In Vivo is part of Pharma Intelligence UK Limited

This site is operated by Pharma Intelligence UK Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 13787459 whose registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. The Pharma Intelligence group is owned by Caerus Topco S.à r.l. and all copyright resides with the group.

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use. For high-quality copies or electronic reprints for distribution to colleagues or customers, please call +44 (0) 20 3377 3183

Printed By

UsernamePublicRestriction

Unreliable Survey Doesn't Sink Mucinex Fast-Max 'All In One' Claim In NAD Review

Executive Summary

RB didn't get help from consumer perception survey to support argument that "All In One" label statement is not claim the product treats all cold and flu symptoms. Council of Better Business Bureaus' division dismisses survey as faulty but approves RB's argument. NAD attorneys conclude 15- and 6-second TV and video "superhero 'movie trailer'” ads did not include "a sufficiently proximate and prominent list of symptoms" to counter "distracting features."

You may also be interested in...



Mucinex Fast-Max Advertising Claim Exceeds Indications In NAD Review

Review was second in two years by the Council of Better Business Bureaus' National Advertising Division of a challenge to Reckitt Benckiser ad claims for its Mucinex cough/cold line made by Procter & Gamble, which markets competing products including Vicks NyQuil and DayQuil brands.

California Bill To Age-Restrict Sales Of Diet Pills Further Along Than Other States’ Legislation

CA, MA and NJ legislatures remain in session with bills active proposing regulations similar to NY law effective 22 April requiring retailers, including online, to ask for proof of age when customers buying consumer health products containing ingredients labeled or promoted for weight loss and bodybuilding benefits appear younger than 18.

CRN Has Standing For Steep Hill To Climb Challenging New York's Age-Restricted Sales

Federal judge finds “misreading of the legislation” in CRN’s argument that state “restricts access based purely on what has been said about the product or its ingredients.” But standing to challenge “means that only CRN is positioned right now to go before the court on behalf of industry,” says CEO Steve Mister.

Topics

Related Companies

Latest Headlines
See All
UsernamePublicRestriction

Register

RS148826

Ask The Analyst

Ask the Analyst is free for subscribers.  Submit your question and one of our analysts will be in touch.

Your question has been successfully sent to the email address below and we will get back as soon as possible. my@email.address.

All fields are required.

Please make sure all fields are completed.

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please enter a valid e-mail address

Please enter a valid Phone Number

Ask your question to our analysts

Cancel