European Commission


Case detail

B a c k

Directive article Article 5 2.
Article 5 2. (b)
Article 6 1. (b)
National ID 8J/2010
Country Portugal Decision date 21/04/2010
Common name Decision type Other
Court Segunda Secção do Júri de Ética Publicitária do ICAP (Lisboa) Plaintiff(s) Reckitt Benckiser (Portugal), Lda.
Court translation Second Section of ICAP’s Jury for Ethics in Advertising (Lisbon) Defendant(s) Procter & Gamble Portugal – Produtos de Consumo, Higiene e Saúde, S.A.
Subject comparative advertising
Keywords average consumercomparative advertisingconfusing marketinginaccurate informationmisleading advertising

+ Expand all



(1) It is misleading to use subjective references (such as "compared to traditional products" and "compared to the number one brand") in a comparative advertisement. 

(2) It is contradictory and misleading to claim that a cleaning product has "two times more power" than another product, while including a caption in the same or another advertisement in the same campaign claiming that this cleaning product only has "up to two times more power".


The plaintiff and the defendant manufacture and sell tablets of detergent powder for the dishwasher.

The defendant used a promotional slogan stating "Fairy all-in-one for dishwasher powder is two times more powerful against grease than the traditional tablets from the number one brand, so Fairy cleans even the most difficult leftovers".

In the same or another advertisement in the same campaing the defendant included a caption claiming that the advertised cleaning product had “Up to two times more power against grease”.

The plaintiff argued that the defendant’s advertisement campaign used false claims that amount to an illicit and misleading comparative advertisement, because the messages are ambiguous and contradictory, and therefore able to confuse the consumer about the product’s capacity.

Legal issue

(1) Is it unfair to refer to the "traditional product" or "the number one brand" in a comparative advertisement? 

(2) Is it misleading to claim that a cleaning product has "two times more power" than another product, while including in a caption in the same or another advertisement in the same campaign claiming that a cleaning product has "up to two times more power"?


It was held that: 

(1) The expressions "number one brand" and "traditional tablets" do not amount to comparative advertising, as the average consumer is asked to consider a series of products of the same kind and not necessarily the plaintiff’s product.

(2) The ambiguity caused by the subjective expression "traditional tablets" and by the average consumer’s inability to identify the "number one brand" amounts to a misleading advertisement.

(3) The contradiction between the claims "Has two times more power against grease" and "Up to two times more power against grease", that appear on the video commercial, results in a mistaken or ambiguous message which is able to mislead the consumer.

(4) The documents submitted by defendant did not prove its claims.

  URL Decision Decision full text
PT Click here


The defendant was ordered to cease its advertisement campaign.

Additional information

Date Description URL
There is no events for this case.

Related case(s)

National ID Common Name Subject Country Link type
There is no related cases for this case.

Legal Literature

Title Author
There is no Legal Literature for this case.