NAD is an investigative unit of the advertising industry’s system of self-regulation. It is administered by the Council of Better Business Bureaus.

NAD requested the advertiser provide substantiation for advertising claims that included:

• “Learn a language in 10 days with Pimsleur.”
•  “Discover how you can speak any language … In just 10 short days … Free from the computer … Free from memorization … and absolutely guaranteed.”
•  “The World Leader in Audio-Based Language Learning.”
•  “Use the Pimsleur Approach to speak a new language in only 10 days!”
•  “Each CD has been scientifically sequenced to rapidly lock language materials into your brain after just one listen.”
•  “You’ll absorb your new language effortlessly without any reading, writing or computer use.”

NAD noted in its decision that the advertising at issue made a variety of claims regarding a consumer’s ability to learn a language through use of a “Quick & Simple” audio course. Following its review, NAD found that the advertiser had established that consumers who followed the program – completing eight, 30-minute audio sessions over eight days – could expect to have learned enough to engage in basic conversations, i.e., to introduce themselves, inquire about the cost of a product, or the location of a restroom, hotel or restaurant and respond to pleasantries. Further, NAD determined that the advertiser could support claims that its language compact discs “have been scientifically sequenced to rapidly lock language material into your brain after just one listen” and that the company is the “world leader” in audio-based language courses.

However, the key issues before NAD were whether the advertising at issue overstated  the degree of language skill or fluency that consumers could expect upon completion of  eight audio lessons and understated the degree of effort required to be successful.

NAD recommended that the advertiser modify the claim “learn a language in 10 days” –wherever it appeared – to better disclose the basic, introductory level of language skill consumers could expect to achieve. Further NAD recommended that the advertiser discontinue the “no effort” claims, or modify the claims to avoid conveying the inaccurate message that the “Quick and Simple” program requires no effort at all.

The company, in its advertiser’s statement, said that it would take NAD’s recommendations into account “and has already begun clarifying its current advertising consistent with the NAD’s recommendations.”

NAD is an investigative unit of the advertising industry system of self-regulation. It is administered by the Council of Better Business Bureaus.

NAD requested substantiation for the following express claims:

•  “Kills 10x more odor-causing bacteria*
•  *As compared to the leading denture tablet brands.”
•  “Scientifically proven to kill 10 times more odor-causing bacteria than tablets.”
•  “Removes the toughest stains.”
•  “Cleans in just 3 minutes.”
•  Efferdent can be used “to kill 99.9% of the germs that cause denture odor.”
•  “Get your dentures crystal clean.”

NAD also requested substantiation for the implied claim that consumers will experience a 10x-greater benefit overall and in the reduction of all odor-causing bacteria if they use Efferdent Power Clean Crystals denture cleaner.

The advertiser informed NAD that although it believed its claims to be supported, it would withdraw its quantified comparative claims “Scientifically proven to kill 10 times more odor-causing bacteria than tablets” and “Kills 10x more odor-causing bacteria*[*As compared to the leading denture tablet brands].” Further, the advertiser recognized the need to conduct additional testing based on prior NAD decisions concerning similar claims.

The advertiser also informed NAD that it is in the process of modifying its packaging and advertising to remove the “10x” claims.

However, the advertiser maintained that it would continue to make the stand-alone claims that the product “Removes the toughest stains,” “Cleans in just 3 minutes” and “Get your dentures crystal clean.”

NAD appreciated the advertiser’s decision to voluntarily and permanently discontinue the claims, an action NAD found to be necessary and Prestige, in its advertiser’s statement, said the company “will be guided by the results of future testing when determining whether similar claims are appropriate for future use. Prestige appreciates the NAD’s attention to this matter.”

CARU is an investigative unit of the advertising industry’s system of self-regulation. It is administered by the Council of Better Business Bureaus.

CARU monitors websites for compliance with CARU’s Self-Regulatory Program for Children’s Advertising, including guidelines on Online Privacy Protection, as well as with the federal Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act.

Advertisers must obtain prior “verifiable parental consent” when they collect personal information from children under the age of 13, including email addresses or phone numbers.

