NAD Challenges Coty For Gel Manicure

The National Advertising Division has recommended that Coty, Inc., discontinue certain claims for the company’s Sally Hansen Miracle Gel, including claims that the product produces a result equivalent to a salon gel manicure.
 
The claims at issue, made in television, internet, social media and in-store displays were challenged by Revlon Consumer Products, maker of competing gel nail polishes. 
  
Coty, in its advertiser’s statement, said the company “supports the self-regulatory process and is appreciative of the NAD’s review of this matter. Notwithstanding, Coty is appealing NAD’s recommendation that Miracle Gel not be referred to as a ‘no-light gel/gel without the light,’ and its recommendation that Coty discontinue its claim, ‘up to 14 days of color and shine.’”
 
NAD also considered whether the advertising implied that the product is a gel nail productor that consumers who use the Sally Hansen product will experience the same quality and long-term durability as that of a professional salon gel manicure
 
The challenger in this case argued that Coty’s claims communicated to consumers that Miracle Gel is a true “gel” and that it offers the same quality and long-term durability associated with professional salon gel manicures, when that is not the case. 
 
The advertiser, meanwhile, maintained that consumers’ common understanding of “gel” is based on how the product looks and feels: like a soft, semi-solid jelly-like substance. Given that Miracle Gel looks and feels like a gel, references to “gel” in its advertising are literally true and not misleading.  The advertiser also contended that an appreciable number of consumer will achieve the promised results of “up to 14 days” color and shine and will not will not reasonably understand its claims as promising the equivalent results of a salon gel manicure lasting two weeks or more.
 
NAD determined that the challenged advertisements reasonably conveyed the messages to consumers that by using Miracle Gel, they can achieve the equivalent benefits of a salon gel manicure, providing the same color, shine and durability. NAD then considered whether those messages were adequately substantiated.
 
Following its review, NAD recommended that the advertiser discontinue some claims. NAD also recommended that the advertiser discontinue certain descriptive language in the FAQ section of its website.
 
NAD noted that nothing in its decision precludes the advertiser from promoting its Miracle Gel product as distinct from regular enamel nail polish, as long as the advertiser avoids conveying the unsupported message that the product confers the equivalent or substantially similar benefits of a professional gel manicure and makes it clear to consumers that the product is an enamel nail polish containing enhancements designed to improve color and/or shine.
 
Further, NAD concluded that the evidence in the record provided a reasonable basis for the advertiser’s stand-alone claim that Miracle Gel is “more chip-resistant than regular nail polish.”