NAD Rules on Vaseline Sheer Infusion Body Lotion

The National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus has determined that Unilever United States can support certain moisture claims for the company’s Vaseline Sheer Infusion Body Lotion (VSI), but recommended that the company discontinue claims that compare VSI to “leading everyday body lotions.”

NAD, the advertising industry’s self-regulatory forum, reviewed claims made for VSI in broadcast, print and Internet advertising following a challenge by Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc.

Claims at issue included:

NAD noted in its decision that tUnilever has the initial burden of presenting a reasonable basis for its claims. If NAD finds that a reasonable basis exists, the burden shifts to the challenger to show that either the advertiser’s evidence is fatally flawed or that the challenger possesses stronger, more persuasive evidence that would indicate a different result.

In this case, Unilever relied upon multiple studies and measurements of the presence of moisture—made primarily by the Skicon 200EX—as support for comparative claims that referenced “superior moisture” or “twice the moisture,” NAD determined that the evidence demonstrated that VSI caused a relative change in moisture levels twice that of the competing products and found the claims supported.

NAD further determined that Unilever provided adequate support for the claims “[i]nfuses and suspends moisture across all layers,” and “hydrates the top, core, and deepest layers of the stratum corneum (surface skin).” NAD noted that the most recent version of the advertiser’s broadcast advertising explicitly states that VSI hydrates across all layers of “surface” skin and employs a disclosure regarding “surface” skin to avoid the implication that the its product penetrates deeper than the surface skin.

NAD carefully reviewed the parties’ positions concerning the claim “provides a silkier feel than leading everyday body lotions.”

In past decisions, NAD has recognized that there is no hard and fast rule on how to determine which product is the brand “leader” and the different measures of market share can be used in different situations to ascertain the answer. In this case, NAD noted, there was considerable disagreement over which comparable products could or should be considered as “leading everyday lotions.”

A review of the record on the issue, NAD noted, “made one thing clear: the market for everyday body lotions is highly fragmented and there is no clear understanding or consensus on how to define the category much less agreement on which players constitute ‘leading’ brands.”

In cases where there are many brands on the market and no clear way to define the leading brands, NAD precedent holds that it is misleading for an advertiser to make comparisons to “leading” brands. NAD determined, in light of the fragmentation of the marketplace, that the advertiser’s data was insufficient to support the superiority claim against “leading everyday body lotions.”

NAD recommended that Unilever modify the advertising at issue to more clearly and explicitly define the pool of products or the individual brands against which it tested VSI.

NAD determined that Unilever could not support the comparative sensory claims “silkier feel” and “unmatched silky feel,” and recommended that it discontinue the claims. However, NAD noted that nothing in its decision precluded the advertiser from claiming that the product VSI itself has a silky feel, or provides a “silky feel” to the consumer’s skin, provided that this claim presented in a clear and non-comparative context.

Unilever, in its advertiser’s statement, said the company disagrees with NAD’s analysis of the word “leading” in the comparison of VSI to other products and with NAD’s analysis of its “silkier feel” claims.”

“Nevertheless, Unilever strongly supports the self-regulatory process and will take the NAD’s recommendations into consideration in preparing future advertising for these products.”