NAD+ Product Claims Challenged
Learn from National Advertising Division challenges
NAD+ products are big business, and some product claims were challenged by a competitor in this National Advertising Division case. There are some great learning opportunities.
Label claims: This is interesting. The National Advertising Division (also called NAD) took issue with front of pack label amounts such as the “NAD+ Core … 250 mg” when according the company “the declared weights include the liposomal layer in which the NAD+ is encased.” One of the supplement facts panels I found online listed 250mg of LipoNAD™ (providing β-NAD⁺ ≥125 mg) per serving. I see NAD’s point how this may inadvertently confuse customers.
From National Advertising Division. “Absent reliable consumer perception evidence, NAD determined that consumers would expect that the stated weight was the total amount of NAD+ in the product and therefore recommended that Reus discontinue these claims when made outside of the supplement facts panel on the product label or modify the advertising to avoid conveying the message that each dose or capsule … contains 250 mg of NAD+.”
Ingredient purity claims: According to NAD’s decision there is “there is no methodology for testing LipoNAD+” but the company followed “FDA-approved method for calculating and reporting a substance for which there is not a validated testing methodology.” NAD took issue with the company’s third-party tested for purity claims, which they said implies the products contain pure NAD+. Supplement people know the each ingredient and product must be tested for identity, strength, purity, and composition, and I am surprised that a “purity tested” statement implies the ingredients are “pure.” Perhaps I am reading the case decision incorrectly but this left me scratching my head.
Influencer disclosers on TikTok. NAD found that the company’s influencers did not disclose material connection. This is a reminder that influencers should be vigilant to ensure they are complying with disclosure requirements. This is the responsibility of both the influencer and the brand.
From the National Advertising Division. “(NAD) found no support for the argument that because an influencer linked to a TikTok shop, consumers would know the influencer had a material connection to the seller. NAD also found that including a TikTok store link does not itself disclose a material connection. Furthermore, NAD found that TikTok’s built in disclosure tool, “Creator earns commission,” which appears at the bottom left portion of videos and is relatively small, could be easily missed by consumers.
Review repurposing: NAD found that the company included reviews from a different (nicotinamide riboside) together with its NAD+ product. This is dangerous territory and may have some some similarities to Nature’s Bounty “review hijacking” case.
From the National Advertising Division: “Because the NAD+ Products and the NR product are substantially different products, NAD advised that their product ratings and reviews should not be combined. “
Read the NAD case here.
Written by
