TL;DR
Get beauty and skincare favorites delivered free with Prime
- Fast, free delivery on millions of items
- Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
- Member-only deals all year
The US National Advertising Division supported advertising claims for Unilever-owned Dove Deep Moisture Body Wash after Procter & Gamble challenged them. The self-regulatory body found Unilever’s evidence supported claims about 24-hour moisturisation, nourishing dry skin and the product name; P&G’s challenge did not persuade it that the evidence was unreliable.
The US National Advertising Division (NAD) has supported several moisturising claims for Dove Deep Moisture Body Wash after rival Procter & Gamble challenged the advertising, finding that evidence submitted by owner Unilever substantiated the claims. The decision covers a 24-hour moisturisation claim, language about nourishing dry skin and the product’s “Deep Moisture” name.
For the claim that the body wash provides 24 hours of moisturisation after use, Unilever submitted a short-term moisturisation study designed to measure skin hydration over 24 hours after a single wash. NAD found the study appropriate and sufficient to support the claim. According to the reported decision, P&G submitted studies that challenged Unilever’s study, but NAD said P&G had not shown that Unilever’s research was flawed or that its own studies were more reliable.
P&G also disputed the phrase “round-the-clock deep moisture”, arguing that consumers could take it to promise substantial moisturising benefits for an extended period after an in-shower application. NAD found consumers would likely understand the phrase as referring to 24 hours because it appeared above text saying the product “restores moisture for 24 hours.”
The challenge also covered statements that the wash “nourishes the driest skin” and “actively regenerates skin’s natural moisture.” Unilever cited deposition studies indicating that the product deposits fatty acids on and within the skin’s outer layer, helping restore lipids associated with the skin barrier and moisture retention. NAD found the nourishment claim supported in the context of the surrounding moisturisation language. It also sided with Unilever over the “Deep Moisture” product name, after P&G argued the wording implied a moisturising benefit.
What the Decision Means for Dove Ads
The ruling supports Dove’s current advertising claims against this specific challenge, but it is not a general approval of all Dove products or moisturising statements. For shoppers, it gives a clearer picture of the evidence NAD considered for the advertised 24-hour benefit and related wording. The decision also shows how the meaning of a phrase can depend on its presentation alongside other language in an advertisement.
For competing brands, the outcome illustrates that challenging an advertising claim involves more than presenting contrary research: in this case, NAD said P&G had not demonstrated that Unilever’s study was flawed or that P&G’s evidence was more reliable. NAD is a US self-regulatory advertising body, not a court. Its decision therefore concerns the advertising review described in the report, rather than constituting a judicial finding or a government product-safety determination.
Products Worth Considering
Garmin Forerunner 55 GPS Running Smartwatch, Black
Withings Body Smart Wi-Fi and Bluetooth Body Composition Scale
Withings BPM Connect Wi-Fi and Bluetooth Blood Pressure Monitor
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How NAD Reviewed the Claims
The National Advertising Division reviews advertising disputes and aims to promote truth and accuracy in US advertising. The case began with a challenge from Procter & Gamble, a competitor of Unilever, concerning claims made for Dove Deep Moisture Body Wash. NAD examined the evidence and the likely consumer understanding of the wording, including how the 24-hour phrase appeared in the advertisement.
Unilever’s evidence included a study measuring skin hydration for 24 hours after one wash, as well as deposition studies concerning fatty acids and the skin’s outer layer. The decision, as described by Cosmetics Business, treated the claims separately: it considered the study design for the duration claim, the surrounding copy for “round-the-clock,” and the consumer meaning of “nourishes” and “Deep Moisture.” Cosmetics Business reported that it had contacted both companies for comment.
Details Still Missing From the Report
The source report does not give the date of NAD’s decision, the full study results, sample sizes or detailed methods. It also does not provide P&G’s full arguments or a response from the company. Cosmetics Business said it had contacted Unilever and P&G for comment, but the supplied material does not include any further response from either company.
The ruling addresses the claims and evidence in this particular advertising dispute. The available account does not establish how consumers actually interpret the wording outside NAD’s assessment, or whether either company will take further action.
Company Responses and Possible Follow-Up
Further comment from Unilever or P&G could add detail about their positions, but none is included in the reported material. The source also does not specify whether P&G plans to appeal, seek another review or pursue a separate challenge. For now, the reported outcome is that NAD supported the challenged claims based on the evidence and wording it reviewed.
Key Questions
What did the NAD decide about Dove Deep Moisture Body Wash?
NAD supported the challenged 24-hour moisturisation and nourishment claims, as well as the “Deep Moisture” name, after reviewing Unilever’s evidence and the advertising context.
Who challenged Dove’s claims?
Procter & Gamble challenged the claims. It submitted studies disputing Unilever’s evidence for the 24-hour moisturisation statement.
What evidence did Unilever provide?
Unilever cited a short-term study measuring skin hydration for 24 hours after a single wash and deposition studies concerning fatty acids in the skin’s outer layer.
Did NAD say Dove’s product was medically proven to treat dry skin?
No such finding is reported. NAD’s decision concerned whether the specific advertising claims were substantiated under its review, not whether the product treats a medical condition.
What happens after the decision?
The supplied report does not say whether P&G will pursue further action. Cosmetics Business said it had contacted both companies, but additional comments were not included in the source material.
Source: cosmeticsbusiness.com
