NAD Tells PrettyBoy to Clarify “100/100” Yuka Rating and Remove Eczema Before‑After Photos — A Guide for Skincare Brands

Table of Contents

  1. Key Highlights
  2. Introduction
  3. What the NAD Found in the PrettyBoy Case
  4. How Yuka and Similar Ingredient‑Rating Apps Work — and Why They Can Create Misleading Impressions
  5. The Limits of Third‑Party Seals and Scores: Transparency Is the Controlling Factor
  6. What Counts as Adequate Substantiation for Eczema and Other Skin Health Claims
  7. Before‑and‑After Imagery: Standards, Pitfalls, and Best Practices
  8. Practical Steps for Brands to Avoid NAD or FTC Scrutiny
  9. Practical Language Examples Brands Can Use to Clarify Scores and Seals
  10. Broader Implications for Retailers, Platforms, and Consumers
  11. Industry Trends: Clean Beauty, App Ratings, and Escalating Scrutiny
  12. How to Structure a Substantiation Program for Efficacy Claims
  13. Sample Scenarios and How to Respond
  14. Lessons for Small and Emerging Brands
  15. Conclusion
  16. FAQ

Key Highlights

  • The National Advertising Division (NAD) recommended PrettyBoy modify or discontinue a “100/100 Health Score (via the Yuka App)” claim and remove certain before‑and‑after photographs tied to eczema and visible skin improvements because the advertising lacked adequate explanation and substantiation.
  • NAD’s decision underscores the need for transparency about third‑party ratings and robust clinical evidence for performance claims; industry guidance from the FTC’s Green Guides and basic substantiation standards should guide marketers and legal teams.

Introduction

A small brand’s marketing line sparked a review with outsized lessons for the skincare industry. PrettyBoy, maker of men’s skincare products, listed a “100/100 Health Score (via the Yuka App)” and displayed before‑and‑after imagery showing reductions in redness tied to eczema and improvements to fine lines and under‑eye bags. The National Advertising Division (NAD) of BBB National Programs concluded the presentation failed to make the basis for the Yuka score clear and that the visual claims required stronger substantiation. The NAD recommended that PrettyBoy modify or discontinue those claims.

The ruling is a reminder that third‑party seals and app‑based ratings do not insulate brands from scrutiny. Certifications and ratings can mislead if the underlying standards, exclusions, or calculation methods are not clearly communicated. Performance visuals and health‑related claims, particularly those referencing conditions such as eczema, demand competent and reliable scientific support. The PrettyBoy case lays out practical compliance risks and points to how brands should document, qualify, and present third‑party endorsements and efficacy evidence.

What follows unpacks NAD’s findings, explains how ingredient‑scoring apps like Yuka work, outlines what constitutes acceptable substantiation for performance and health claims, and offers precise steps brands can take to reduce legal, regulatory, and reputational risk.

What the NAD Found in the PrettyBoy Case

NAD opened its inquiry after identifying the “100/100 Health Score (via the Yuka App)” displayed on PrettyBoy’s product page and several before‑and‑after photographs used in product marketing. The Yuka score came from an ingredient‑assessment app that assigns a numeric rating based on the absence or presence of ingredients the app categorizes as problematic. For one PrettyBoy product, Revival Recovery Gel Moisturizer, Yuka reportedly assigned a “100/100” because the formulation lacked what the app defines as “harmful parabens” and “harmful UV filters,” and because the app labeled the product’s ingredients “risk‑free.”

NAD’s core issue with the Yuka claim was not the score itself but the lack of explanation for how the score was calculated. A “health score” can mean different things to different consumers: is the rating about irritation risk, long‑term toxicity, environmental impact, or something else? NAD concluded the webpage did not clarify the criteria used by Yuka, the standards applied, or the date the assessment was conducted. Without that context, consumers could be left with an inflated or inaccurate impression of what the score signifies.

The second major issue involved before‑and‑after photos depicting measurable skin improvements, such as reduced eczema redness and fewer under‑eye bags. NAD treated these images as product performance claims and held that such claims require competent and reliable scientific evidence. PrettyBoy’s citation of the National Eczema Association Seal of Acceptance for two products did not substitute for such evidence. NAD determined the certification alone, without supporting clinical data demonstrating the photographed results are attributable to product use, was insufficient. NAD therefore recommended discontinuing the photos.

Beyond those two issues, PrettyBoy voluntarily withdrew a claim that stated “Trusted by 20,000 Men (5‑star rating).” Because the advertiser withdrew it, NAD treated the claim as if discontinued for compliance purposes.

