The BBB National Programs National Advertising Division ruled in favor of Dyson, manufacturer of the Supersonic hair dryer, in an advertising claims dispute involving SharkNinja. Dyson challenged SharkNinja’s claim that its HyperAir hair dryer delivers “Saturday night hair.” Advertising claims, even when couched in vague or exaggerated language, may require substantiation when they implicitly or explicitly compare competing products. How might advertising claim substantiation help marketers protect against challenges?
Defining “Saturday Night Hair”?
A 30-minute infomercial compared the SharkNinja HyperAir hair dryer to competing products, including the Dyson Supersonic, claiming that “only with Shark Intelligent IQ Stylers can you get Saturday night hair every day of the week.” “Saturday night hair” appears to be non-actionable puffery, or a claim that cannot be proven or disproven; however, it was not objectively defined.
Dyson brought a challenge before the NAD, arguing that the “Saturday Night” claim suggested that users of the HyperAir dryer could consistently attain better styling results only with the SharkNinja product. SharkNinja relied on the non-actionable puffery defense, arguing that the claim does not mislead consumers because “Saturday night hair” has no concrete meaning.
Context Converts Puffery Into a Comparative Claim
The NAD agreed that the phrase “Saturday night hair” did not constitute puffery in the context of an objective comparison. By directly contrasting the HyperAir dryer with a named competitor, SharkNinja made a comparative superiority claim that required substantiation. SharkNinja did not provide evidence to substantiate the comparative claim; the NAD recommended that the company modify the claim to remove references to a competing product. The NAD also evaluated additional statements made in the infomercial and determined that several were not adequately supported by the evidence.
Advertising Implications
Using exaggerated language does not shield a claim from scrutiny when the language draws an objective comparison. The IMS Litigation Surveys and Consumer Sciences team helps brands, in-house counsel, and regulators evaluate claims through consumer research. We design and execute claims substantiation research and advise on advertising communications surveys in the event of a challenge that withstands regulatory and litigation scrutiny.
