences between the products being compared.”Continue Reading Something to Smile About: NAD Provides Guidance on Key Claim Substantiation Issues in Recent Decision