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 U.S. National Advertising Division supported advertising claims for Unilever-owned Dove Deep Moisture Body Wash after Procter & Gamble challenged them. The decision found Unilever’s evidence supported claims about 24-hour moisturisation, nourishing dry skin and the product’s “Deep Moisture” name.
The U.S. National Advertising Division (NAD) supported challenged moisturising claims for Unilever-owned Dove Deep Moisture Body Wash, finding that evidence submitted by Unilever substantiated the advertising after rival Procter & Gamble (P&G) disputed it. The decision covers claims of 24-hour moisturisation, nourishment for dry skin and the product’s “Deep Moisture” name.
For the 24-hour moisturisation claim, Unilever submitted a short-term moisturisation study designed to measure skin hydration for 24 hours after one wash with the product. NAD found the study appropriate and sufficient to support the claim. P&G submitted studies disputing that evidence, but the watchdog said P&G had not shown Unilever’s study was flawed or that its own studies were more reliable.
P&G also challenged the phrase “round-the-clock deep moisture,” arguing that consumers could take it to promise substantial benefits for an extended period after using the body wash. NAD said consumers would likely understand the phrase to refer to 24 hours because it appeared above language stating that the product “restores moisture for 24 hours.”
The challenge also covered “nourishes the driest skin” and “actively regenerates skin’s natural moisture.” 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 over the “Deep Moisture” product name, given that the related moisturisation claims were supported.
What the Ruling Means for Dove Ads
The decision supports Dove’s ability to continue using the challenged claims in advertising, based on the evidence reviewed by NAD. For shoppers, the ruling means the watchdog accepted the substantiation Unilever supplied for the product’s stated moisturising effects; it is not a guarantee that every user will experience identical results.
The case also shows how advertising disputes can turn on the relationship between a headline phrase and nearby copy. NAD assessed “round-the-clock” in light of the adjacent 24-hour wording, rather than treating the phrase in isolation. The decision is an outcome of the U.S. advertising self-regulatory process, not a court judgment.
Products Worth Considering
Oura Ring 5 Smart Ring, Gold, Size 10
Garmin Forerunner 935 GPS Running and Multisport Watch, Black
Therabody Theragun Relief Massage Gun
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How NAD Assessed the Claims
NAD is a U.S. self-regulatory body that reviews advertising for truth and accuracy and investigates complaints about potentially misleading claims. Companies can bring challenges against competitors’ advertising, as P&G did in this case.
The dispute concerned both what the body wash was said to do and how consumers might interpret its advertising and name. Unilever relied on a hydration study for the 24-hour claim and deposition studies for claims about fatty acids and the skin’s outer layer. NAD considered P&G’s counter-studies and arguments as part of its review before supporting the challenged claims.
What the Decision Does Not Establish
The reported decision does not provide the study results in detail, such as sample size, measured hydration values or the full testing methodology. The available account also does not specify when NAD issued its decision. It is therefore not possible from this information alone to independently assess the underlying studies or compare their results.
Cosmetics Business said it had contacted Unilever and P&G for comment. No response from P&G is included in the report, and the supplied material does not say whether either company plans further action. NAD’s findings concern the challenged advertising claims and do not establish that all consumers will experience the same level or duration of moisturisation.
Further Company Responses Awaited
The next developments may include responses from Unilever or P&G to requests for comment and any information about action following NAD’s decision. The source report does not identify a further hearing, appeal or deadline, so none should be assumed. For now, the reported outcome is that NAD supported the claims after reviewing the evidence presented by both companies.
Key Questions
What did the NAD decide about Dove Deep Moisture Body Wash?
NAD supported the challenged advertising claims, including the 24-hour moisturisation claim, after reviewing evidence submitted by Unilever and challenges from P&G.
Why did P&G challenge the claims?
P&G disputed claims about 24-hour moisturisation, “round-the-clock deep moisture,” nourishing dry skin and the “Deep Moisture” name. The source report does not provide further detail on P&G’s full arguments beyond those challenges.
What evidence did Unilever submit?
Unilever submitted a short-term study measuring skin hydration for 24 hours after one wash, along with deposition studies about fatty acids on and within the skin’s outer layer.
Does the decision mean every user will get 24 hours of moisturisation?
No. NAD found the advertising claim substantiated based on the evidence it reviewed. The decision does not establish that every consumer will experience the same result.
Source: cosmeticsbusiness.com
