BBB National Programs Archive
NAD Reviews Advertising For Vital Pharmaceuticals ‘Redline Princess’
New York, NY – July 16, 2008 – The National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus has recommended that Vital Pharmaceuticals, which markets the energy drink “Redline Princess,” modify or discontinue certain advertising claims for the product.
Advertising for “Redline Princess” came to the attention of NAD, the advertising industry’s self-regulatory forum, through NAD’s routine monitoring program. NAD requested substantiation for certain health-related performance claims made in print advertisements and on product packaging, including:
“A New Breakthrough Designed Especially for Women to Enhance:
- Fat Loss”
“Mood, Energy & Fat Loss Matrix!”
“The World’s Most Effective Energy Drinks …”
The advertiser represented that the product is ready-to-drink beverage whose primary primary and most effective ingredient is caffeine.
NAD found that, although the advertiser provided numerous studies on RP’s active ingredients and their properties, there was no evidence in the record that the product itself would “enhance mood, energy, and fat loss” and consequently, NAD recommended that the advertiser’s product performance claims be discontinued.
Active ingredients in “Redline Princess” include phenylethlamine (PES), 5-Hydroxytryptophan (5-HTP), Vinpocetine and Yohimbine. After reviewing the advertiser’s evidence regarding RP’s individual ingredients, NAD agreed that certain ingredients may have an effect, either directly or indirectly, on mood, energy and fat loss. As a result, NAD determined that while the advertiser could not support product-performance claims, it could support claims that certain ingredients in the product have been shown to provide some of the advertised benefits.
NAD found that the advertiser provided a reasonable basis to support the claim, “designed especially for women.” Finally, NAD concluded that the claim, “The World’s Most Effective Energy Drinks,” in the context in which it appeared on in Internet advertising, is likely to be understood as puffery.
The company, in its advertiser’s statement, said that while it disagreed with certain aspects of the NAD decision, it will “consider NAD’s recommendations in all future advertising.”