ADventures in Law

Home | ADventures in Law

This is our second blog this week delving into <a href="https://bbbprograms.org/media/newsroom/decisions/pet-iq" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">NAD’s substantiation requirements for #1 brand claims</a>. You can read the first installment <a href="https://www.adventures-in-law.com/blogs/we-got-the-beet-but-which-brand-is-really-1/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">here</a>. Our last blog reviewed the data source needed to substantiate such a claim for a particular product. Today we look at what you need to support a broader claim that you are the #1 brand or the fastest-growing brand.

core/paragraph

PetIQ claimed that PetArmor was the “#1 Brand in Total Flea &amp; Tick Solutions.” Its competitor Elanco argued that such a claim expressed that PetArmor had the largest market share in flea and tick products for dogs. PetIQ asserted the claim did not convey a top-selling-product message but instead communicates that PetArmor offered the most comprehensive range of flea and tick products. Nielsen tracks seven different flea and tick product categories, and PetArmor is the only brand with products in all seven categories. (For those with itchy pets who may be wondering, those categories are collars, dewormers, household products, on-animal sprays, oral products, shampoos and topicals). In support of this being the only reasonable interpretation of the claim, PetIQ explained that the claim was made with a depiction of multiple products in the line with the disclosure that it was the “only brand in all depicted Nielsen parasiticide segments.” Further, the claim itself referred to “total” and “solutions.”

NAD noted these arguments and appreciated what PetIQ intended to convey. Nonetheless, NAD said any #1 brand claim is likely to convey a market superiority claim and not merely a statement about the breadth of the product line. NAD found that context more likely conveyed a broad top-selling claim about the full range of PetArmor products. NAD further found that consumers associate a #1 claim with market share and that the disclaimer contradicted that message rather than clarifying it. NAD thus recommended the claim be discontinued or modified to convey a market share claim. NAD did not give guidance as to how such a modification might be accomplished or, in particular, as to whether there is any variation on a #1brand claim that could be so limited or if PetIQ needed to simply dispense entirely with its #1 brand language.

Elanco also challenged the claim that PetArmor was the “#1 Fastest Growing Flea &amp; Tick Brand.” Both companies agreed this claim was conveying that PetArmor was growing at a faster rate than competing brands in the category. PetIQ calculated Nielsen data for all 620 brands in the flea and tick category and calculated the year-over-year market share percentage change based on revenue for 2025 compared to 2024. PetIQ asserted the data showed it was the fastest-growing by both absolute and percentage of revenue growth. Elanco submitted competing Nielsen data from a slightly different time period showing more significant growth by a smaller competitor. NAD found that looking at the competing data sources, the claim clearly depended on the time period, the growth metric, the channel universe and the competitor comparison set, noting that relative growth rates are sensitive and even volatile, particularly among smaller and newer entrants to the category. Therefore, NAD found an unqualified “#1 fastest growing” claim could not be supported and needed to be qualified to include details of the basis for the claim. This decision is yet another blow for companies seeking pithy claims without lots of qualifying fine print. Another option NAD suggested was a claim limited to growth among leading brands, as looking at a smaller, more established universe may control for some of the volatility seen when trying to make a claim looking at the entire market.

If You’re Itching To Make a #1 Brand Claim, Read This