“#1” Claims: NAD’s Guardrails on Defining Product Categories

Advertising claims such as “#1 floor wax” or “#1 convection oven” may sound straightforward. But these “#1” claims often beg the question: “#1 among whom?” What counts as floor wax? And what makes a convection oven a convection oven? Answering such definitional questions may require advertisers to delineate market categories based on fine distinctions.

In a recent Fast-Track SWIFT decision, NAD grappled with category definitions as it evaluated UdiSense, Inc.’s claims to offer the “#1 baby monitor” and the “#1 smart baby monitor.” The dispute turned on the meaning of “baby monitor”—and whether UdiSense had properly excluded a competitor’s product from the category when describing itself as “#1.”

This was not the first time NAD has weighed in on these issues. Past cases have hinged on the definition of categories such as “nail anti-fungals” and “topical pain relievers.” Similarly, NAD has wrestled with automakers’ “Best in Class” claims that rest on how a “class” of automobiles is defined. Here, NAD’s take was unsurprising: where ambiguity exists, NAD will construe the product category broadly.

The Challenge

Owlet, Inc. challenged claims made by UdiSense, Inc., the maker of Nanit video baby monitors. UdiSense claimed that its product was the “#1 smart baby monitor” and the “#1 baby monitor.” Owlet disagreed, noting that its own wearable device outsells Nanit by a wide margin. UdiSense maintained that its “#1” claims were accurate because the two companies sell fundamentally different products; Nanit sells a video monitor, whereas Owlet’s Dream Sock is a wearable device that tracks heart rate and oxygen levels and has no video component.

NAD’s Decision: No Gerrymandering the Market

NAD rejected Nanit’s narrow market definition, reiterating that a product class must be defined consistently with consumers’ reasonable understanding. NAD found that the term “monitor” is broad enough to encompass wearable devices, noting that the competing wearable product was marketed as a “monitor.”

Here, NAD emphasized that the Owlet Dream Sock is sold as a “monitor,” functions as a monitor by tracking real-time health data and is marketed to caregivers for the same purpose: monitoring an infant’s well-being. Because Nanit’s advertising did not expressly limit its “#1” claims to video monitors, NAD found, consumers would reasonably interpret the phrase “#1 smart baby monitor” to include top-selling smart devices such as the Dream Sock. Given that Owlet’s sales data—including sales of the Dream Sock—showed it leading the broader category, NAD recommended that Nanit discontinue the unqualified “#1” claims. This decision is a useful reminder that, when making “#1” claims, advertisers should be sure to rely on clearly defined product categories.