With a Decision dated 5 May 2020, the Advertising Self-Regulation Jury reiterated the special rigor of the burden of proof on the advertiser in the case of direct comparative advertising.<\/p>\n
In the advertisement in question appeared a graphic image of the composition of two products in comparison, the image suggested that an element present in the advertised product was absent in the competing one.<\/p>\n
As there was no evidence that the advertiser had previously verified the actual composition of the competing product, the Jury accepted the argument of the claimant, assisted by our Firm, and declared the comparative advertising contrary to art. 15 \u00a0Code of Advertising Self-Regulation (CAP).<\/p>\n
The Jury stated that art. 15 CAP requires the advertiser not only to document the truthfulness of the qualities ascribed to their product, that would justify the claimed boast of superiority, but also to demonstrate that the competitor\u2019s product does not have the same characteristics.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
With a Decision dated 5 May 2020, the Advertising Self-Regulation Jury reiterated the special rigor of the burden of proof on the advertiser in the case of direct comparative advertising. In the advertisement in question appeared a graphic image of the composition of two products in comparison, the image suggested that an element present in […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":""},"categories":[35,32],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"\n