A recent decision from BBB National Programs’ National Advertising Division (NAD) has clarified the evidentiary standards required for health-related claims in sexual wellness supplements. The outcome stems from a challenge brought by Bayer Healthcare LLC against Olly PBC over advertising claims for its Lovin’ Libido supplement, which features ashwagandha as a key active ingredient.
According to the NAD’s public summary, the organization “reviewed Olly’s advertising to determine whether it conveyed the message that the Lovin’ Libido product, rather than the individual ingredient ashwagandha, provided the claimed benefits.” The review was part of NAD’s routine advertising self-regulation process following Bayer’s competitive challenge.
Advertising claims upheld with one discontinued
As detailed in its case summary, NAD evaluated eight express advertising claims related to the product’s effects on desire, drive, arousal, satisfaction, lubrication and sensation. Five of the challenged claims specifically mentioned ashwagandha, while the remaining three implied its role through contextual references.
Olly submitted seven randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in support of its claims. NAD found that six of the studies provided a reasonable basis for the benefits attributed to ashwagandha in relation to desire, drive, arousal, satisfaction and lubrication. However, one study focused on perimenopausal women was deemed not to provide competent and reliable evidence for the broader claims.
Importantly, NAD determined that “the studies are not a good fit to support claims related to sensation and recommended that the reference to sensation be discontinued.”
During the course of the review, Olly voluntarily discontinued certain additional claims, which NAD treated as if it had recommended their discontinuation. Olly stated in its advertiser response that it would comply with all of NAD’s recommendations.
Emphasis on study consistency and expert opinion
Commenting independently on the decision, Jennifer Adams, an attorney at Amin Wasserman Gurnani, told NutraIngredients that the ruling highlights the importance of expert input when bridging clinical evidence to marketing claims, rather than over-reliance on any single study.
“This decision reaffirms the totality of the evidence is still very much a part of health claim substantiation,” she explained. “Bayer lobbed criticisms such as sample size, duration and placebo-effects, which normally doom a study, yet NAD did not find these fatal because the multiple different clinical studies on Olly’s ingredient had consistent results.”
Adams also noted the importance of expert input when bridging clinical evidence to marketing claims tailored to specific consumer groups, as “this case also underscores the importance of expert opinions, especially when extrapolating evidence to target demographics,” she said.
“NAD appears to have been highly influenced by Olly’s expert report as to why studies in women with sexual dysfunctions can be generalized to the target demographic and are not necessarily a ‘diseased’ population,” she added.
Adams noted that that this aspect of the case carries broader implications for supplement marketers.
“Scientific bridges for study populations to target demographics remain essential and should be addressed early in the substantiation development process,” she said.