Consumer Law Library

Advisory opinion letter to Mr. Heilig

Topics: Health professions and antitrustAdvertising

82 F.T.C. 1947 · June 17, 1968 ·

source volume section (82 F.T.C. 1947)

Text is machine-OCR of the printed volume and may contain errors. Advisory opinions are the Commission's views on proposed conduct, not binding orders.

Opinion Letter

June 17, 1968 Dear Mr. Heilig:

This reply is in response to your request for an advisory opinion in regard to four proposed advertising concepts of your Code No. 3047 Medicated Personal Deodorant Spray designated " Skin Mate." The advertising was submitted to the Commission by the Market Planning Corporation of New York City. The Commission has given careful consideration to a1l of the data, reports , etc., submitted with your letter of March 13, 1968, in regard to this matter. After due consideration of all the facts and scientific information available to it, the Commission is of the opinion that the product is not a drug but a cosmetic, and that it has not been cleared, approved or endorsed by the Food and Drug Administration. Under these circumstances, therefore, the Com­ mission is of the opinion that the following claims appearing in concept ad # 1 are false and mis eading: The government would not let us print this if it were not true, Skin :Wate * * * is cleared as a drug proven effective and safer for your skin, And while no government agency endorses a product, the facts of this clearance are important to you * * * because safe' and ' effective ' are precisely what you hope your deordor­ ant will be.

N 0 other personal deodorant you can buy has been so cleared. "

The Commission is also of the opinion that any advertising claims with respect to the safety and effcacy of the product which go beyond those which appear in the label would be improper. In essence, advertising claims should not exceed the claim that the product inhibits the growth of body odor causing bacteria. In view thereof, the Commission is of the opinion that the following claims, if published, would violate Seotions 5 and 12 of the Federal Trade Commission Act:

Concept Ad # 1 :

"* * * tested against the three most popular spray deodor­ ants by Price Research Laboratories and found to be more effective as measured by the scientifically accepted test of deodorant effectiveness.

"* * * use the one that has been proved effective and safer

for you,
Concept Ad # 2:
* * a medical answer to perspiration odor,

, the medical answer is to fmd the most effective way of stopping the bacteria and you will find the most effective deodorant."

This is what Skin Mate does and is. Scientific tests in Price Laboratories prove that Skin Mate with Triamite plus is more effective against the six ' odor bacteria' than anyone of the three most popular deodorants-and safer for your skin. Skin Mate destroys bacteria that the other deodorants leave be­ hind, 11* you can have extra protection, more effective protec­ tion and safer protection against perspiration odor. "* * * why not use the one proven to be effective and safer. Concept Ad # 3:

Skin Mate is a safe deodorant-created to stop perspiration odor without irritation, Skin Mate eliminates the cause of odor. . . proven most effective against the six skin bacteria that cause odor. Sci­ entific tests show that Skin Mate is more effective against the cause of odor than the three most popular deodorants. "* * * the safe deodorant * . * will stop odor without irrita­

tion, no matter how much you perspire.
The Safe Deodorant,
Concept Ad # 4 :

This double deodorant provides extra protection for those tense moments, and longer lasting protection so you won t be surprised at the end of a long evening.

By attacking the * * * six ' odor bacteria' found on every­ one s skin. Skin :\Iate is more effective at getting rid of these odor causers. It kills the bacteria other deodorants leave be­ hind. Yet Skin Mate is completely safe to your skin. Skin Mate. The safe deodorant, Finally, and with regard to the word "new" which appears in all four advertising concepts , it is the policy of the Commission , as a general rule, to question the use of any claim that a product is new" for a period of time longer than six months. By direction of the Commission.

ADVISORY OPINIO:-S A:-D REQUESTS THEREFOR 1949