Kimberly-Clark Taiwan

1327th Commissioners' Meeting (2017)

Case:

Kimberly-Clark Taiwan violated the Fair Trade Law by posting a false advertisement "Huggies Mama Laboratory"

Keyword(s):

False advertising, comparative commercial, paper diaper

Reference:

Fair Trade Commission Decision of April 12, 2017 (the 1327th Commissioners' Meeting); Disposition Kung Ch'u Tzu No. 106025

Industry:

Manufacture of Domestic and Sanitary Paper Products (1591)

Relevant Law(s):

Article 21 of the Fair Trade Law

Summary:

1. Proctor and Gamble Taiwan (hereinafter referred to P&G Taiwan) filed a complaint against Kimberly-Clark Taiwan as Kimberly-Clark Taiwan posted on Facebook and Youtube an advertising film called "?uggies Mama Laboratory' Unveiling the Secret behind Dry Baby Butts" in which 600cc test solution was used to compare the absorbance of Pampers made by P&G Taiwan and its own Purple Huggies. The experiment was not performed in accordance with normal use of diapers and the claim of "90% of mothers are willing to switch to Huggies after seeing the experiment" had no support of related evidences or information. Therefore, P&G Taiwan believed the conduct of Kimberly-Clark Taiwan was in violation of Article 21 of the Fair Trade Law.
2. Findings of the FTC after investigation:
   (1) In the commercial titled "Huggies Mama Laboratory Dryness Challenge," a 600cc test solution was poured into a Purple Huggies diaper and a Pampers diaper. The diapers were then turned over to see if there was any dripping of the test solution. The advertisement gave the impression that the Purple Huggies had better absorbance and thus it could keep babies' butts dry longer. Kimberly-Clark Taiwan provided the results of tests conducted by its own laboratory and reports from SGS Taiwan after performing tests on the "urine absorbance multiple," "urine volume and retained amount" and "backflow amount in diapers."
   (2) The claim that "90% mothers are willing to switch to Huggies after seeing the experiment" posted in the commercial suggested nine out of ten parents would choose to use Huggies as a result of the experiment. However, Kimberly-Clark Taiwan admitted that the claim was merely based on the result of the interviews with the 21 consumers present at the experiment and the company never conducted any further surveys or interviews.
3. Grounds for disposition:
   (1) Despite that Kimberly-Clark Taiwan did provide the results of its own tests and the test report from SGS Taiwan, according to the opinion offered by the Bureau of Standard, Metrology and Inspection, those were the test results on "urine absorbance multiple," "urine volume and retained amount," and "backflow amount in diapers" performed according to standards for adult urine pads and diapers and thus they could not be adopted to evaluate the absorbance of baby diapers. Meanwhile, the surface dryness (backflow amount) test report from Kimberly-Clark Taiwan was established by its laboratory in accordance with the standards specified and samples provided (including product brands, models and specifications) by Kimberly-Clark Taiwan. It was doubtful whether they were enough to compare the quality of the two products. In other words, the data adopted by Kimberly-Clark Taiwan in the comparison were inadequate to support its claims in the advertisement. Therefore, it was an inappropriate interpretation and a false and misleading representation in violation of Article 21 (1) of the Fair Trade Law.
   (2) In the meantime, Kimberly-Clark Taiwan only interviewed the 21 consumers present at the experiment and did not carry out further surveys or interviews. It was questionable whether the opinions of the 21 consumers were representative enough. Moreover, eight of the 21 consumers were found just before the film was shot and they were given transportation fees and bags of trial diapers. From the commercial, the public would not know this unusual sampling method for the interview. Besides lacking objective data and survey reports, the difference between the claims and reality exceeded what common consumers could accept. Therefore, the FTC concluded that the commercial was a misleading representation in violation of Article 21 (1) of the Fair Trade Law.
   (3) In conclusion, an inappropriate interpretation was adopted in the comparative commercial to show the diapers made by Kimberly-Clark Taiwan were better than those from its competitor in urine absorbance and dryness. In addition, the company made the claim of "90% mothers are willing to switch to Huggies after seeing the experiment." This conduct was a false and misleading representation with regard to the quality and content of product and could affect the transaction decisions of its consumers in violation of Article 21 (1) of the Fair Trade Law. Therefore, the FTC imposed an administrative fine of NT$800,000 on Kimberly-Clark Taiwan.