Jennifer Adams, partner at Amin Wasserman Gurnani LLP, emphasized the wider regulatory lesson: even truthful third‑party certifications can be confusing or misleading when the standards they rely on are not transparent. The FTC’s Green Guides, which address environmental claims, set a useful precedent—labels and seals must be accompanied by clear disclosures about what they mean. NAD’s decision applies that principle to health and performance claims.

How Yuka and Similar Ingredient‑Rating Apps Work — and Why They Can Create Misleading Impressions

Ingredient‑rating apps have grown into a popular shortcut for consumers trying to evaluate cosmetics and personal care products. Yuka, Think Dirty, INCI Beauty, and similar platforms allow users to scan barcodes or search product lists and receive an at‑a‑glance assessment—or a numeric score—based on the app’s evaluation of ingredients. These apps typically consider factors such as known irritants, endocrine disruptor concerns, allergen profiles, and, in some cases, environmental impact.

Important characteristics of these apps that can produce misunderstanding:

  • Proprietary Criteria: Each app uses its own algorithm and criteria for what it considers “harmful.” Those lists are often proprietary and can vary significantly from one platform to another.
  • Narrow Scope: Many apps focus only on ingredient composition and do not account for concentration, formulation context, delivery systems, or product use patterns. An ingredient flagged at certain concentrations may be harmless at the levels used.
  • Non‑clinical Inputs: Ratings typically rely on published toxicology or regulatory lists and sometimes on precautionary principles rather than product‑specific clinical testing.
  • Consumer Interpretation: The same numeric score can be read by consumers as a direct statement about product safety, efficacy, or clinical benefits. Consumers often do not recognize that a high score signals only a favorable ingredient profile according to the app’s criteria—not necessarily that the product is clinically safe or effective for a specific health condition.

These features explain why NAD did not object to displaying a Yuka score per se, but did require disclosure of how the score was determined. A numeric “100/100” has a powerful effect on consumers; clarity about what that score measures—ingredient list only, absence of specific categories, date of evaluation—prevents misleading impressions.

Brands commonly use these third‑party scores as shorthand credibility markers. The PrettyBoy decision highlights that doing so without context invites review and potential recommendation to modify or discontinue the claim.

The Limits of Third‑Party Seals and Scores: Transparency Is the Controlling Factor

Third‑party seals—whether from consumer apps, NGOs, or industry groups—carry the implicit weight of independent validation. Consumers reasonably assume that such certification indicates a standardized review process, clear criteria, and an objective assessment. Regulators and review bodies likewise treat seals and ratings as persuasive but not conclusive evidence.

Two central points explain why a seal or score is insufficient on its own:

  1. A seal does not automatically substantiate efficacy or performance claims. A certification that speaks to ingredient safety or manufacturing practices does not prove that a product produces the visual or therapeutic results depicted in marketing materials.
  2. Lack of methodological transparency can lead to consumer misinterpretation. If a rating is delivered without a simple statement of what was evaluated, how, and when, NAD and other review bodies will likely require clarification. Jennifer Adams emphasized this point: truthful, accurate third‑party certifications can still be misleading if their standards are unclear.

Legal frameworks support this approach. The FTC’s Green Guides emphasize clear disclosures for environmental marketing claims and the need to avoid misleading impressions from labels and seals. Although the Green Guides specifically target environmental claims, the underlying principle—consumers should not be misled by endorsements that hide qualifications or limits—applies broadly to advertising.

In the PrettyBoy case, the National Eczema Association (NEA) Seal of Acceptance covered certain products but did not alone justify photographic claims of eczema improvement. The NEA’s seal may indicate a product is generally suitable for people with eczema based on ingredient assessment and certain safety considerations; it does not demonstrate that using the product will reduce the clinical signs of eczema in quantifiable ways. Brands that rely on seals need to ensure the marketing claims they make align precisely with what the seal certifies.

What Counts as Adequate Substantiation for Eczema and Other Skin Health Claims

Advertising that implies improvement in a skin condition—such as “reduces eczema redness” or “clinically proven to reduce eczema symptoms”—raises the bar for substantiation. Regulators and review bodies expect competent and reliable scientific evidence to back claims about health effects or disease‑related benefits.

Key elements that typically constitute acceptable substantiation for eczema‑related claims:

  • Study Design: Randomized, controlled clinical trials provide the strongest support. When randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are not feasible, well‑designed controlled studies with objective outcome measures are the next best option.
  • Objective, Validated Endpoints: Use dermatology‑standard scales such as EASI (Eczema Area and Severity Index) or SCORAD (SCORing Atopic Dermatitis) to quantify changes in disease severity. For visible redness, validated erythema measures or objective digital imaging methods can strengthen claims.
  • Blinding and Control: Blinding of investigators and use of a suitable placebo or vehicle control reduces bias. For subjective outcomes like itch or patient‑reported relief, validated patient‑reported outcome instruments should be used.
  • Sample Size and Statistical Power: Studies must be adequately powered to detect clinically meaningful differences. Small, underpowered studies cannot support broad claims about typical consumer results.
  • Duration and Follow‑Up: Eczema is a chronic, relapsing condition. Short‑duration studies may be insufficient to support claims of sustained benefit. Adequate follow‑up periods show whether improvements are robust or transient.
  • Population Relevance: Study subjects should represent the target consumer population (age range, disease severity). Extrapolating results from a narrow group to all consumers invites scrutiny.
  • Adverse Event Reporting: Safety findings should be transparently reported. Any claims about safety or “risk‑free” status require a factual basis, including proper monitoring.
  • Independent Oversight and Peer Review: Independent oversight or publication in peer‑reviewed journals strengthens credibility; however, peer‑review alone is not a substitute for methodological rigor.

The NAD decision did not list a specific study design that would have satisfied its concerns. It did, however, apply the general principle that measurable performance claims require evidence that supports the magnitude and typicality of the advertised results. A brand that wants to claim measurable reductions in eczema symptoms or redness should have clinical data showing those average effects under the conditions of intended use.

For claims about cosmetic improvements—fine lines or under‑eye bags—standards are similar. Objective imaging, standardized photography protocols, validated grading scales for wrinkle depth (e.g., profilometry), and blinded evaluator assessments are commonly required to substantiate before‑and‑after claims.

Before‑and‑After Imagery: Standards, Pitfalls, and Best Practices

Before‑and‑after photos are persuasive tools, but they are also one of the most common causes of regulatory intervention. Consumers assume that these images show typical results achieved by following product directions. To avoid misleading viewers, brands must control and document the photographic process and ensure the images accurately represent expected outcomes.

Best practices for before‑and‑after imagery:

  • Consistent Conditions: Use identical camera, lens, lighting, distance, angle, background, and camera settings for before and after photos. Even minor changes in lighting or camera settings can create the appearance of improvement.
  • Time Interval and Use Regimen: Clearly state the duration between photos and the regimen followed (e.g., product applied twice daily for eight weeks). Photographs should reflect the advertised timeframe.
  • Subject Documentation: Record subject demographics, baseline severity, and consent. If multiple subjects are shown, indicate whether images represent typical or exceptional responses.
  • Metadata and Raw Files: Preserve original image files and metadata. If challenged, unedited originals help demonstrate authenticity.
  • Avoid Photo Editing: Do not retouch to enhance results. Crop and sizing adjustments are acceptable when they do not alter appearance; retouching to remove redness, lines, or blemishes is not.
  • Provide Context: If images show improvements attributable to adjunct therapies (prescription meds, phototherapy), disclose that context. Do not imply the product alone produced the result.
  • Disclaimers: Use clear, prominent disclaimers where necessary—e.g., “Individual results may vary” is not sufficient on its own to cure deceptive presentation; it must be accompanied by substantive evidence and context.
  • Independent Verification: Where possible, have photos evaluated by qualified, blinded clinical graders or external auditors to corroborate the visual assessment.
  • Track Typicality: If an image depicts an exceptional result, disclose that it is not typical. If it represents average results, have data demonstrating that average.

NAD’s decision treated PrettyBoy’s photos as performance claims requiring substantiation. Brands that cannot document standardized photographic protocols and link images to verified clinical data should remove or significantly qualify such imagery.

Practical Steps for Brands to Avoid NAD or FTC Scrutiny

The PrettyBoy decision provides a template for proactive compliance. A brand’s marketing, regulatory, and legal teams should collaborate across the following steps.

