Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupport
Contact Us
Search
Close

FTC Puts the Brakes On Superiority Claims

By Leonard L. Gordon & William C. Lawrence on March 30, 2020
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

When we think of superiority claims in advertising, we usually think of NAD or Lanham Act challenges.  When we think of brake pads, we usually think of Callaghan Auto Parts. Last  week, however, the FTC resolved an investigation regarding superiority claims for brake pads with Federal-Mogul Motorparts LLC (Federal-Mogul), a manufacturer and seller of after-market automotive parts.  According to the FTC, Federal-Mogul violated Section 5(a) of the FTC Act by disseminating a series of false and unsubstantiated advertisements concerning its Wagner OEX brake pads.   Specifically, Federal-Mogul claimed that (1) in an emergency Wagner OEX brake pads will stop a pickup truck, SUV, or crossover up to 50 feet sooner than competing brake pads; and (2) Wagner OEX brake pads would significantly reduce the risk of collisions compared with competing brake pads.

To support its claims, Federal-Mogul hired an independent party to conduct head-to-head testing of Wagner OEX brake pads with competing brands.  The industry standard evaluation of the stopping distance performance of a vehicle requires that the driver try to stop the vehicle in the shortest distance achievable, causing the driver to push on the pedal as hard as necessary to achieve the shortest stopping distance.  But Federal-Mogul’s test only required that a driver apply constant and relatively light force to the brakes to stop the vehicle.  Further, Federal-Mogul tested the brakes in a heated state, which reduces the brakes’ effectiveness.  The FTC alleged that this testing was insufficient to support Federal Mogul’s claims of how its brakes would perform under real-world emergency conditions.

The proposed settlement prohibits Federal-Mogul from making any further statement concerning the efficiency and performance of its brakes without support from competent and reliable scientific evidence.  This settlement highlights the level of rigor the FTC expects for the substantiation of superiority claims.  In fact, Andrew Smith, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, explained that the FTC “did not challenge the brake pads as unsafe.  Rather, we challenged the manufacturer for making very specific performance claims without the science to back those claims up, and that’s deceptive and illegal.” As Tommy Callaghan would say, “Holy schnikes!”

Photo of Leonard L. Gordon Leonard L. Gordon

Len Gordon, chair of Venable’s Advertising and Marketing Group, is a skilled litigator who leverages his significant experience working for the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to help protect his clients’ interests and guide their business activity. Len regularly represents companies and individuals in…

Len Gordon, chair of Venable’s Advertising and Marketing Group, is a skilled litigator who leverages his significant experience working for the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to help protect his clients’ interests and guide their business activity. Len regularly represents companies and individuals in investigations and litigation with the FTC, state attorneys general, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Len also represents clients in business-to-business and class action litigation involving both consumer protection and antitrust issues. He also counsels clients on antitrust, advertising, and marketing compliance issues.

Read more about Leonard L. GordonEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Antitrust, Competition and Trade
  • Blog:
    All About Advertising Law
  • Organization:
    Venable LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo