Competitors both guilty of false advertising
A recent case illustrated two important points in advertising:
- substantiate one’s advertising claims; and
- make sure your glass house is strong before casting stones at a competitor.
Schering-Plough sued Neutrogena (PDF) claiming that Neutrogena’s sunscreen ads falsely claimed to offer the “best line of sun sport protection.” The judge agreed because a graph on the product suggested that UVA and SPF were different measures, which was false.
Notably, the judge found it irrelevant that the false information pertained to both products. Schering-Plough’s victory was short lived, however, because the judge also found that it lacked sufficient support for its advertisement that its Coppertone sun screen provided better coverage than Neutrogena’s sun screen. It seems that Schering-Plough had not tested Neutrogena’s product.
It is important to remember that advertisements need to be accurate and to have backup for all claims made. As this case shows, it is also important to review one’s own advertisements before bringing claims that a competitor’s advertisements are false.
http://www.essentialnutritionlaw.com/admin/trackback/195919