Children are directed to Buildabear.com by a television advertisement that references the website.

At Buildabear.com, visitors can create an account that allows them to play bear-themed games, download desktop themes and shop for Build-A-Bear merchandise. To create an account, visitors must enter an email address, password and birthdate. CARU noted during its initial review of the site that children under the age of 13 who wanted to register for an account could circumvent the age-screening mechanism by hitting the back button.

Elsewhere on the site, CARU noted, were links to other areas of the Internet – Twitter and Pinterest – that are directed to adults and do not age-screen.

In response to CARU’s inquiry, the company said that a session cookie designed to prevent visitors from circumventing the age-screening process had been inadvertently overwritten and had since been restored.

Further, the company said it would remove links to Twitter and Pinterest from the site’s front page.

The company, in its advertiser’s statement, said it “shares CARU’s goals for ensuring children’s safety and privacy on the Internet and thanks CARU for bringing these issues to its attention. Build-A-Bear Workshop welcomed this opportunity to work with CARU and is pleased with the satisfactory conclusion of CARU’s inquiry.”

NAD is an investigative unit of the advertising industry’s system of self-regulation. It is administered by the Council of Better Business Bureaus.

In this case, NAD examined multiple television commercials that featured “Flo,” the animated salesperson who works in the fictitious “Progressive Store.” The commercials promoted a variety of discounts and services from Progressive, as compared to “A. Nother Insurance Co.” The advertising also featured two dim and hapless employees of “A. Nother” insurance company.
A key issue before NAD was whether the advertising claims made by Progressive against a fictional company were comparative in nature.

NAD found that while Progressive may not have intended to take aim at specific competitors, the advertising at issue could be interpreted by consumers to offer a comparison with other insurance companies.

“In particular, the commercials make specific uniqueness claims about discounts offered by Progressive that are not offered by ‘A. Nother Insurance Co.,’” NAD noted, including “a paperless discount, safe driver discount, a discount based on a telematics analysis, and a loyalty discount.”

In addition, NAD noted, the employees of “A. Nother Insurance Co.” could reasonably be understood to be insurance “agents,” reinforcing the message that comparative claims were being made against an actual competitor of Progressive’s. NAD determined that although the commercials are humorous and compare Progressive’s discounts and services to those of a fictional insurance company, the commercials clearly conveyed the comparative message that Progressive offers benefits that some (if not most) other insurance companies do not offer.

NAD recommended that Progressive discontinue claims referencing discounts in the context in which they appeared in the broadcast advertising. However, NAD noted that nothing in its decisions precluded the advertiser from promoting the discounts on a stand-alone basis, or in advertising that specifically identifies the basis of comparison.

NAD determined that the claim “The longer you stay with us, the more you save. And when you switch from another company to us, we even reward you for the time you spent there” was supported as a stand-alone claim, but recommended the advertiser modify the claim to more clearly convey its intended message: the discount is unique because it not only provides lower premiums to customers who have maintained continuous coverage with a different insurance company, but it also provides an added benefit of giving customers credit towards tenure in Progressive’s loyalty program for the period of time that they were insured with their previous company.

Finally, NAD determined that the claim “more and more people are bundling their home and auto insurance with Progressive . . . And why wouldn’t you? You can save on both your home and auto policies” was substantiated in a standalone context.

However, NAD recommended that the advertiser modify its “bundling” commercials to expressly advise consumers that its homeowners insurance is issued, underwritten and serviced by a third-party insurance company.

Progressive, in its advertiser’s statement, said that while it did not agree with certain of NAD’s findings, “we respect the self-regulatory process and will consider NAD’s recommendations in future advertising.”

NARB is the appellate unit of the advertising industry system of self-regulation.

The National Advertising Division, an investigative unit of the advertising industry’s system of self-regulation, had conducted a review of Health Directions’ advertising and recommended that the company discontinue certain claims made in print, broadcast and Internet advertising, including claims that referenced reductions in joint pain “in as little as seven days.” The company appealed NAD’s findings to NARB.

