Haleon India Limited - Sensodyne

Recommendation: Upheld | Medium: Industry Member

The FTC panel carefully reviewed the representations made by both the advertiser and the complainant, and deliberated upon the matters raised. The FTC Panel observed that the claim under review is “2x stronger enamel protection”. The advertiser has relied on in-vitro studies, as well as in-situ studies, to support the claim. The FTC Panel discussed that while in-vitro and in-situ methodologies are scientifically valid for general oral health benefits, they do not fully capture the complex conditions of the human oral environment, including variations in saliva composition, brushing habits, and other individual factors. The in-situ studies employed dental appliances with the extracted bovine - teeth, which may not accurately replicate the effects under natural oral conditions. The FTC Panel further discussed that, according to internationally accepted research standards, such as those of the American Dental Association, the type of substantiation required, whether clinical or laboratory data, depends on the nature of the claim being made. The Panel was of the view that the advertiser’s specific claim quantifying “2x stronger enamel protection” constitutes a performance-based claim. Such a claim would require evidence generated under conditions that closely reflect actual human use under realistic oral conditions. As the advertiser did not provide in vivo clinical trials conducted on live human subjects, the Panel considered reliance solely on laboratory-based evidence to be insufficient to fully substantiate the claim. Based on these observations, the FTC panel concluded that the claim, “2x stronger enamel protection”, was inadequately substantiated and is misleading by exaggeration. The said claim contravened Chapter I, Clauses 1.1 and 1.4 of the ASCI Code. This complaint was UPHELD. The FTC panel observed that the disclaimers in the advertisement were not clear or prominent, making them difficult for a viewer to read at a normal glance. The disclaimer text also did not stand out from the background frame, reducing its visibility and impact. The panel concluded that the disclaimers in the advertisement contravened Clauses 4 (VII) and (VIII) of ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers made in supporting, limiting or explaining claims made in Advertisements. This complaint was UPHELD. The FTC panel noted that the advertiser has agreed to increase the font size to ensure that the disclaimers are clearly presented and easily legible. The FTC panel further observed that the advertisement includes visuals showing enamel extending onto the tooth roots and depicting enamel falling off in segments. The panel was of the view that these depictions are not literal representations of dental anatomy but are intended as creative illustrations to communicate the product’s protective effect. The panel did not consider these visuals in the advertisement to be objectionable. This complaint was NOT UPHELD.