The BBB National Programs National Advertising Division (NAD) ruled on advertising claims made for POOPH Pet Odor & Stain Eliminator, a pet odor and stain remover. Substantiation may fall short when implied comparative claims relating to product performance, superiority, and safety are evaluated under NAD standards.
The Advertising Challenge
In a proceeding before the BBB National Programs’ National Advertising Division, Reckitt Benckiser LLC challenged specific advertising claims made by Ikigai Marketing Works, LLC and POOPH, Inc. Reckitt, which markets competing odor-elimination products, took issue with claims that POOPH eliminates odors at a molecular level, removes stains, and performs better than competing products.
The challenged statements were taken from a “Pooph Science” section of the product’s website. Video demonstrations on the site suggested that competitors’ sprays merely mask odors at the surface level. The site included statements featuring the tagline “If it’s not POOPH, it stinks” and the line “Why waste money on any product that doesn’t eliminate the stink?” Another challenge included a video in which a POOPH representative demonstrated the product’s safety by spraying it into his mouth.
NAD Findings
The NAD determined that consumers could interpret the odor elimination claim as conveying complete odor elimination at the molecular level. Ikigai submitted its own chemical studies, explaining how the product functions and demonstrating that odors were reduced. The NAD concluded that the evidence did not substantiate claims that the product eliminates odors. Regarding the video statements, the NAD found one to be non-actionable puffery and the other to be an actionable advertising claim. The tagline “If it’s not POOPH, it stinks” constituted non-actionable puffery, and “Why waste money on any product that doesn’t eliminate the stink?” conveyed a specific message that required modification or discontinuation.
The NAD recommended that POOPH modify its advertising to avoid implied claims that:
- Competing or enzymatic pet odor sprays are ineffective or worthless.
- Competing products cannot neutralize or eliminate odors.
- Competing products merely cover up odors.
- POOPH outperforms all other pet odor spray products on the market.
The NAD determined that the safety claim was supported and that the submitted evidence adequately substantiated the implied product safety claim.
Message for Advertisers
Memorable taglines may attract consumer attention, but they can also invite regulatory scrutiny when claims are not carefully framed or adequately supported. Implied or express comparative claims are closely monitored by regulators and competitors, and substantiation research should assess consumer interpretation and comparative performance to mitigate the risk of a challenge.
IMS Legal Strategies works with advertisers and counsel to design and evaluate substantiation research that supports advertising claims with precision, credibility, and regulatory defensibility.