NARB noted in its decision that Healthy Directions offered several studies on glucosamine and relied on one of those studies, conducted in 1980 on hospitalized patients, to support its claim that glucosamine reduced joint pain/discomfort/stiffness in seven days. However, previous NAD cases have held that the vast body of studies on glucosamine demonstrates its effectiveness in improving joint health after approximately six weeks, and one study on hospitalized patients is not sufficient to substantiate glucosamine’s effectiveness at seven days.

Following its review of the evidence in the record, the NARB panel determined that Healthy Directions had not met its burden to provide competent and reliable scientific evidence showing that any of the ingredients in Joint Advantage Gold are effective in providing fast relief or reduction in joint pain/discomfort/stiffness in seven days. The panel recommended the advertiser discontinue such claims.

The panel further recommended that the advertiser discontinue the claim that Joint Advantage Gold is “formulated to work throughout your entire body, in EVERY joint from your neck and shoulders to your toes.”

The panel noted that most studies relied on by Healthy Directions assessed only the effect of the product on the knee. While two studies were not limited to the knee, the panel found the studies flawed and determined they could not provide a reasonable basis for advertised claims that Joint Advantage Gold is formulated to work in every joint.

The panel further recommends that Healthy Directions discontinue its claim that wild rosella and aniseed myrtle are herbs traditionally used in Australia to reduce inflammation or joint pain.

Finally, the panel recommends that Healthy Directions discontinue consumer testimonials that claim (a) Joint Advantage Gold is effective in eliminating joint pain, (b) Joint Advantage Gold is effective in eliminating or reducing pain during strenuous activities, (c) Joint Advantage Gold is effective after 4 days use, and (d) Joint Advantage Gold is effective for a particular age group unless Healthy Directions has reliable and competent scientific evidence to support the claim with respect to that age group.

The testimonials at issue included an 82-year-old man who said the product allowed him to ski without pain, and a 90-year-old woman who said that after taking Joint Advantage Gold for four days she had “phenomenal” improvement and was able to walk with no pain.

The panel noted that advertisers may not make claims, via consumer testimonials, that could not be substantiated if made directly by the advertiser. The Federal Trade Commission Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising make it clear that endorsements describing the performance of an advertised product will be interpreted as representing that the product is effective for the purpose depicted, and the advertiser must have adequate substantiation to support such effectiveness claims.

Because Healthy Directions could not substantiate the claimed effectiveness of its product as related by these testimonials, the panel stated, “it should not make the claims even if it is prepared to explain the results that consumers will generally achieve in using its product.”

Healthy Directions, in its advertiser’s statement, said that while it was “disappointed in the panel’s decision, we are a firm believer in the self-regulatory process and will modify any future advertising of Joint Advantage Gold to conform with the recommendations set forth in the decision.”

ERSP is an investigative unit of the advertising industry’s system of self-regulation and is administered by the Council of Better Business Bureaus. The marketer’s advertising came to ERSP’s attention pursuant to its ongoing monitoring program.

Claims at issue in the initial inquiry included:

•  “How would you like to get a bunch of $500 bills poured directly into your pocket every single day?”
•  “With this easy-to-do system, anyone (even YOU!) can make well over $100,000 a month!”
•  “That’s right! Just fill out the form below, and learn how to instantly start making $1497 per day with a simple cheap postcard campaign, and YES I mean PER DAY!”
•  “There has never been an easier-to-do Internet business than this!”
•  “IMPORTANT! You only have a little while remaining before this offer is closed

Pursuant to the ERSP Policies and Procedures, after failing to provide a substantive response to ERSP’s original inquiry within fifteen calendar days, the marketer was afforded a second ten-day period in which to submit a substantive response. The marketer did not do so. Pursuant to ERSP Policies and Procedures, this matter has been referred to the FTC.

NAD is an investigative unit of the advertising industry’s system of self-regulation. It is administered by the Council of Better Business Bureaus.

