Last month, the National Advertising Division released a decision surrounding claims made by advertiser GuruNanda LLC for its oral care products (including pulling oils, whitening strips, and whitening gel pens) following a challenge brought by the Procter & Gamble Company. 

The core claims challenged included “Natural Teeth Whitening” and “Dazzle From First Application” (among other claims that were permanently discontinued):

Natural Teeth Whitening

GuruNanda claimed its “natural teeth whitening” claim was supported by two clinical studies. However, NAD determined neither was sufficient to substantiate the claim. 

According to NAD, the first study lacked a proper control group, which raised questions about whether whitening results actually stemmed from the product or from external factors like increased brushing frequency. 

With respect to the second study, NAD took issue with its failure to conduct a proper sample size calculation (highlighting that the study was intended for exploratory purposes – and that although exploratory studies may have valid results, the sample size issue called into question the reliability of the study results), lack of applicability to the U.S. market (it was conducted in India on subjects with oral hygiene issues in a hospital setting), and certain statistical design flaws (multiple independent endpoints).  

Dazzle From First Application

Interestingly, it looks like this case was NAD's first chance to opine on what “dazzle” means! The challenger took the position that the claim “dazzle from first application” communicated the message that the product whitens immediately after application, while the advertiser argued that “dazzle” does not mean whiten (and, that consumers will understand “first application” to mean that it whitens only after a complete application pursuant to the product direction). 

NAD concluded that, in the context of a whitening product, the term "dazzle" could be interpreted as promising immediate results. And, because NAD determined that the advertiser lacked substantiation for such an outcome, NAD recommended discontinuing the claim.

GuruNanda stated that it will appeal NAD's decision to NARB.

What's the takeaway for marketers as we await the NARB appeal? Make sure your substantiation is up to snuff! And, if you're using fanciful words like “dazzle” in your claims, be sure to consider the reasonable consumer takeaways!