- within Government, Public Sector and Strategy topic(s)
- with readers working within the Environment & Waste Management industries
Product names and advertising touts with “world’s best” often get a pass. I should know: I’ve successfully defended its use on the grounds that the statement is puffery. But I’ve also successfully challenged “world’s best” touts as claims, arguing that “world’s best” is not mere puffery and that its use by an advertiser requires substantiation. Does that mean I'm a skilled NAD practitioner? I’d like to think so! But really what it means is that when an advertiser writes copy describing a product as the “world’s best” and asks you if it’s puffery, you really have no choice but to give the one answer they hate the most, namely, “it depends.” And “context matters.”
A recent SWIFT decision from NAD proves that important point yet again. At issue was the advertiser Vacation’s tout of its sunscreen on label and in other advertising as the “World’s Best-Smelling Sunscreen.” The challenger, Beiersdorf, argued that since smell is an objectively measurable attribute, the tout is a claim and not puffery. The challenger argued that the tout is puffery, and subjective and that consumers would not expect “world’s best-smelling” to require substantiation.
NAD examined the statement in two contexts: as a standalone claim, and when coupled with a claim about the advertiser’s online reviews. As a standalone claim, NAD determined that the tout was puffery. It noted that even though smell likeability and even preference are measurable through established testing methods, “the fact that a test methodology exists to measure smell does not necessarily mean that consumers would expect a claim of “World’s Best-Smelling Sunscreen” to be substantiated.” Rather, NAD determined, given the “inherently subjective” nature of smell preference, “reasonable consumers are unlikely to take the claim, when presented by itself, seriously.” Accordingly, NAD determined that, standing alone on the label and in retail signage, the tout is puffery.
NAD reached a different conclusion about the tout as used on its website. There, “world’s best smelling” tout appeared in quotation marks and was displayed directly above an image of five stars, with the text “4.8/5.0” and “13,457 Reviews.” NAD determined that, as a result of the combination, consumers could take away the message that “world’s best-smelling” is “more than puffery and relies on the reviews as substantiation for a claim of preference.” Accordingly, NAD recommended that the advertiser modify the ad to avoid conveying the message that the “World’s Best-Smelling Sunscreen” is substantiated by the reviews.
Takeaways and Observations
One thing advertisers should NOT take away from this Decision is that claims about smell (and taste) preference do not require substantiation. Typically claims about sensory preference are based on testing in compliance with ASTM E1958 Standard Guide for Sensory Claim Substantiation. This decision does not invalidate, or obviate the need for, reliance on this standard for sensory claims. Rather, NAD found that in one context of how the tout was used here, standing alone, and with “world’s best,” it just didn’t convey a real claim of preference and therefore didn’t require testing.
Hyperbole does not, in and of itself, mean that a statement is puffery. Remember that there are indeed cases where “world’s best” was found by NAD to be a claim.
Advertisers cannot assume that a tout it uses in one type of asset will necessarily work in another. Here, “world’s best-smelling” passed muster as puffery on the label and in certain signage, but it didn’t on the website (not because it was on a website but because it was combined with other copy there). Advertisers, when your in-house compliance team tells you that it needs to see all your intended uses of a proposed claim, believe them. Context matters.
Case Report # 7590 (July 2026).
This alert provides general coverage of its subject area. We provide it with the understanding that Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz is not engaged herein in rendering legal advice, and shall not be liable for any damages resulting from any error, inaccuracy, or omission. Our attorneys practice law only in jurisdictions in which they are properly authorized to do so. We do not seek to represent clients in other jurisdictions.