As part of its ongoing monitoring program and in conjunction with an initiative with the Council for Responsible Nutrition designed to expand the review of claims made for dietary supplements, NAD requested UPSLabs provide substantiation for the following claims made for Jack3d Micro:

•  “Getting a pump as you drive to the gym.”
•  “Being three-quarters through your workout and feeling like you’ve got a full tank”

NAD also requested substantiation for the claim that Jack3d is the “The Original, University Studied legend.”

Following its review, NAD determined that the challenged claims for Jack3d Micro could reasonably be interpreted as product performance claims. Given the absence of product testing, NAD determined that the performance claims were not supported and recommended that they be discontinued.

NAD noted that the advertiser had not provided information as to the dosage or formulation of ingredients in Jack3d Micro and, as a result, had not provided a reasonable basis to support ingredient claims regarding the benefits the ingredients. NAD recommended the claims be discontinued.

Finally, NAD determined that the advertiser had not provided a reasonable basis for its “University Studied” claim and recommended that the claim be discontinued or modified to make clear the cited studies examined the impact of Jack3d on resting heart rate and blood pressure.

NAD noted in its decision that, in order to ensure that its advertising is truthful, USPLabs agreed to modify its future advertising to directly list the study references of the two peer-reviewed published clinical trials on Jack3d.

USPLabs further agreed to add language to make clear that Jack3d is a pre-workout product meant to be used in conjunction with exercise.

USPlabs, in its advertiser’s statement, said the company “respectfully disagrees with some of the conclusions made by NAD. While it believes that it has adequate substantiation, USPlabs will further expand certain statements and also take into consideration NAD’s views as it reviews current and future advertising for its products.”

ERSP is an investigative unit of the advertising industry’s system of self-regulation and is administered by the Council of Better Business Bureaus. The marketer’s advertising came to the attention of ERSP pursuant to its ongoing monitoring program.

ERSP reviewed online advertising for the Coffee Shop Millionaire system and identified several claims for review, including:

•  “How a Flip-Flop Wearing Bum At A Coffee Shop Drives Luxury Sports Cars & Rakes In As Much As $3,846,373 A Year!”
•  “You don’t need ANY technical experience.”
•  “You need to act fast or you will miss out. And if you decide to come back later? You’ll probably be too late.”
•  “Anthony…I can’t thank you enough for the $21k cash machine. I made more with your system in a matter of weeks than I had made in my entire previous 18 months online. Plus I continue to make money every week like clockwork when I mail the list I build using the system.”

Techniques addressed include, but are not limited to, internet and mobile applications, affiliate marketing, search engine optimization, social media, article marketing, joint venture partnerships, product launches, new product creation, list building and monetizing, and local marketing. The marketer asserted that the cost for these materials was 10-30 times less than for competing products.

The marketer explained that consumers gain access to the information by purchasing a subscription to the service at coffeeshopmillionaire.com for a one-time fee. Once a member, subscribers have access to a variety of information and resources and are provided fully-developed products and corresponding rights to resell them. Products include, but are not limited to: “The Bible of Bodybuilding,” “The Most Important Guide on Dieting and Nutrition in the 21st Century,” and “Sleeping Sanctuary: Salvation for the Sleep Deprived.”

The advertising at issue featured a disclaimer that stated in part: “Any reference to, or income examples from, my businesses and/or the examples of others are exceptional results, which do not apply to the average person and are not intended to represent or guarantee that anyone will achieve the same or similar results.”

ERSP recommended that the marketer discontinue use of the disclaimer in conjunction with testimonials and earnings claims that indicate consumers can make large sums of money quickly and easily. Further, ERSP recommended the marketer the amount of money that consumers can generally expect to earn based upon reliable program usage data it has received from consumers.

Given the absence of evidence in the record, ERSP recommended the marketer discontinue claims that indicate users of the system can earn money quickly, easily, and with little or no computer skills.

ERSP was additionally concerned with the lack of disclosure language to explain to potential customers that technical skills (i.e., how to build a website using HTML or how to host it) are not necessary because those are types of services that outside vendors may perform. While ERSP understands the marketer’s position that the techniques conveyed in Coffee Shop Millionaire assist users in identifying vendors who can perform the services that require technical expertise, ERSP nevertheless recommended that the marketer add clear and conspicuous disclosure language to more accurately convey these details to customers.

