In a decision underscoring the complexity and risks of making environmental marketing claims, the National Advertising Division (NAD) issued a decision in a challenge brought by the International Bottled Water Association (IBWA) against Boxed Water is Better® (Boxed Water). In the case, the NAD addressed a slew of claims touching on recyclability, renewability, life cycle impact comparisons, puffery, and more.
Recyclability and the Green Guides
NAD substantiated Boxed Water’s claims that its cartons are “recyclable” and “100% recyclable,” finding that the claims were consistent with the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Green Guides, which permit such statements if a substantial majority (defined as 60% or more) of consumers have access to appropriate recycling facilities. Despite the multilayered structure of the cartons and industry challenges separating materials, NAD determined that the key threshold was access—not actual practice.
Renewability and the Limits of Mass Balance
Things were murkier surrounding Boxed Water’s claims that its cartons are made from “92% renewable materials.” The company submitted substantiation for this number using the mass balance approach (a method not yet clearly addressed in the Green Guides), but NAD was concerned that consumers might reasonably believe each carton physically contains the stated percentage of renewable materials. NAD recommended that Boxed Water provide explanatory disclosures to clarify how the number is calculated.
NAD found a separate claim promoting the cartons as “the most renewable option in the water aisle” unsupported and recommended that it be discontinued because of a lack of market-wide comparative data.
“Better” Claims and the Line Between Puffery and Comparison
NAD also analyzed Boxed Water’s central branding—”Boxed Water is Better.” When used as a brand name or slogan in isolation, NAD agreed the phrase constitutes puffery. But when coupled with comparative claims—such as “Boxed water is better than plastic”—or used in the context of life cycle analysis data, NAD determined the “better” claim transforms into an objective one requiring substantiation.
Boxed Water submitted a life cycle analysis (LCA) comparing its cartons to premium plastic bottles and aluminum cans. While the challenger took issue with several LCA assumptions (e.g., plastic weight, recycled content, transportation estimates), NAD found the LCA provided a reasonable basis for modified claims, as long as Boxed Water modified them to make it clear that the comparison was to “premium plastic” rather than the bottled water category as a whole.
General Environmental Benefit Claims: Context Matters
NAD took a context-sensitive approach to broad sustainability statements like “Better for the planet,” “Helping the planet heal,” and “Lower footprint.” Because many of these claims appeared on pages surrounded by explanatory language and disclaimers, NAD concluded they did not constitute unqualified general environmental benefit claims and could stand as is. However, the claim “Sustainably sourced”—which referred to the water, not the packaging—was flagged for lacking context or explanation and must be modified.
Tree Planting Claims Found Supported
Finally, NAD examined Boxed Water’s claims that it had planted more than 1.5 million trees and found the claims supported via documentation.
Boxed Water agreed to comply with NAD’s recommendations and noted its decision to voluntarily discontinue certain quantified comparative claims because of the age of its LCA. This case highlights the evolving landscape of environmental marketing and the ongoing need for clear substantiation, nuanced messaging, and, above all, transparency.
For more insights into advertising law, bookmark our All About Advertising Law blog and subscribe to our monthly newsletter. To learn more about Venable’s Advertising Law services, click here or contact one of the authors. And listen to the Ad Law Tool Kit Show—a podcast from Venable.