HBW Insight is part of Pharma Intelligence UK Limited

This site is operated by Pharma Intelligence UK Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 13787459 whose registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. The Pharma Intelligence group is owned by Caerus Topco S.à r.l. and all copyright resides with the group.

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use. For high-quality copies or electronic reprints for distribution to colleagues or customers, please call +44 (0) 20 3377 3183

Printed By

UsernamePublicRestriction

Tom’s ‘Naturally Dry’ Claims Survived Class Action, Only To Perish At NAD

This article was originally published in The Rose Sheet

Executive Summary

Companies that have settled lawsuits regarding the truthfulness of “natural” or other claims should take note of the National Advertising Review Board’s decision on jurisdictional issues raised last year by Colgate. The firm argued unsuccessfully that the National Advertising Division should not have reviewed Tom’s of Maine Naturally Dry antiperspirant claims because they were the subject of a court-approved class settlement.

You may also be interested in...



Clean Beauty, The New ‘Natural,’ Carries Same Litigation Risk – Attorneys

Beauty and personal-care companies using ‘clean’ labeling and advertising should clearly define the term and ensure consistency across marketing messages, attorneys said at the BBB National Program Inc.’s 18 July webinar, ‘Getting Clean Beauty Advertising Right.’

Colgate Up Against Class Certification In Consumer Suit Over Optic White 'Deeply Whitens' Claims

Colgate Optic White toothpaste users have been paying a premium for “false hope,” according to a consumer lawsuit seeking class certification in California federal court.

Colgate’s Tom’s Of Maine Back In Federal Court Over ‘Natural’ Claims

Tom's natural claims on toothpastes and deodorants are false and misleading, a plaintiff alleges in a proposed class action filed in Massachusetts federal court. Similar to previous complaints against Colgate/Tom’s, the plaintiff’s case is premised on the contention that “natural,” as opposed to “100% natural,” means no synthetic ingredients.

Related Content

Topics

Latest Headlines
See All
UsernamePublicRestriction

Register

RS109167

Ask The Analyst

Ask the Analyst is free for subscribers.  Submit your question and one of our analysts will be in touch.

Your question has been successfully sent to the email address below and we will get back as soon as possible. my@email.address.

All fields are required.

Please make sure all fields are completed.

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please enter a valid e-mail address

Please enter a valid Phone Number

Ask your question to our analysts

Cancel