When it comes to environmental claims, staying narrow invites less risk. While regulators are quick to strike down broad claims that a product is “green” or “environmentally friendly,” discrete, specific claims are often easier to stand behind. A recent NAD decision involving advertising by HoldOn Bags, Inc. serves as a reminder that sweeping green claims are tougher to substantiate than narrow ones.
Key Takeaways
- Environmental claims are subject to particular scrutiny by regulators and competitors.
- Even where an environmental benefit is supported by evidence, narrower messaging is subject to less risk than broad, sweeping claims.
- While brands can tout a product's ability to be composted or recycled, extrapolating to broader sustainability messaging incurs additional risk.
NAD's decision stemmed from a challenge, filed by The Glad
Products Company, against HoldOn regarding various environmental
claims. Notably, HoldOn came to the table with claim support in the
form of expert opinions, independent certifications, and scientific
evidence. NAD found that HoldOn had provided a reasonable basis for
its claim that HoldOn's compostable trash bags break down in
composting facilities.
Despite green-lighting this composting claim, NAD—in keeping with NAD and FTC guidance—stopped short of blessing HoldOn's broader claims. For example, NAD found that the advertiser had not supported its claim that HoldOn trash bags are “a sustainable replacement for traditional plastic bags.”
This outcome may seem counterintuitive on first glance. How could a bag that breaks down in composting facilities not be a “sustainable replacement” for a bag that does not? The reason lies in the difference between compostable and compsted. In NAD's words, “the evidence only supports that [HoldOn bags break down] when the bags are disposed of as compost.” NAD noted that no evidence in the record showed HoldOn bags to be environmentally preferable when disposed of in non-composting environments. Thus, even the small step from compostability to “sustainable replacement” proved too far a leap from NAD's perspective.
NAD likewise recommended that HoldOn discontinue other general environmental claims. For example, NAD found fault with the claims that “HoldOn bags are designed to reduce waste from traditional plastics, no matter how you take out your trash.” More generally, NAD recommended that HoldOn clearly and conspicuously disclose the circumstances in which the bag would degrade, compost, or “break down.” NAD's HoldOn decision is the latest in a long line of NAD decisions that permit advertising a narrow, discrete benefit while prohibiting broader sustainability messaging.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.