National Advertising Division Recommends Royal Oak Modify or Discontinue Certain Claims for its Super Size Briquets

New York, NY – November 30, 2023 – In a challenge brought by Kingsford Products Company, the National Advertising Division (NAD) of BBB National Programs recommended that Royal Oak Enterprises, LLC:

  • Discontinue the claim that Royal Oak Super Size briquets are 50% bigger than Kingsford Original briquets.  
  • Modify its advertising to avoid conveying a message that Royal Oak Super Size briquets provide the “best grilling experience” because they burn hotter and longer than competing briquets due to their larger size. 
  • Discontinue the claim that “a bigger briquet is a better briquet” or modify its advertising to limit the claim to consumer meaningful benefits for which Royal Oak has substantiation. 

 

50% Bigger Claim

For Royal Oak’s advertisements, in which the object of comparison of its 50% bigger claim is not stated, NAD found that consumers may reasonably understand the comparison to be against Kingsford since Kingsford Original briquets comprise a significant share of the charcoal briquet market. Therefore, NAD assessed whether the 50% bigger claim was accurate with respect to Kingsford Original briquets. 

NAD determined that Royal Oak’s testing in support of its “50% bigger” claim did not provide representative, statistically significant, and reliable support and recommended that the claim be discontinued.

NAD noted that Royal Oak is free to promote the size of its Super Size briquets or that its Super Size briquets are larger than competitive brands such as Kingsford, but any comparative size claims must not overstate the relevance of the size difference.  

 

“Best Grilling Experience”

NAD found that in the challenged advertising the “best grilling experience” is linked to measurable product attributes; namely, the ability of the Super Size briquets to light fast and provide high heat and a long burn time. As the claim is linked to measurable performance within a comparative context, NAD concluded that it is not puffery and Royal Oak must have support for the claim.    

Given that variables other than size may affect the performance of each briquet, NAD determined that Royal Oak’s comparative performance claim cannot be supported by reference to the products’ differences in size alone. Rather, the claim should be supported by properly conducted testing demonstrating that the briquets burn hotter and longer than competing briquets.

As Royal Oak did not provide such support, NAD recommended they modify advertising to avoid conveying a message that Royal Oak Super Size briquets provide the “best grilling experience” because they burn hotter and longer than competing briquets due to their larger size.  

 

“A Bigger Briquet is a Better Briquet”

NAD determined that consumers may reasonably understand a “bigger is better” claim to mean more than just that a bigger briquet size is valuable but that a bigger briquet size is comparatively better in some recognizable or measurable way with respect to overall grilling performance. In some advertising, Royal Oak specifically ties the “bigger is better” claim to burn time and speed of combustion and thus reasonably conveys the message that a bigger briquet size corresponds to superior performance with respect to longer burn time and faster lighting.  

Royal Oak did not present sufficient evidence to show that a bigger briquet size provides an overall performance advantage over smaller briquets or superior burning or combustion. Therefore, NAD recommended that Royal Oak either discontinue the claim that a bigger briquet is a better briquet or modify its advertising to limit the claim to consumer meaningful benefits for which Royal Oak has substantiation.  

During the proceeding Royal Oak permanently discontinued several other challenged claims. Therefore, NAD did not review these claims on the merits.

In its advertiser statement, Royal Oak stated that it “will comply with the NAD’s recommendations for the claims addressed in this Final Decision.”

All BBB National Programs case decision summaries can be found in the case decision library. For the full text of NAD, NARB, and CARU decisions, subscribe to the online archive. Per NAD/NARB procedures, this release shall not be used for advertising or promotional purposes.

 

Subscribe to the Ad Law Insights or Privacy Initiatives newsletters for an exclusive monthly analysis and insider perspectives on the latest trends and case decisions in advertising law and data privacy.

 

 

 

 

Latest Decisions

Decision

National Advertising Division Recommends Dr. Luke Healthcare Discontinue Treatment Claims for its Fungal Nail Renewal Product

New York, NY – July 24, 2024 – The National Advertising Division recommended Dr. Luke Healthcare discontinue certain claims for Dr. Luke’s Fungal Nail Renewal product, including health-related claims, natural claims, and claims that a doctor recommends the product or that it treats a medical condition.

Read the Decision Summary
Decision

National Advertising Division Finds Flag Image on Kendamil Infant Formula Packaging Conveys Supported Message about Products’ Origin

New York, NY – July 17, 2024 – In a Fast-Track SWIFT challenge, the National Advertising Division determined that use of a flag image on product packaging for Kendal Nutricare’s Kendamil infant formula reasonably conveys a supported message about the products’ origin. 

Read the Decision Summary
Decision

In National Advertising Division Case, GuruNanda Voluntarily Discontinues Claims Made through Influencers for Coconut Pulling Oil Products

New York, NY – July 16, 2024 – The National Advertising Division has closed a Fast-Track SWIFT challenge regarding claims that GuruNanda’s coconut pulling oil products can “naturally reverse a cavity” and “reverse cavities.” 

Read the Decision Summary
Decision

National Advertising Division Refers Health-Related Advertising Claims for Prolacta’s Human Milk Fortifier to Regulatory Agencies

New York, NY – July 15, 2024 – The National Advertising Division will refer advertising claims made by Prolacta Bioscience for its Human Milk Fortifier to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for review.

Read the Decision Summary