Last year, we wrote about a challenge that NAD had initiated against various green claims made by the American Beverage Association (or “ABA”). NAD found that several of ABA’s claims – including claims that “our bottles are made to be remade” and “we’re carefully designing our bottles to be 100% recyclable” – were substantiated, but

If you tell your friends about your new year’s resolutions, odds are that most of those friends won’t push you for too much detail on how you plan to achieve your goals. But if those friends work at NAD, you might expect some pointed questions about whether you have a solid plan, whether you’ve started to work on that plan, and whether your goals are realistic. They’re not going to let you get by on good intentions alone.

As we’ve noted in previous posts, NAD has held that “when aspirational claims are tied to measurable outcomes, an advertiser must be able to demonstrate that its goals and aspirations are not merely illusory and to provide evidence of the steps it is taking to reach its stated goal.” In several recent cases involving aspirational claims – including cases involving claims by Chipotle and Georgia Pacific – NAD found that the advertisers had provided enough evidence.

In a case announced last week, NAD came to a different conclusion, and advertisers that make aspirational claims about their environmental efforts should take note. The decision covers a lot of ground, but here are some of the key themes.

Continue Reading NAD Finds Advertiser Can’t Support Aspirational Net Zero Claims

If you follow our blog, you already know that there have been a number of significant developments in the world of advertising law over the past 12 months. In this post, we highlight ten of those developments and consider what they might mean for the future.

  • Dark Patterns: Any practices that could manipulate or mislead

This month, the DC Superior Court dismissed a lawsuit brought by Earth Island Institute against Coca-Cola, alleging that the company falsely represents itself as “a sustainable and environmentally friendly company, despite being one of the largest contributors of plastic pollution in the world.” The court held that many of the challenged statements are aspirational and

Last year, we posted about Earth Island Institute’s lawsuit against Coca-Cola, alleging that the company falsely represents itself as “a sustainable and environmentally friendly company, despite being one of the largest contributors of plastic pollution in the world.” While many lawsuits involving green claims focus on claims about past or present results (which can usually

Joe Green and Steve Humphreys wrote on our sister blog, Kelley Green Law:

A new paper from Northeastern University’s PFAS Project Lab and researchers from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) reaches the sobering conclusion that over 57,000 sites in the U.S. have “presumptive contamination” from per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”).  Even

Sustainability continues to be a hot topic in the fashion industry, both in ads and in lawsuits related to those ads. Last month, a plaintiff filed a proposed class action against H&M arguing that the company makes various false claims about the sustainability of its products. The lawsuit seems to be prompted by a June

Last year, we posted about a lawsuit against Allbirds alleging (among other things) that the company’s environmental claims – including claims about its “sustainable” practices, the “low carbon footprint” of its shoes, and its other “environmentally friendly” initiatives – are false and misleading. This week, the US District Court for the Southern District of New