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.

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 A third claim (“Best cavity protection in South Africa”) was voluntarily withdrawn due to an ineffective and confusing disclaimer, highlighting continued regulatory intolerance for broad efficacy superiority claims that rely on technical or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 align 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. Future rulings may apply a stricter standard as precedent accumulates.

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 will be better positioned to defend competitive messaging, protect brand equity, and avoid reactive claim withdrawals that can disrupt portfolios and signal governance weaknesses to the market.

Further, the ruling signals that disciplined claim design and credible evidence can protect aggressive marketing claims, even under competitor attack. The risk lies not in making strong claims—but in making unclear ones. For cosmetic brands, regulatory foresight here is not just compliance hygiene; it is a strategic growth lever.

DECISION ANALYTICS SNAPSHOT AND PREDICTIVE IMPACT FOR COSMETIC COMPANIES

Business impact

Competitive “#1” and professional endorsement claims remain viable if tightly scoped and evidenced.

Brands that invest in credible, repeatable market research gain a defensible commercial advantage in crowded categories.

Brand Portfolio impact

Claims that rely on broad superiority language (“best”, “number one overall”) without precise framing are increasingly vulnerable.

Line extensions or cross-category claims (e.g. efficacy beyond the core positioning) will attract higher scrutiny.

Reputational impact

Clear contextualisation protects brand trust; ambiguous disclaimers risk reputational erosion even if claims ultimately survive.

Voluntary withdrawal, while mitigating regulatory escalation, may signal internal governance gaps to competitors and stakeholders.

Strategic insights (how to learn and benefit from this ruling as a cosmetic company)

Context is king: The ARB accepted claims because the entire advertising environment consistently anchored them in tooth sensitivity.

Evidence beats rivalry: Conflicting competitor data does not invalidate a claim if your substantiation meets Code standards.

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? - Anticipatory Remedial Actions

Audit all superiority and “#1” claims across packaging, digital, and in-store materials for contextual consistency.

Stress-test disclaimers: ask whether the claim would still be clear without the disclaimer—if not, rewrite the headline.

Refresh substantiation dossiers regularly using SAMRA-accredited or equivalent bodies, aligned to the exact wording of claims.

Align portfolio strategy to positioning: avoid stretching efficacy or performance claims beyond the brand’s established equity.

Prepare competitor-challenge playbooks: document evidence, claim rationale, and consumer interpretation analysis in advance.