  1. Audit All Third‑Party Claims and Seals
    • Inventory every third‑party rating, seal, or endorsement used in website copy, social channels, product labels, and paid ads.
    • For each, document what the seal or score evaluates, the date of assessment, the scope (ingredients only, manufacturing safety, clinical testing), and any limitations.
  2. Add Clear Explanatory Language
    • For scores: identify the issuing organization, the criteria used, and what the score measures. Example: “100/100 Yuka score (ingredient‑based assessment conducted by Yuka on [date]; score reflects absence of certain ingredients Yuka categorizes as high concern and does not reflect clinical efficacy).”
    • For seals: link to the certifier’s criteria and explain whether the seal pertains to formulation, safety, or other attributes.
  3. Limit or Modify Visual Performance Claims
    • Remove before‑and‑after images if they cannot be tied to robust clinical evidence.
    • Replace unverified images with statistical summaries supported by studies: e.g., “In an 8‑week randomized, vehicle‑controlled study of 150 subjects, 72% of users showed a clinically significant reduction in eczema severity.”
  4. Invest in Proper Substantiation
    • Design clinical trials aligned with regulatory standards for the claim. Consult dermatologists and clinical trial experts about endpoints, sample size, and duration.
    • Register trials where appropriate and maintain full documentation.
  5. Maintain Records and Evidence
    • Keep a clear audit trail: study protocols, consent forms, raw data, statistical analyses, and photo metadata.
    • If relying on third‑party assessments, preserve dated reports and the methodology used.
  6. Legal Review and Cross‑Functional Sign‑Off
    • Engage outside counsel experienced in advertising law to review marketing claims before launch.
    • Ensure marketing, regulatory, clinical, and legal teams approve claims and disclosures.
  7. Train Marketing and Sales Teams
    • Provide clear guidance on permissible claims and required disclosures.
    • Use a pre‑approval checklist for campaigns that includes substantiation status.
  8. Monitor and Update Claims
    • Ratings and certifications can change. Periodically revalidate claims and update dates and links to reflect current evaluations.
  9. Prepare for Consumer and Regulatory Challenges
    • Have a response plan and evidence repository ready to address inquiries from review bodies, platforms, or litigants.

Brands that follow these steps reduce legal exposure and protect brand trust.

Practical Language Examples Brands Can Use to Clarify Scores and Seals

Words matter. A simple modification in how a third‑party rating is presented can make it compliant and less likely to be misleading. Below are example statements brands can adapt.

  • Clarifying an ingredient‑based app score: “Yuka score: 100/100 (score provided by Yuka on [date]; reflects ingredient‑based assessment only and does not evaluate clinical efficacy or safety in use). See Yuka’s methodology [link].”
  • Clarifying the scope of a seal: “National Eczema Association Seal of Acceptance — awarded for formulation suitability for dry, sensitive skin due to ingredient profile; does not certify clinical treatment of eczema. NEA criteria [link].”
  • Replacing a before/after photo with study summary: “In a randomized, vehicle‑controlled eight‑week study of 120 adults with mild to moderate atopic dermatitis, 68% of participants using Product X achieved a clinically significant reduction in EASI score versus 24% in the vehicle group (p<0.001).”

Such phrasing makes the basis of the claim explicit and gives consumers a path to verify the underlying data.

Broader Implications for Retailers, Platforms, and Consumers

Regulatory scrutiny of advertising claims affects more than manufacturers. Retail platforms, marketplaces, and brick‑and‑mortar retailers rely on product claims to make merchandising and promotional decisions. They face their own reputational and legal exposure when products they list make misleading claims.

  • Retailers: Large retailers increasingly demand substantiation from suppliers before allowing performance claims in product listings and marketing materials. Retailers may delist products or require corrective copy if a brand fails to substantiate claims.
  • Marketplaces: Online marketplaces often mediate disputes and enforce content standards. They also respond to NAD and FTC actions by requesting claim correction or removal.
  • Consumers: Consumers generally interpret numerical ratings and seals as rigorous endorsements. Clear disclosures protect consumers and reduce the likelihood of disappointment that leads to complaints or litigation.

The PrettyBoy case signals that retailers and platforms should ask vendors to document the basis of third‑party ratings and any clinical evidence supporting performance claims. Doing so minimizes downstream risk and strengthens overall marketplace trust.

Industry Trends: Clean Beauty, App Ratings, and Escalating Scrutiny

Consumer demand for “clean” or “safer” products drove the proliferation of apps and seals that simplify ingredient assessment. That demand remains strong. However, the convenience of app‑based ratings and the marketing value of seals has attracted regulatory attention. Advertising review bodies and the FTC are focused on ensuring that consumers receive enough context to make informed choices.

Trends to watch:

  • Increased transparency demands: Regulators and industry reviewers will press for clear explanation of what third‑party ratings measure.
  • Higher standards for health‑related claims: As brands push into claims that touch on conditions such as eczema, the expectation for clinical substantiation will increase.
  • Platform policing: Big e‑commerce players and social platforms will continue to enforce stricter ad policies for health and beauty claims.
  • Litigation risk: Consumer class actions frequently follow poorly substantiated claims, particularly when they concern health implications or false impressions of scientific endorsement.

