LIMITS TO GENERIC COMPARATIVE ADVERTISEMENT IN BRAZIL

Britânia, a Brazilian home appliance company, filed a complaint at CONAR (Brazil’s National Advertising Self-Regulating Council) against Philips do Brasil's advertisement for its new blender. Britânia affirmed it was an unethical comparative advertisement – even though it does not mention the competitors’ brands - based in four statements of tradition and performance, considered to be false or derogatory.  

The advertisement was titled “80 light years ahead” and displayed an alien explaining why Philips’ products are the best in the market. At one point, to prove Philips’ blender superiority regarding the resistance of its jar, the alien hits with a hammer both the Philips’ blender and another blender produced by an unknown competitor. On the video, the competitor’s product is smashed by the hammer while Philips’ product does not suffer any damage.  

At first, CONAR promoted a conciliation meeting between the parties – which was unsuccessful. Therefore, CONAR requested the campaign’s suspension until the trial.

In its defense, Philips claimed that the advertising piece celebrates the brand's 80 years of activity in Brazil, which explains the use of the expression "80 light years ahead". Regarding the claim of resistance, Philips stated that this is an objective information, that the video did not induce consumers to believe that only Phillip’s products are resistant, and that comparisons are all made with similar products.

CONAR approved the claims "Quality eight or eighty, and that is easy to prove" (a word play with the popular Brazilian expression “eight or eighty”, used to compare things that are extremely different) and "Philips, eighty years ahead", as that they do not hurt the CONAR Code's recommendations.

In relation to the claim "Philips Walita is light years away from others", CONAR proposed its alteration by removing the expression "from others", thus avoiding indirect mention to competitors. As for the claim that deals with the appliance’s resistance, CONAR requested its removal as there is no proof that it is true.