NAD Finds Disclosures for Comparative Claims Aren't Clear

NAD Finds Disclosures for Comparative Claims Aren't Clear

by Kelley Drye Advertising Law

Trending Podcast Topics, In Your Inbox

Sign up for Beacon’s free newsletter, and find out about the most interesting podcast topics before everyone else.

Rated 5 stars by early readers

By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

Topics in this Episode

About This Episode

2:59 minutes

published 17 days ago

English

All rights reserved

Speaker 00s - 173.4s

Welcome to Kelly Dry's Adlo Access podcast, and this is Simone Roach PERSON. Glad advertises that its force-flex max strength bags are 25% more durable. More durable than what? If you follow an asterisk, you learn that they are 25% more durable than Glad's own 13-gallon force flex bags. A competitor, presumably worried that consumers would think that Glad was making a comparison to its bags, brought a challenge beforethe NAD ORG, questioning whether the basis of comparison was sufficiently clear. NAD ORG didn't think so. Glad pointed to its online disclosures, but NAD ORG didn't think they were sufficient. For example, on Glad's website, the disclosures appear at the bottom of the webpage and require scrolling through other content, unassociated with the claim, and occasional restatements of the claim before reaching the disclosure. And on another page,the disclosure appeared in white text on a grey trash bag background, making it difficult to notice or read without zooming in on the image. Glad argued that it included clear disclosures on all packages.NAD ORG noted that although some versions of some sides of the product packaging include sufficient disclosures, consumers may only look at one panel of the package before making a purchase. Typically, consumers may only see the consumer-facing panel, which in this case included the durability claim with a disclosure far from the claim it qualifies. NED recommended Glad include the disclosure on every panel where the claim is made. NED's analysis on package disclosures is different than what we've seen from some courtsthat have held that it's reasonable to expect consumers to flip a package over and look at relevant information on other sides. Glad indicated they would appeal that portion of the decision, so we'll need to see what NARB says. In the meantime, this case is a reminder that NAD ORG continues to have high expectations for advertisers making claims on packages and arguably low expectations for consumers reading them. And if you'd like more information what you've heard on this topic, please contact Gonzalemannand you can find his contact details in the show notes. And also, please see our advertising and privacy low resource center available at kellydry.com. And please download the Adler Access ORG app for Apple ORG and Android phones, available in the Apple app and Google Play ORG stores.