The ARB ruling in Haleon South Africa (Sensodyne) vs Colgate-Palmolive provides important, advertising claim decision-relevant guidance on the defensibility of superiority and health professional endorsement claims in highly competitive cosmetic and personal care categories such as toothpaste.
The Directorate dismissed two competitor challenges relating to “#1 dentist recommended” claims, finding that these claims were adequately substantiated through SAMRA-accredited research and would be reasonably interpreted by consumers within the narrow context of tooth sensitivity, given the overall advertising environment. A third claim (“Best cavity protection in South Africa”) was voluntarily withdrawn due to an ineffective and confusing disclaimer, highlighting continued regulatory intolerance for broad efficacy superiority claims that rely on technical or poorly understood qualifiers.
Strategically, the ruling confirms that contextual clarity, not absolute market dominance, is the decisive regulatory test. Competing or contradictory market research does not automatically invalidate a claim; the ARB’s role is to assess whether the advertiser holds compliant substantiation, not to arbitrate “market truth”. This materially lowers regulatory risk for cosmetic brands that invest in robust, defensible research and valorise it by aligning advertising claims tightly with established product positioning.
However, the ruling also sends a cautionary signal. The Directorate explicitly expressed discomfort with claims that are split between a bold headline and a limiting disclaimer, even where those claims ultimately pass muster. This indicates a growing expectation that advertisers should self-regulate for clarity, rather than rely on disclaimers to correct potentially misleading first impressions. With more and more rulings being made by the ARB on this, eventually a stricter standard may start being applied as precedent accumulates in alignment with provisions in the ARB Code of Practice on headlines and disclaimers.
For cosmetic companies, this decision reinforces that regulatory compliance and brand strategy are converging disciplines. Companies that proactively align marketing, regulatory, legal and public affairs functions around claim design and valorisation will be better positioned to defend competitive messaging, protect brand equity, and avoid reactive claim withdrawals that can expensively disrupt marketing plans and signal internal claims governance weaknesses to the market.
Further, the ruling signals that disciplined claim design and credible evidence can protect aggressive marketing claims, even under competitor challenge. The risk lies not in making big, bold and strong claims—but in making unclear ones. For cosmetic brands, regulatory foresight here is not just compliance hygiene; it is a strategic growth lever. It may be the difference between keeping a product on shelf or having retailers refuse to list it.
DECISION ANALYTICS SNAPSHOT AND PREDICTIVE IMPACT FOR COSMETIC COMPANIES
Business impact
Competitive “#1” , "No.1" or any market leadership claims and health professional endorsement claims remain viable if tightly scoped and evidenced. They must be relevant in the complete advertising context of the claim being made.
Brands that invest in independent, relevant, credible, repeatable clinical, sensory, cognitive, consumer or market research based sustantiation gain a defensible commercial advantage in crowded categories such as toothpaste.
Brand Portfolio impact
Claims that rely on broad superiority language (“best”, “number one overall”) without precise framing are increasingly vulnerable. Precision is key where market leadership is claimed directly or implied.
Line extensions or cross-category claims (e.g. efficacy beyond the core positioning) will attract higher scrutiny especially from competitors and likely result in claim challenges.
Reputational impact
Clear contextualisation protects brand trust; ambiguous disclaimers risk reputational erosion even if claims ultimately survive competitor challenge and ARB Scrutiny.
Voluntary withdrawal, while mitigating regulatory escalation, may signal internal governance gaps to competitors and stakeholders. This may inadvertently embolden them to challenge other campaigns in the same or different categories.
Strategic Insights (Lessons from this ruling for a cosmetic company)
Context is king: The ARB accepted claims because the entire advertising environment consistently anchored them in tooth sensitivity. Context is central to consumer understanding of advertising.
Evidence beats rivalry: Conflicting competitor data does not invalidate a claim if your substantiation meets Code standards. Ensure that all substantiation held is appropriate, statistically sound to reflect target population dynamics and relevant to the claim being made.
Disclaimers are not a shield: They may clarify, but they cannot rescue an inherently broad or confusing headline claim.
What if you already make these types of claims and this ruling has made them vulnerable in certain respects? - Anticipatory Remedial Actions
Audit all superiority, market leadership and “#1” claims across packaging, digital, Television Commercial (TVC) and in-store materials for contextual consistency as well as veracity and relevance of substantiation held.
Stress-test disclaimers: ask whether the claim would still be clear without the disclaimer—if not, rewrite the headline claim and properly valorise the scientific substantiation you hold.
Refresh substantiation dossiers regularly using the latest clinical, consumer, sensory, cognitive and SAMRA-accredited or equivalent bodies' research techniques, aligned to the exact wording of claims. It is important for substantiation to be relevant to the claim being made.
Align portfolio strategy to positioning: avoid stretching efficacy or performance claims beyond the brand’s established equity or substantiation held. Exposure of this practice raises reputational risk.
Prepare competitor-challenge playbooks: Assess and analyse internal as well as external practices in the market, document evidence, claim rationale, and consumer interpretation analysis (when testing advertising before placement) in advance before using aggressive regulatory tactics against competitors.