Brands that see ratings and seals as marketing shortcuts without backing expose themselves to enforcement and lawsuit risk. Conversely, brands that invest in clear disclosure and formal substantiation convert certifications into credible selling points.

How to Structure a Substantiation Program for Efficacy Claims

A substantiation program ensures claims are backed consistently and defensibly. Below is a practical roadmap a brand can adopt.

  1. Claim Inventory and Risk Assessment
    • Catalog all existing claims. Classify them by risk: health/disease claims, performance claims, safety claims, and comparative claims.
    • Prioritize high‑risk claims (disease, therapeutic, measurable visual improvements).
  2. Claim Categorization
    • Define whether a claim is: (a) descriptive (ingredient list), (b) cosmetic (improves appearance), or (c) therapeutic (treats a disease).
    • Therapeutic claims require the highest level of evidence and may trigger additional regulatory controls.
  3. Evidence Mapping
    • Map the type of evidence required to support each claim category. Use RCTs for therapeutic claims. For cosmetic claims, controlled studies with validated measures often suffice.
  4. Protocol Development
    • Draft study protocols with clinical endpoints, statistical plans, and study governance.
    • Involve clinical experts to select appropriate validated scales.
  5. Operational Execution
    • Execute trials with qualified contract research organizations (CROs), dermatologists, and clinical sites.
    • Ensure robust data collection and preservation.
  6. Peer Review and Legal Signoff
    • Have independent reviewers evaluate study design and results.
    • Obtain legal review for marketing language based on study outcomes.
  7. Marketing Integration
    • Only approve marketing assertions that align with data.
    • Create templated disclosures for third‑party endorsements.
  8. Ongoing Monitoring
    • Reassess and update claims when new data or third‑party assessments change.

Implementing this process places substantiation at the core of marketing rather than as an afterthought.

Sample Scenarios and How to Respond

Scenario 1: A product has an excellent score on an ingredient‑rating app, but no clinical data. Response: Present the score with a clear disclosure stating it is an ingredient assessment only. Avoid implying clinical benefits. Consider investing in appropriate clinical studies if you want to claim efficacy.

Scenario 2: Marketing uses dramatic before/after photos showing eczema improvement. Response: Remove images unless backed by standardized photographic controls and clinical data showing that the images reflect typical results under advertised conditions. Replace images with study summaries if evidence exists.

Scenario 3: A certification covers manufacturing practices but the company markets the certification as proof of skin benefits. Response: Clarify the scope of certification and ensure marketing language does not overreach beyond what the certification evaluates.

Scenario 4: Company claims “risk‑free” ingredients based on an app’s ingredient list. Response: “Risk‑free” is potentially misleading. Specify what “risk‑free” means in context and reference the scope and limits of the assessment.

Each scenario requires tailored remediation and documentation.

Lessons for Small and Emerging Brands

Smaller brands often use third‑party seals and app scores to build credibility quickly. They must balance marketing gains against regulatory risk.

  • Be precise: Use plain language to explain endorsements. Small additions—issuer name, date, and scope—reduce misunderstandings.
  • Prioritize high‑impact claims: Invest limited resources in substantiating the few claims that matter most for purchasing decisions.
  • Build evidence incrementally: Start with well‑designed proof‑of‑concept or pilot clinical studies and scale up to larger trials if necessary.
  • Maintain agility: If a claim becomes questionable, act quickly to revise copy and remove problematic imagery.

Regulatory reviewers reward transparency. A small brand that documents the basis for its claims will have stronger defenses if a dispute arises.

Conclusion

The NAD’s recommendations to PrettyBoy are not an anomaly. They reflect an ongoing expectation that marketing claims—especially those touching on health and visible skin conditions—must be presented with clarity and backed by appropriate evidence. Third‑party scores and seals are valuable tools but require context; photographic evidence and performance claims demand rigorous substantiation.

Brands that proactively audit their claims, document third‑party methodologies, invest in clinical substantiation where required, and use clear disclosures will reduce legal and commercial risk. Those that treat ratings and seals as marketing embellishments risk regulatory intervention and reputational harm. The PrettyBoy case offers a practical compliance checklist for the industry: be transparent, be evidence‑led, and keep the consumer’s reasonable interpretation in mind.

