Colgate-Palmolive (India) Limited - Colgate

Recommendation: Not Upheld | Medium: Industry Member

The FTC panel noted the following submissions made by the complainant: The complainant challenged the following claims against the advertiser’s advertisement for their product – `Colgate MaxFresh Toothpaste’ - “Sirf Colgate Max Fresh me hai icy cooling crystals jo de maximum freshness”, and “Cooling crystals jo de maximum freshness” The complainant stated that the advertisement features a comparison with red gel toothpaste and claims that only Colgate MaxFresh has icy cooling crystals that provide maximum freshness, implying that red gel toothpaste without cooling crystals does not provide maximum freshness. This claim lacks substantiation, and requires the advertiser to furnish data in support of the claim made. The complainant further stated that the supporting study referenced by the advertiser was conducted against an earlier formulation of the red gel toothpaste, while the current formulation with a new fresher flavour has been in the market since June 2025. Therefore, claim of maximum freshness without comparative data against the current formulation is untenable and misleading. The FTC panel noted the following submissions made by the advertiser: The advertiser stated that the phrase “Maximum Freshness” in Colgate MaxFresh communication refers to the intense freshness consumers experience due to the product’s unique flavour profile and Icy Cooling Crystal strips. The term “Maximum” is derived from the sub-brand name MaxFresh and is used as brand hyperbole, not as a comparative claim against other products. The claim “Sirf Colgate MaxFresh me hai icy cooling crystals jo de maximum freshness” is a factual and descriptive statement: the first part highlights a unique product feature (icy cooling crystals), while the second part expresses a brand-associated freshness experience. It does not disparage other products but emphasises the distinct technology and sensory impact of Colgate MaxFresh The FTCP Decision The FTC panel viewed the advertisement and carefully considered the submissions of both the advertiser and the complainant, and deliberated upon the matters raised. Claim - “Sirf Colgate Max Fresh me hai icy cooling crystals jo de maximum freshness” The FTC panel observed that the opening scene of the advertisement shows two boys using their toothpaste - one using the advertised product, `Colgate MaxFresh’, and the other a red gel toothpaste. The boy using Colgate MaxFresh displays his toothpaste, which shows visible, shining crystal like elements, while the other boy applies more of his red gel paste but is unable to see any such crystals. The question before the FTC panel was whether the claim “Sirf Colgate Max Fresh me hai icy cooling crystals jo de maximum freshness” is comparative in nature or not. On reviewing the advertisement, the panel observed that the first part of the claim highlights a factual feature unique to the advertiser’s product - the presence of cooling crystals, and does not compare it to other red gel toothpastes. The second part of the claim refers to a playful word play linked to the brand name MaxFresh to emphasize the freshness experience. Based on these observations, the FTC panel concluded that the claim is not misleading and does not disparage other red gel toothpastes. The claim is not in contravention of Chapters I and IV of the ASCI Code. This complaint was NOT UPHELD by majority. Claim - “Cooling crystals jo de maximum freshness” The FTC panel observed that the claim of “maximum freshness” is used in connection with the brand name `MaxFresh’ and is intended to convey the sensory experience provided by the combination of flavour and icy cooling crystals present in the product. The FTC panel was of the view that this phrase communicates the freshness sensation associated with using the product and is an exaggerated form of referring to the brand name. Based on these observations, the FTC panel did not consider the said claim to be objectionable and concluded that the claim is not in contravention of Chapter I of the ASCI Code. This complaint was NOT UPHELD.