NAD/NARB Filing Fees Increased as of Feb. 1, 2016
The filing fee for all appeals before the National Advertising Review Board (NARB) increased to $15,000 from $12,000. The fee can be adjusted/waived on showing of economic hardship, and consumers may file challenges free of charge. In addition, NAD filing fees were increased for National Partners of the Council of Better Business Bureaus, to $15,000 from $10,000, as well as for other challengers with gross annual revenue of less than $1 billion, to $20,000 from $15,000. View the decision.
Novartis Consumer Health, Inc., Case No. 5873 (Dec. 17, 2015)
NARB reviewed an NAD decision finding that Benefiber's "helps maintain regularity" claims lacked substantiation. Both NARB and NAD concluded that the claim conveyed to consumers that Benefiber provides a meaningful benefit with respect to regularity. NAD found that Novartis did not provide sufficient information to assess whether the studies it submitted to substantiate its claim were competent and reliable. NARB also noted that the study summaries provided insufficient detail as to the overall study results, because findings related to regularity were cited only for selected subgroups. Novartis could not rely on "conventional wisdom," but needed to show studies demonstrating that wheat dextrin, or its functional equivalent, at doses similar to the recommended dose for Benefiber have a meaningful impact on regularity. View the decision.
American Dryer, Inc., Case No. 5916 (Jan. 5, 2016)
NAD reviewed claims about a hand dryer's efficacy at killing germs that included: "CPC technology is proven to kill germs by leading microbiology labs."; "ExtremeAir CPC is the most hygienic method of hand drying ever!"; and "Independently proven to kill: E. Coli, Salmonella, Influenza A, Staph, C. diff, MRSA." American Dryer relied on testing purportedly demonstrating that cold plasma technology has germ-killing efficacy on surfaces in a laboratory setting. In this case, however, American Dryer made claims of germ-killing efficacy with respect to cold plasma technology on air drawn into and expelled from its product under real-world conditions. NAD concluded that the evidence was not sufficient to support the challenged express claims or the reasonably conveyed messages that its product killed germs on hands dried under the device, or offered a more hygienic or superior public health benefit than that of conventional hand dryers, and recommended that the claims be discontinued. View the decision.
Church & Dwight Co., Inc., Case No. 5919 (Jan. 29, 2016)
Clorox, the maker of Clorox Bleach, challenged advertisements
for bleach-alternative OxiClean. The ads included statements
touting the product's whitening power, stating: "Get the
tough stains out without the worry of chlorine bleach," bleach
is "scary" and "We read care labels on thousands of
white garments and we were surprised they had this warning symbol
which means do not use chlorine bleach." NAD recommended that
the advertiser discontinue the "Scary Bleach" commercial
to avoid conveying the message that chlorine bleach is damaging to
white clothes. NAD also held that advertising statements referring
to clothing care labels recommending only non-chlorine bleach were
acceptable and not misleading. View the decision.
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.
