Baby Monitor Claims Attract NAD Scrutiny

A baby monitor company challenging another makes for an interesting compliance discussion. This National Advertising Division (NAD) case includes popularity, safety, wellness, and parental sleep claims. Even though this is for baby monitors, there are some good advertising and substantiation lessons here.

Amazon reviews do not support “Most loved” or “#1 most loved,” and “internet’s favorite.” The company relied on Amazon reviews, but NAD found that the company had not shown that those reviews represented the marketplace as a whole and recommended discontinuing these claims.

Asa comments: This makes me wonder how to measure or qualify “most loved.” Does it mean the highest average rating, positive reviews, and what product and timeline is it comparing to.

How do you measure “smartest”?

NAD also reviewed the company’s “smartest baby monitor” claims. According to the decision summary, the proprietary tracking capabilities, algorithmic insights, and AI features did not fully substantiate the superiority message, and NAD recommended discontinuing the claims.

Asa comments: My first question is whether “smartest” is measurable or whether it might be puffery. In this context, NAD treated it as a comparison with competing smart monitors, not a boastful slogan. Having impressive features and demonstrating superiority are different things. I would want to know: smarter at what, compared with whom, and measured how?

As I discussed in my recent puffery WLW, the surrounding product information can turn a seemingly subjective slogan into a performance claim.

When reassurance becomes an implied safety claim

This is where it gets interesting. Some of the challenged social posts show infants sleeping on their stomachs and mention parents worrying less about tummy sleeping when using the monitor. NAD found that imagery and statements may communicate that the product prevents harmful stomach-sleeping risks, including sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).

Asa comments: The post didn’t need to say that the monitor prevents SIDS, but showing an infant sleeping on their stomach and suggesting the product makes that situation less concerning can communicate that parents don’t need to worry about those risks because the monitor will protect their baby. The picture, caption, and reassurance need to be reviewed together, not as separate pieces of marketing. The stakes are especially high when that reassurance could influence how someone cares for an infant.

An extra 36 nights of sleep?

NAD also reviewed the claim that parents using the monitor may get an extra “36 nights of sleep per year.”  NAD found that the evidence did not support that parents’ sleep increased enough to support this claim.

Asa comments: Evidence about a baby’s sleep does not automatically establish how much additional sleep the parents get.

Read the NAD case summary.