Where competitor ad disputes are fought
Advertising litigation between businesses most often runs under the federal Lanham Act, which allows a company harmed in its commercial interests to sue over false or misleading statements of fact in commercial advertising. Claims are usually framed either as literally false or as technically true but misleading, and the second kind tends to require evidence of how consumers actually read the ad. Many companies take a different route first and bring a challenge before the National Advertising Division, a self-regulatory forum run by BBB National Programs, which is usually faster than court but cannot award damages. Puffery, meaning vague boasts no one could measure, generally falls outside these claims, although the line is argued case by case.
Substantiation is the center of gravity
If you made the claim, the question is what support you had when the ad ran, not what you can assemble afterward. Testing data, study protocols, the claim's wording across every channel, and the approval trail for the campaign are the core evidence. If you are challenging an ad, capture it exactly as it appeared, with dates, placements, and screenshots of online versions before they change. Consumer surveys often become central, and their value depends on their design, so involve counsel before commissioning one. Internal comments about the competitor or the claim tend to surface in discovery, so preserve them and avoid creating new ones casually.
Choosing a path
We look first at what you need: a quick change to the ad, a public correction, damages, or protection for a launch of your own. A demand letter, an NAD challenge, and a federal suit with a request for a preliminary injunction each fit different goals and carry different costs and timelines. Injunction requests in advertising cases move quickly and depend heavily on the strength of the evidence at the outset. If you are the target, we assess how solid your substantiation is and whether a modest revision would end the dispute. Consumer class actions and regulator inquiries sometimes follow competitor disputes, so the strategy should account for that risk too.
