This course will be taught via live streaming ONLY.



* A 10% discount will be applied to each additional registration when registered at the same time, from the same company. The Institute for Perception offers reduced or waived course fees to non-profit entities, students, judges, government employees, and others. For more information, please contact us

This course has been developed for sensory and consumer scientists, product developers, market research managers, package/product testing specialists, and attorneys specializing in advertising law.





  • Printed manual of slides presented

  • A copy of our latest books: Readings in Advertising Claims Substantiation, Tools and Applications of Sensory and Consumer Science, and Thurstonian Models: Categorical Decision Making in the Presence of Noise

The instructors for this course will be:


The Institute for Perception


The Institute for Perception

Will Russ.png

The Institute for Perception

Lauren Aronson.png

Crowell & Moring


Crowell & Moring


Unilever USA


National Advertising Division


Unilever USA

Alex Kaplan.png

Oppenheim + Zebrak


Tennessee Attorney General's Office (retired)

David-Mallen-biopix (1).png

Loeb & Loeb

LSutton Headshot.png

National Advertising Division

Eric Unis.png

National Advertising Division

Advertising Claims Support: Case Histories and Principles
Tuesday, April 20

Advertising Claims Support  |  9am - 10am


  • Introduction and scope of the course

  • Claims support in product/brand development

  • Admissibility of expert testimony

  • Surveys in false advertising and trademark cases

  • Efficacy, perception, and materiality

Claims and False Advertising; Internal Counsel Perspective  |  10:10am - 11am


  • Three ways an ad can be false

  • A typical false advertising lawsuit

  • Puffery, falsity, and injury: The Procter & Gamble Co. vs. Kimberly-Clark (2008), Schick vs. The Gillette Co. (2005), The Procter & Gamble Co. vs. Ultreo, S.D.N.Y. (2008)

  • To sue, challenge, or negotiate - an internal counsel’s perspective

Regulatory and ASTM Sensory Claims Guide  |  11:10am - Noon


  • Regulatory actions and cases

  • Review of the ASTM Claims Guide

    • Evolution of the Guide content​

    • Choosing a target population, product selection, sampling and handling, selection of markets

    • Claims: Superiority, unsurpassed, equivalence, and non-comparative

NAD Mock Hearings; Overview of the NAD  |  1pm - 3pm


  • NAD Mock Hearing #1: MillerCoors - Miller Lite vs Bud Light

  • NAD Mock Hearing #2: General Mills - Yoplait vs Chobani

  • Advertising self-regulation and the NAD process

  • Preparing for an NAD hearing
    1) NAD Case #5129 (2009) MillerCoors, LLC (Miller Lite Beer)
    2) NAD Case #5715 (2014) General Mills Inc. (Yoplait Blended Greek Yogurt)

Wednesday, April 21

Test Method, Design, Location, and Participants |  9am - 10am


  • Test options: Monadic, sequential, direct comparisons

  • Test design issues: Within-subject, matched samples, position and sequential effects, replication

  • Choosing a testing location and test subjects
    3) NAD Case #5425 (2012) Church & Dwight Co., Inc.
    (Arm & Hammer® Sensitive Skin Plus Scent)
    4) NAD Case #5782 (2014) The MOM brands Company (Malt-O-Meal Cereals)
    5) NAD Case #6041 (2016) Unilever United States, Inc. (Suave Essentials Body Wash)

Sensory and Hedonic Methods |  10:10am - 11am


  • Methods: Difference, descriptive, hedonic

  • Data: Counts, ranking, rating scales

  • “Better” and “Greater”, hedonic, sensory, and technical claims

  • Attribute interdependencies
    6) NAD Case #5866 (2015) Kimberly-Clark Corp. (Huggies Natural Care Wipes)
    7) NAD Case #5874 (2015) and NARB Panel #207 (2016) Chattam, Inc. (Nasacort)
    8) NAD Case #5984 (2016) French’s Food Company (French’s Tomato Ketchup)

Consumer Relevance |  11:10am - Noon


  • Setting action standards for consumer-perceived differences

  • Linking expert and consumer data

  • Clinical vs. statistical significance
    Litigated Case: (S.D.N.Y. 2012) Church & Dwight Co., Inc vs. Clorox Co. (cat litter)
    09) NAD Case #5974 (2010) Comcast Communications, Inc. (Xfinity Internet, Television & Telephone Services)
    10) NAD Case #6025 (2010) Bausch & Lomb, Inc. (PeroxiClear Contact Lens Peroxide Solution)
    11) NAD Case #6131 (2017) Too Faced Cosmetics, LLC. (Better Than Sex Mascara)

Survey Principles |  1pm - 2pm


  • Answering questions

  • Purpose of conducting surveys: Events and behaviors, attitudes and beliefs, subjective experiences

