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 challenged moisturising claims for Unilever-owned Dove Deep Moisture Body Wash after a challenge from Procter & Gamble. The watchdog found Unilever’s study adequate for the 24-hour claim and accepted evidence supporting claims about nourishing skin and the product name.
The National Advertising Division (NAD), a US advertising self-regulatory body, supported several moisturising claims for Dove Deep Moisture Body Wash after rival Procter & Gamble challenged them. The decision found Unilever’s evidence sufficient to support the product’s 24-hour moisturisation claim and other challenged wording, while rejecting P&G’s arguments that the claims lacked adequate support.
P&G challenged the claim that a single use of Dove Deep Moisture Body Wash offers 24 hours of moisturisation and nourishes dry skin. Unilever submitted a short-term moisturisation study designed to measure skin hydration across the 24 hours following one wash. NAD found the study appropriate and sufficient for the claim. It also concluded that P&G had not shown that Unilever’s study was flawed or that P&G’s own studies were more reliable.
The dispute also covered the phrase “round-the-clock deep moisture.” P&G argued it communicated a substantial moisturising benefit lasting well beyond use in the shower. NAD concluded consumers would likely understand it to refer to a 24-hour period because the phrase appeared above wording saying the product “restores moisture for 24 hours.”
P&G additionally challenged claims that the body wash “nourishes the driest skin” and “actively regenerates skin’s natural moisture,” as well as the “Deep Moisture” product name. Unilever cited deposition studies indicating that the wash 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 on the name, noting the moisturisation claims were supported.
What the Ruling Means for Dove Ads
The decision allows the challenged claims to stand under the NAD’s self-regulatory review, giving Unilever support for its advertising position in a dispute with a major competitor. For shoppers, the ruling concerns how Dove describes the expected duration and nature of a body wash’s moisturising effect, rather than a finding that the product treats a medical condition.
The decision also illustrates the role of evidence and presentation in advertising disputes. NAD considered both the study design behind the 24-hour statement and the way related phrases appeared together. Its reading of “round-the-clock” depended in part on the nearby explicit 24-hour wording, showing that claims are assessed in their advertising context, not only as isolated phrases.
The outcome is a decision by an advertising self-regulatory body, not a court judgment. It supports the specific claims reviewed on the evidence before NAD; it should not be read as a general endorsement of every Dove claim or as proof that all consumers will experience the same results.
Popular right now
Apple AirPods Pro (2nd Generation) Wireless Earbuds with USB‑C Charging, Up to 2X More Active Noise Cancelling, Transparency Mode, Adaptive
Apple AirPods Pro (1st Generation) with MagSafe Charging Case
De'Longhi Magnifica Start Fully Automatic Espresso Machine with Milk Frother, Silver
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How the Claims Were Reviewed
The National Advertising Division is described in the source report as a US self-regulatory body that reviews advertising truthfulness and accuracy and investigates complaints about potentially misleading advertising. Companies may bring challenges against competitors’ claims, as P&G did in this case.
Unilever’s evidence included a short-term study tracking skin hydration after a single wash and deposition studies concerning fatty acids and the skin’s outer layer. P&G submitted studies challenging the short-term study. NAD said those submissions did not establish that Unilever’s study was defective or that P&G’s evidence was more reliable. The source report does not give study sample sizes, detailed methods, or the full decision text.
Study Details and Company Responses
The source report does not specify when NAD issued its decision, provide the full decision, or detail the studies’ sample sizes, protocols, or measured results. It also does not say whether either company plans to seek further review or take another action. P&G’s full response to the ruling is not included; the report says Cosmetics Business contacted both P&G and Unilever for comment.
NAD’s conclusions concern the claims and evidence reviewed in this challenge. The available information does not establish how individual consumers’ skin may respond, nor does the decision amount to a medical assessment of the product.
Any Further Response or Review
The next developments would be any additional comments from Unilever or P&G, or any follow-up concerning the NAD decision. The source report says both companies had been contacted for comment but does not provide a timeline or confirm a further step. Until more information is reported, the established outcome is that NAD supported the challenged claims on the evidence it reviewed.
Key Questions
What did the NAD decide?
It supported the challenged claims for Dove Deep Moisture Body Wash, including the 24-hour moisturisation claim, after reviewing evidence submitted by Unilever and arguments from P&G.
What evidence supported the 24-hour claim?
Unilever provided a short-term moisturisation study designed to track skin hydration for 24 hours after one wash. NAD found it appropriate and sufficient. The source report does not provide the study’s sample size or detailed results.
What did P&G challenge?
P&G challenged the 24-hour moisturisation claim, “round-the-clock deep moisture,” claims about nourishing dry skin and regenerating natural moisture, and the “Deep Moisture” product name.
Does the decision guarantee the same result for every user?
No. The ruling concerns whether the advertising claims were supported by the evidence NAD reviewed. It does not establish that every consumer will experience identical moisturising effects.
Have the companies said what they will do next?
The supplied report does not describe any planned appeal, further review, or other next step. It says Cosmetics Business contacted Unilever and P&G for comment.
Source: cosmeticsbusiness.com