Finally, ERSP recognized the marketer’s voluntary removal of claims that formed the basis of this inquiry, such as:

•  “How a Flip-Flop Wearing Bum At A Coffee Shop Drives Luxury Sports Cars & Rakes In As Much As $3,846,373 A Year!”
•  “People are making anywhere from a couple hundred dollars a day, to as much as $10,000 a day from their laptops, iPads and even cellphones.”

The company, in its marketer’s statement, said that it is in the process of modifying its advertising to address the ERSP’s concerns.

NAD is an investigative unit of the advertising industry’s system of self-regulation. It is administered by the Council of Better Business Bureaus.

NAD requested substantiation for advertising claims that included:

•  “Consumes less. Warms More.”
•  “Save up to 50% or more on heating costs.”
•  “Energy saving: heats a room for only 4 cents per hour.”
•  “Ultra-safe: leave unattended 24/7, cool to touch.”
•  “Healthy: fanless – will not circulate dust or dry the air.”
•  “Effective: 100% Pure Stack Convention, gentle whole room warmth.”
•  “Economical. Safe. Simple.”

The advertiser did not respond to NAD’s initial inquiry, or to NAD’s follow-up communications. NAD was disappointed that the advertiser did not participate, particularly in light of the strong and specific safety and savings claims made for the product.
Based on the advertiser’s failure to respond to NAD’s inquiry, pursuant to Section 2.10 of the NAD/NARB Procedures, NAD will refer this matter to the FTC for further review.

NAD is an investigative unit of the advertising industry’s system of self-regulation. It is administered by the Council of Better Business Bureaus.

Water softeners treat “hard” water by removing minerals, including calcium and magnesium, by forcing hard water though a tank that contains “ion exchange resin beads” –beads that are charged to attract and hold on to calcium and magnesium ions as the water passes over them. As the beads become saturated with minerals, water softeners have a built-in system to flush the beads with salt brine, wash away the calcium and magnesium and “recharge” the beads so that they can again attract and remove hard water minerals.

This regeneration process requires the salt products sold by the challenger and advertiser.

In addition to calcium and magnesium, a water softener’s resin beads can also attract and pull iron ions from the water supply in a process referred to as “iron fouling.” Both parties offer products that add citric acid and other additives to their water softening salt to help remove iron during regeneration.

At issue were claims about the advertiser’s enhanced salt pellets, System Saver II, or SSII, including:

•  “Extends Softener Life Up to 5 Years*”
•  “Delivers up to 18% more soft water per pound of salt than plain salt pellets*”
•  “Removes up to 12% more hard water minerals than plain salt pellets during regeneration*

Product packaging and some advertisements also carried the disclaimer:

•  “*Assuming an average softener life of 10 years, based on external laboratory testing compared to plain salt pellets.”

To substantiate these claims, the advertiser provided the results of an extensive test conducted by an independent third-party laboratory.

Following its review of the evidence in the record, NAD determined that results of the advertiser’s testing, which utilized water containing atypically high levels of iron, were not sufficiently reliable to support unqualified superior performance claims targeted to the general public.

However, NAD acknowledged the testing could provide a reasonable basis for a more limited claim that, for consumers with high levels of iron in their water, using SSII rather than plain salt, could – over the life of a water softener – improve the appliance’s long-term performance and extend its useful life.

NAD further recommended that the advertiser discontinue its unsupported quantified claims “Extends Softener Life Up To 5 Years*,” “Delivers up to 18% more soft water per pound of salt than plain salt pellets.*,” and “Removes up to 12% more hard water minerals than plain salt pellets during regeneration.*”

Finally, NAD determined that the advertiser’s disclosure which included confusing language and appeared on the back of a 25-50 pound bag, was neither clear nor conspicuous and inadequate to support its advertising claims.

Morton, in its advertiser’s statement, said the company “will take the NAD’s decision into account in future research and advertising, and modify or discontinue the advertising statements as currently phrased.”