  • How respondents answer questions: Optimizing and satisficing

  • Filters to avoid acquiescence and no opinion responses

  • Survey questions: Biased, open-ended vs. closed-ended

  • Steps to improve survey questions

Consumer Perception Surveys |  2:10pm - 3pm


  • A survey must include: Sample, design, questionnaire, analysis

  • Reliability and validity: Ecological, external, internal, face, construct

  • Bias: Code, position

  • Task instructions – importance and impact

  • Data collection methods

  • Target universe and size, controls, biased questions, improvements in design and analysis

  • Design Issues: Monadic vs sequential monadic (within subject), separating open-ended questions from close-ended

  • The stimulus is the label or ad, not the product itself

  • Why open-ended questions are not a good basis for quantification

  • Common design flaws

Thursday, April 22

How NAD Has Ruled on Perception Surveys |  9am - 10am


  • Consumer takeaway surveys: NAD perspective, critique of cases
    12) NAD Case #5849 (2015) T-Mobile USA (More Data Capacity)
    13) NAD Case #5926 (2016) Comcast Cable Communications (Xfinity Cable TV)
    14) NAD Case #6009 (2016) Epson America, Inc. (Epson EcoTank Supertank Printers)

Consumer Takeaway Survey Research |  10:10am - 11am


  • Independent research on the Bayer Advanced fertilizer case
    15) NAD Case #6033 (2016) Bayer CropScience US (Bayer Advanced 3-in-1 Weed and Feed for Southern Lawns)

Analysis - Interpretation and Communication |  11:10am - 12pm


  • Hypothesis testing

  • Determining statistical significance and confidence bounds

  • Communicating claim requirements to the business side
    16) NAD Case #5569 (2013) InterHealth Nutraceuticals (Zychrome Dietary Supplement)
    17) NAD Case #5755 (2014) The Procter & Gamble Co. (Olay Sensitive Body Wash)
    18) NAD Case #6236 (2018) Abbott Nutrition (Similac Human Milk Fortifier)
    Litigated Case: (S.D.N.Y. 1994) Avon Products vs. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc.

Test Power |  1pm - 2pm


  • The meaning of power

  • Planning experiments and reducing cost

  • Sample sizes for claims support tests

  • Managing Risks: Advertiser claim, competitor challenge
    19) NAD Case #6065 (2017) Shell Oil Co. (Shell V-Power NiTRO+ Premium Gasoline)
    20) NAD Case #6164 (2018) The Proctor & Gamble Co. (Finish® Quantum® Max Automatic Dishwasher Detergent)

Handling No Difference/No Preference Responses |  2:10pm - 3pm


  • No preference option analysis

  • Power comparisons: Dropping, equal and proportional distribution

  • Statistical models and psychological models

  • ASTM recommendation
    21) NAD Case #5453 (2012) Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc. (Ocean Spray Cranberry Juice)
    22) NAD Case #6037 (2016) Mizkan America, Inc. (RAGU Homestyle Traditional Sauce)

Friday, April 23

Testing for Equivalence and Unsurpassed Claims |  9am - 10am


  • How the equivalence hypothesis differs from difference testing

  • ASTM requirements for an unsurpassed claim

  • The paradox of finding support for superiority, unsurpassed, and equivalence; the need for a minimum standard for superiority

  • FDA method for qualifying generic drugs: The TOST
    23) NAD Case #5609 (2013) Starbucks Corp. (Verismo Single-Serve Coffee System)
    24) NAD Case #5822 (2015) Kimberly-Clark Global Sales, LLC (Huggies® Little Snugglers Diapers)
    25) NAD Case #5829 and NARB Panel #202 (2015) Bayer HealthCare, LLC (Claritin and Claritin-D)

Ratio, Multiplicative, and Count-Based Claims |  10:10am - 11am


  • The difference between ratio and multiplicative claims

  • Examples of multiplicative claims

  • Count-based claims (e.g.,“9 out of 10 women found our product reduces wrinkles”)
    26) NAD Case #5107 (2009) Ciba Vision Corp. (Dailies Aqua Comfort Plus)
    27) NAD Case #5416 (2012) LG Electronics USA, Inc. (Cinema 3D TV & 3D Glasses)
    28) NAD Case #5484 (2012) Reynolds Consumer Products (Hefty® Slider Bags)
    29) NAD Case #5779 (2014) S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. (Scrubbing Bubbles Heavy Duty Cleaner with fantastik & Scrubbing Bubbles Bleach 5-in-1 All Purpose Cleaner with fantastik)
    30) NAD Case #5934 (2016) Rust-Oleum Corp. (Painter’s Touch Ultra Cover 2X Spray Paint)

“Up To” Claims and Conclusion |  11:10am - 12pm


  • Definition and support for an “up to” claim

  • FTC opinion on windows marketers claim

  • “Up to” energy savings claim at the NAD
    31) NAD Case #5876 (2015) The Procter & Gamble Co. (Duracell Coppertop & Duracell Quantum Alkaline Batteries)


Please enter your information below to register for this course. Those registering 2 or more attendees from the same company are eligible for a 10% discount on the 2nd registration. Please contact Sue Longest before registering if you are eligible for a discounted rate.