FAQ

Q: What authority does the NAD have?
A: The National Advertising Division (NAD) is part of BBB National Programs and reviews national advertising to ensure it complies with established standards for truth and accuracy. NAD decisions are influential among advertisers, platforms, and retailers. While its recommendations are not judicial rulings, advertisers typically comply to avoid escalation to the National Advertising Review Board (NARB) and potential referral to enforcement agencies or negative publicity.

Q: Does the NAD ban the use of app‑based scores like Yuka?
A: NAD does not categorically ban such scores. The PrettyBoy decision shows NAD requires that the basis for the score be clearly disclosed so consumers understand what the score measures. A transparent statement of methodology, date, and scope may suffice.

Q: Can a certification like the National Eczema Association’s Seal of Acceptance be used to support efficacy claims?
A: A certification can support certain safety or suitability claims tied to formulation or ingredients, but it generally does not replace direct clinical evidence for performance claims such as reductions in eczema severity. Brands should avoid implying a certification proves therapeutic or measurable efficacy unless the certifying body’s scope explicitly covers that evaluation.

Q: What kind of clinical evidence is needed to substantiate eczema‑related marketing claims?
A: Robust substantiation typically includes controlled clinical studies with objective, validated endpoints (e.g., EASI, SCORAD), appropriate sample size and statistical power, adequate duration, and clear reporting of methods and results. Randomized, placebo‑ or vehicle‑controlled trials with blinded assessments are considered strong evidence.

Q: Are before‑and‑after photos acceptable in advertising?
A: Yes, if they are representative, obtained under standardized and documented conditions, and accurately reflect typical results achievable by following the labeled directions. If the photos depict atypical outcomes, that must be clearly disclosed.

Q: What immediate actions should a brand take after receiving an NAD recommendation to modify or discontinue claims?
A: Brands typically comply with NAD recommendations to avoid escalation. Practical steps include removing or modifying the claims, adding required disclosures, documenting the changes, and assessing whether new or additional substantiation is needed to support any future use of similar claims.

Q: Could the FTC take action based on similar advertising issues?
A: The FTC enforces truth‑in‑advertising standards and can pursue enforcement when claims are deceptive or unsubstantiated. NAD decisions and similar industry reviews can trigger FTC interest, especially where consumer harm or widespread misleading impressions are apparent.

Q: How can brands present third‑party endorsements without misleading consumers?
A: Provide clear, prominent disclosures explaining who issued the endorsement, the specific criteria used, the date of assessment, and any limitations. Use links to the third party’s methodology and avoid implying the endorsement covers attributes it does not evaluate.

Q: What are common mistakes brands make when using third‑party scores or seals?
A: Common mistakes include presenting a score without context, implying the score reflects clinical efficacy, failing to link to the certifier’s methodology, using seals beyond their scope, and relying on endorsements to substantiate unrelated performance claims.

Q: How should retailers and marketplaces respond to claims on product pages?
A: Retailers should require vendors to provide substantiation for health or performance claims, confirm third‑party endorsements with documentation, and enforce content standards that require clear disclosures for scores and seals.

Q: If a product’s ingredients are “risk‑free” according to an app, is it safe to advertise it as such?
A: Be cautious. “Risk‑free” is a strong claim and can mislead if readers interpret it broadly. Instead, clarify that the app’s assessment flagged no listed concerns based on its criteria and cite the app and date of evaluation.

Q: Can brands avoid regulatory scrutiny entirely by not making performance claims?
A: Avoiding performance or health claims lowers scrutiny, but all advertising must still be truthful and not misleading. Even descriptive claims like “dermatologist‑recommended” or ingredient highlights require accuracy and documentation.

Q: Where can brands find guidance on advertising claims and substantiation?
A: Brands should consult the FTC’s advertising and marketing guidance, NAD decisions relevant to their product category, and legal counsel experienced in consumer protection and advertising law. Industry trade associations and professional regulatory consultants can also provide practical compliance advice.

Q: What’s a practical first step for a brand planning a campaign that uses third‑party scores?
A: Build a claim brief that lists every third‑party score, seal, or endorsement intended for use, document the issuer and methodology, and prepare a short disclosure template that can be included wherever the claim appears. Review this brief with legal and regulatory leads before publishing.

Q: Are there benefits to using third‑party apps and seals despite the risks?
A: Yes. When properly contextualized and documented, third‑party endorsements can enhance credibility and help consumers make informed choices. The key is transparency about what the endorsement assesses and ensuring marketing claims remain within the scope of what the endorsement can reasonably support.