A claim with no testing behind it
Updated
On this page9
The two numbers
Standard effectiveness is 20 percent sweat reduction over a 24-hour period, and it unlocks "all day protection", "lasts all day", "lasts 24 hours" and "24 hour protection". Extra effectiveness is 30 percent and unlocks "extra effective".
They are thresholds, not adjectives
The regulation defines the words by the measurement, so using them without the data is not an exaggeration, it is a claim the monograph specifically conditions. That is a different kind of problem from puffery.
How it happens
A competitor says "24 hour protection" so it reads as standard category language. It is standard category language for products that have the data, which is not visible from the outside.
The base Uses phrase needs no number
Decreases, lessens or reduces underarm dampness, perspiration, sweat, sweating or wetness. That is the required statement and it is available without an effectiveness claim, which is worth knowing before anybody reaches for the bigger words.
And there is a stay on part of it
The limitation of the enhanced duration claim to 24 hours was stayed in 2004 until further notice. A stayed provision is exactly the thing to check in its current form rather than from a summary like this one.
Cosmetic deodorants have no such claims available
Because the claims are about sweat and a cosmetic deodorant does not act on sweat. "Lasts all day" on a cosmetic deodorant is ambiguous at best and an antiperspirant claim at worst.
Decide the claim set before the artwork
What you can prove determines what you may print, and the testing is not something that can be arranged after a print run. That sequence is the whole of the control.
Borrowed language is the mechanism
Nobody invents "24 hour protection"; they copy it from a product that has the data. Treating competitor labels as a template rather than as evidence of somebody else's testing is the specific habit to break.