NAD Examines Advertising From Intelligent Beauty

New York, NY – May 31, 2007 –  The National Advertising Division (NAD) of the Council of Better Business Bureaus has recommended that Intelligent Beauty LLC modify or discontinue certain performance and superiority claims for the company’s iQ Cosmetics RestorEyes System.

NAD has determined also that the advertiser provided a reasonable basis for claims that consumers using the eye cream observed a reduction in skin wrinkling and dark circles under the eye, and improvements in skin tone, texture and firmness around the eye. 

Intelligent Beauty has said it will appeal the NAD’s decision to the National Advertising Review Board (NARB), the appellate unit of the advertising industry’s self-regulatory system.

As part of its ongoing monitoring program, NAD reviewed advertising claims for RestorEyes that appeared on the Internet. Claims at issue included: 

• “NO MORE DARK CIRCLES & CROW’S FEET”
• “Fight aging all day and night with 2 powerful treatments!”
• “Instantly decreases the appearance of dark circles”
• “Dramatically reduces the appearance of dark circles up to 45%”
• “Firms and Smoothes the appearance of wrinkles by 44-98%”
• “Protects skin all day & all night with advanced anti-aging ingredients”
• “The most effective system ever for controlling raccoon eyes, wrinkles and puffiness”
• “A Revolution in Skin Care.  Working 24 hours to make your skin more beautiful.”

The homepage of iQ Cosmetics’ Website featured, in large red and black type, “NO MORE DARK CIRCLES & CROW’S FEET” and a large close-up photograph of an eye.  Under the text, “End Tired, Dark Eyes,” the image cycled through a change to the surrounding skin from dark and wrinkled to smooth and pink. 

In response to NAD’s inquiry, the advertiser advised NAD that RestorEyes is a system of two products – an eye cream and a concealer – used together. The advertiser provided background information about the design and makeup of the two products, and detailed the component ingredients (which were made by other manufacturers) and their concentrations.  As substantiation, the advertiser submitted materials and test results on individual ingredients from manufacturers and suppliers of ingredients, and the results of a consumer-use study on the eye cream component of the “system.”

Following its review, NAD determined that the advertiser’s consumer-use study provided a reasonable basis for claims that consumers using the eye cream observed a reduction in skin wrinkling and dark circles under the eye, and improvements in skin tone, texture and firmness around the eye. 

However, NAD found the scientific evidence in the record insufficient to support the advertiser’s express and quantified performance claims, and recommended that the claims be discontinued.  NAD determined also that in the context of the challenged advertising, claims that the product was “the most effective system ever for controlling raccoon eyes, wrinkles and puffiness” and “a revolution in skin care” were objective superiority claims and not puffery. Given the absence of reliable supporting evidence, NAD recommended that they be discontinued.

The company, in its advertiser’s statement, said it “respectfully disagrees with NAD’s determination that the clinical evidence is insufficient to support the express and quantified performance claims at issue, and that certain other claims are objective and not puffery,” and noted that it intends to appeal the NAD decision to the NARB.