Summary

Following a formal intercompany complaint, PAGB investigated whether the claim “It’s a No-Brainer”, used in consumer advertising for the product Allevia, breached the Consumer Code for Medicines. The complainant objected that the claim implied superiority, a guaranteed effect and denigrated other medicines. The PAGB investigation found that that the claim did not breach the relevant Code rules, and the complaint was not upheld. The complainant appealed against this decision; the independent panel upheld PAGB’s decision.

Complaint

On 18 June 2025, having first attempted inter-company dialogue, Kenvue raised formal concerns with PAGB regarding the claim “It’s a No-Brainer”, used in a range of consumer advertising for the product Allevia.

Kenvue objected that the claim breached the following Consumer Code rules:

17. Advertising shall not claim or imply, that a product’s effects are guaranteed.

38. Advertising shall not denigrate or discredit, either directly or by implication, a competitor product, ingredient, or treatment type.

44. Superiority claims must be supported by direct comparative tests or other demonstrations as appropriate.

The complainant recognised that PAGB had approved the wording when accompanying references to the medicine’s benefits, on the basis that it would be colloquially understood to mean an ‘easy decision’. However the complaint asserted that the claim could imply guaranteed effects by suggesting ‘it’s a given’; denigration of other medicines by suggesting ‘there is no doubt you should choose this’, thereby implying no other medicines need to be considered; a superiority claim by suggesting ‘it’s the clear/obvious choice’ or that ‘no thought is needed to make the decision’, which implies superiority over another medicine without adequate substantiation.

The complaint also asserted that the claim could pose a safety risk to consumers by encouraging them to decide on the use of a medicine without thorough consideration, potentially leading to incorrect assumptions about the medicine’s appropriateness.

Finally, the complaint highlighted instances where they believed the claim was presented as the primary claim, which did not align with the context of the original PAGB approval.

PAGB report

PSMT (PAGB Senior Management Team) reviewed the materials and considered the arguments set out in both the complaint and response to assess whether the content breached the Consumer Code for Medicines.

It was noted that while there is some variation in definitions for the phrase “no-brainer”, overall, it was generally understood as meaning an easy decision that required little thought. The claim was approved by PAGB to be used alongside claims outlining the benefits of the medicine, providing the consumer reasonable context on why they should choose the product.

PSMT considered whether the wording implied a guarantee of efficacy, superiority, or denigrated other products. It considered that the claim related to the ease of decision making rather than efficacy, and that stating that choosing the product was an easy choice did not constitute a comparison with other products on the market, or imply that the product was superior to other medicines. PSMT noted that there was no reference to other treatments and did not consider that highlighting the benefits of Allevia, or stating that choosing Allevia was easy, denigrated or discredited other products available.

PMST considered whether the phrase could pose a safety risk to consumers by encouraging them to decide on the use of a medicine without thorough consideration. We PSMT considered on balance that a consumer was unlikely to select a product simply because an advert stated that it is an easy choice, or to assume that it is the most suitable medicines for them specifically. We PSMT noted that the ads contained a clear statement of the indication and invitation to read the label and considered that the consumer had been given sufficient information to make the correct choice for themselves.

We It was noted that in one of the examples given, the claim was not used alongside product benefits, and that in another the wording “It’s a No-brainer” was arguably stated more prominently than the product benefits. While the claim was initially approved alongside a list of benefits, we PSMT considered that as a standalone claim consumers were likely to see the claim as simple puffery as opposed to an objective claim. PSMTWe did not consider that the absence or relative prominence of the other claims would lead consumers to consider the wording a superiority claim, imply guaranteed effects, denigrate other medicines, or lead the consumer to misuse the product.

Overall, PMST did not consider that the claims breached the relevant Code rules.

Following the PMST report, Kenvue requested a review of the case by the PAGB Advertising Complaints Appeal Panel.

Appeal report

The Panel noted that the initial PAGB approval stated that the claim should be used as a secondary claim alongside product benefits. Two members of the Panel disagreed with the view stated in the PSMT’s report that consumers were likely to see the claim as simple puffery as opposed to an objective claim but ultimately this was not found to impact the points of the complaint. The Panel noted that, in the context of advertising stating the benefits of the product, the phrase “no-brainer” served as an endorsement of the consumer’s choice rather than a misleading claim.

Following the discussion and reflecting on the arguments presented by both parties and PSMT report, the Panel unanimously agreed that the claim did not breach rules 17, 38 and 44 of the Code. This was because the claim did not refer to any products or make comparative claims, nor did the wording itself imply efficacy. As such the claim was not deemed to constitute a superiority claim, guarantee specific effects or discredit competing products. However, the Panel expressed concern that the advertising did not align with the initial conditions of approval and highlighted that attention should be given to prominence which may include position of claim within an ad and/ or font. They indicated that in their view the phrase should be used as a secondary claim in line with PAGB’s initial advice.

Conclusion: Complaint not upheld. However, considering the Panel’s comments, PAGB directed Opella to ensure the claim is only used in line with the original conditions of approval.

No further PAGB recourse on the Panel’s findings is available. More information about the PAGB Complaints Procedure is available here.