TCAM TODAY®

Brands are increasingly looking to draw sharp distinctions between their products and those of their rivals, and the pet food space is no exception. The National Advertising Division’s (NAD) recent decision in Case No. 7523, The Farmer’s Dog, Inc. v. Sundays for Dogs (closed April 8, 2026), offers a useful set of reminders for advertisers about the boundaries of permissible comparative, ingredient, pricing, and origin claims.

Background

Sundays for Dogs (Sundays) markets an air-dried dog food product and made a range of claims on its website and across social media distinguishing its product from frozen fresh dog foods, including those sold by challenger The Farmer’s Dog, Inc. The challenged claims covered four principal areas: (A) nutritional superiority claims relating to Sundays’ air-drying process (example claim: “Air drying helps lock in more nutrition and flavor than other cooking methods”); (B) no additive and “whole food” composition claims (example claim: “the same ingredients you’d put in your salad, now in your dog’s bowl”); (C) price comparison claims (example claim: savings of “up to 55%” over frozen competitors including Farmer’s Dog); and  (D) a “Made in the USA” claim. During the proceeding, NAD recommended discontinuance or modification of many of the challenged claims. Sundays agreed to comply.

Lessons for Advertisers

1. Comparative claims require comparative evidence. Sundays claimed that its air-drying process retained more nutrients and flavor than kettle cooking. The studies it submitted, however, examined air-drying only in the abstract and did not compare the process against any competing cooking method. Nor did they address the animal ingredients that comprise the overwhelming bulk of Sundays’ product. NAD substantiated Sundays’ noncomparative claim that its process produces nutrient-dense food but recommended discontinuance of any claim framing air-drying as superior to a competitor’s method.

   Key Takeaway: Evidence that your product performs well on its own terms will generally not support a claim that it outperforms a rival. Comparative claims frequently require evidence actually comparing the products or services.

2. Ingredient imagery and labeling must accurately reflect what is in the product. Sundays depicted whole fruits and vegetables in its advertising, listed them by name in its ingredient panel, and used language such as “the same ingredients you’d put in your salad, now in your dog’s bowl.” But Sundays incorporates only extracts and isolated nutrients derived from those foods, not the whole foods themselves. NAD found that consumers would reasonably interpret the advertising as representing that whole foods are present in the finished product and recommended discontinuance of the imagery and claims that conveyed that message.

   Key Takeaway: Where a product uses only an extract or isolated nutrient, advertisers should make that distinction clear rather than relying on potentially misleading shorthand.

3. Context can transform puffery into a claim requiring substantiation. Sundays argued that its claim to have produced “the world’s healthiest and most convenient dog food” was mere puffery. NAD disagreed: because the claim was surrounded by descriptions of Sundays’ three-year development process and 17 product formulations, consumers reasonably would read “healthiest” and “most convenient” as specific, measurable achievements. Per NAD, a superiority claim over the entire market generally requires head-to-head testing demonstrating superiority over at least 85% of the relevant market. No such evidence existed, and NAD recommended discontinuance.

   Key Takeaway: Advertisers who frame superlatives with detailed, process-oriented context should be prepared to substantiate them.

4. Price comparison claims must clearly disclose the basis of comparison. NAD found that Sundays had adequate support for its claim of being “up to 55% less pricey” than the average frozen dog food. However, because the frozen premium pet food market is small and The Farmer’s Dog is one of its most prominent participants, NAD found that consumers would reasonably read the comparison as directed at Farmer’s specifically, which was not supported by the relevant evidence. NAD recommended that Sundays modify its pricing claims to clearly and conspicuously disclose that the savings figure reflects a comparison to the average of frozen dog foods, not any single competitor.

   Key Takeaway: Savings claims must be narrowly drawn, and the basis of comparison must be transparent.

5. An unqualified “Made in USA” claim requires scrutiny of every ingredient. Sundays sourced beef bone and fish oil from New Zealand, representing a small share of total manufacturing costs. But because those ingredients are essential to the product meeting relevant nutritional standards, NAD found that an unqualified “Made in the USA” claim was inappropriate regardless of their proportionally small share of overall costs.

   Key Takeaway: Advertisers sourcing ingredients from outside the United States should carefully evaluate whether those ingredients are functionally critical before making an unqualified “Made in USA” claim. See further commentary on Made in USA claims here: Advertising Alert: Saying Your Product is “Made in USA”? Remember Your Advertising Obligations – TCAM Today

Taken together, NAD’s decision is a useful reminder that competitive advertising can be powerful but must be supported by relevant evidence that compares the relevant products. As always, our advertising team is happy to assist with advising on best practices with making comparative claims in advertising.

Claiming that your product is “#1” in its category can be highly impactful, but as illustrated by the National Advertising Division (NAD) Case #7544, it can also lead to competitor or regulatory challenges when not properly supported.

In Case #7544, Owlet challenged Nanit’s social media advertising describing its Wi-Fi-connected baby monitor as the “#1 smart baby monitor” and the “#1 baby monitor” without any qualification or citation to supporting sales data in proximity claims. Owlet challenged these claims on the basis that Nanit could not provide the requisite sales data to support them. The challenge was accepted for NAD’s Fast-Track SWIFT process because it “did not require the review of complex evidence or argument”.[1]

Continue reading “Advertising Alert: Remember What It Takes to be “Number One””