- The ARB found that three Dettol packaging claims gave consumers a misleading impression.
- It accepted scientific evidence supporting the claim that Dettol Original offers a 12-hour protective shield.
- Advertisers have been told not to use the disputed claims in their current form.
People buying certain Dettol bar soaps in South Africa may soon notice new wording on the packaging after the Advertising Regulatory Board (ARB) partly upheld a complaint from Colgate Palmolive against Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals.
The dispute centred on bold claims on the front of several Dettol soap packs, such as “100% Better Odour Protection”, “100% Better Skin Protection” and “3x Cleansing”. These claims were explained elsewhere on the packaging, saying the soap’s performance was being compared with water only, not other soaps.
The ARB found that although these explanations were present, they were not clear or prominent enough to change what regular shoppers were likely to think when they saw the front of the pack.
What the ARB found
The directorate did not agree with Colgate Palmolive’s claim that these were examples of comparative advertising under the rules, because the comparison was not between rival products. Instead, it found that the main legal issue was how consumers would see and understand the claims.
The directorate said that a typical shopper, seeing these claims on the front of the pack, even knowing there are asterisks and explanations, would probably think they compare Dettol to other soaps, not just to water.
The ruling pointed out that any soap is obviously more effective than water and that people in 2026 know the benefits of washing with soap instead of just water.
The directorate also found that shoppers would not expect a soap brand to highlight that it works better than water, since that is already common knowledge. They said people would not expect this to be a special selling point for a particular soap. That finding proved decisive.
The ruling said the advertiser’s choice of what to compare against was unexpected and that the explanation was not clear enough to change how consumers were likely to interpret the claim.
The ARB’s final decision was that the overall impression created by the front-of-pack claims is significantly misleading. As a result, ARB members were told not to accept or publish adverts with these claims if they are only qualified by saying they are better than water.
One Dettol claim survives challenge
The complaint also challenged Dettol Original’s “12h Protective Shield” claim, saying it did not have enough scientific support and could mislead people about whether the product really helps the skin’s natural defences. Reckitt Benckiser was successful on this point.
The company provided confidential scientific studies, clinical tests and independent expert review from Associate Professor Anwar Jardine, who found that the product supports the skin’s natural protection for up to 12 hours when used regularly. The directorate accepted this evidence.
The directorate found that the claim does not say the product increases natural defences but rather that it helps protect them and supports the skin’s natural germ fighters.
This distinction was important because the ARB saw the wording as claiming to help maintain natural defences rather than making an exaggerated promise to boost them.
The ruling added that the directorate is satisfied that the advertiser has now provided independent, credible expert verification. The fourth claim is well supported and not misleading.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
