Nestle Settles FTC False Advertising Suit

Nestlé, the world’s largest food and nutrition company, has reached a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission over falsely advertising the health benefits of one of its children’s drinks. The FTC said that Nestlé’s claims that its BOOST Kid Essentials drink with probiotics boosted children’s immune systems, prevented certain illnesses, sped up recovery and reduced their school absences can’t be proved, and may simply be untrue.

“Nestlé’s claims that its probiotic product would prevent kids from getting sick or missing school just didn’t stand up to scrutiny,” FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection director said. “Parents want to do right by their kids, and the FTC is helping them by monitoring ads and stopping those that are deceptive.”

The lawsuit settlement requires the food manufacturer to drop claims about the health benefits of the drink and stop claiming it will reduce sick days and other conditions unless they can back up the claims with two gold-standard clinical studies. Nestlé did not receive a financial penalty, but the settlement could result in a consumer class action lawsuit against Nestle for deceptive health claims.

This is the first time the FTC has challenged advertising for probiotics, but it is not the first time the health claims of products containing probiotics have been scrutinized. Dannon paid $35 million earlier this year to settle a class action lawsuit over false advertising claims of the health benefits of its Activia and DanActive probiotic yogurt products. (The claims process is still open for this class action settlement. Click here to submit your claim for a refund of up to $100 from the Dannon Class Action Lawsuit Settlement.)

Another food giant, Wrigley, settled a class action lawsuit over deceptive health claims earlier this year as well. The Wrigley class action was over false advertising claims about the ability of Eclipse gum to kill germs. (Click here to submit your claim for $5 or $10 from the Wrigley Class Action Lawsuit Settlement.)

“These settlements show that when settling cases involving health and safety claims in the future, the FTC may be very specific in the type of evidence that the advertisers will be required to possess before they are able to make similar claims again,” said Washington, D.C.-based advertising and labeling attorney Ivan Wasserman in a news report.