The National Advertising Review Board (NARB) has recently revealed the decision in a case involving various claims made by Shark Ninja in an infomercial for its Shark Stratos Powered Lift-Away vacuum cleaner. The case was brought to light by Dyson, a rival vacuum cleaner company, challenging both express and implied claims made by Shark Ninja. The challenged claims include how well the vacuum cleans up hair, and how well it reduces odors.
Shark Ninja’s claims were not allowed to stand as they were. Dyson contested six express claims and nine implied claims, a breadth which indicates the range of issues advertisers might face when making their product claims. While all these issues won’t be discussed here, a few frequent challenges that come up in client conversations about claim substantiation will be highlighted.
In one express claim, Shark Ninja stated that their vacuum had been “proven to pick up more pet hair with no hair wrap.” However, Dyson challenged this claim as Shark Ninja was not able to substantiate whether their testing was consistent with the actual product use. The NARB agreed with Dyson, pointing out that the test conditions presented didn’t replicate real world conditions.
Another claim that underwent scrutiny involved the vacuum’s odor-reduction capabilities. Shark Ninja backed this claim up with test data, yet the NARB concluded that the testing was insufficient as it was conducted in a laboratory setting, which again doesn’t accurately represent real world conditions.
This case underlines the importance of rigorous claim substantiation not only to back up the product qualities but also to mitigate the risk of the claims being challenged. This includes ensuring the testing mimics real world conditions to back up claims.
To read more about this case or the subtleties of the claims involved, you can find a detailed breakdown by legal firm Kelley Drye & Warren LLP here.