Key Takeaways:
As the saying goes, “F*ck around and find out..." Polarizing skincare brand Primally Pure f*cked around when it launched a marketing campaign to promote its new tallow-based sun cream with the tagline, “The sun isn’t poison. Your sunscreen is.” And now, Primally Pure is officially in its finding-out phase.
On September 4, independent non-profit BBB National Programs, National Advertising Division (NAD) announced it referred Primally Pure to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for potential enforcement action for failing to respond to NAD’s multiple inquiries.
NAD, the advertising industry’s self-regulatory arm, doesn’t refer cases to the FTC unless a company ignores NAD’s recommendations and/or communications, or refuses to participate in NAD proceedings. While the FTC is not required to investigate recommendations from NAD, the two entities have a long-standing relationship. "The FTC takes referrals from NAD very seriously, and it [FTC] has a webpage dedicated to the closing/resolution letters it issues concerning NAD referrals," Anahid Ugurlayan, Assistant Director, National Advertising Division, told BeautyMatter in an email.
NAD initially challenged false advertising claims made by Primally Pure that the “clean” brand’s sun cream is “a safer and better alternative to conventional sunscreens.” The brand alleged that conventional sunscreen “contains toxic ingredients,” according to an NAD statement. After several outreach attempts through various means, NAD still did not receive a response from the company, Ugurlayan said. That's when NAD took action by forwarding the case to the FTC.
Prior to the brand ignoring NAD’s multiple inquiries, Primally Pure took rage-bait marketing to a new low when it first launched the campaign in May of this year. The company posted billboards and posters in Los Angeles and Chicago emblazoned with a dangerous conspiracy theory as its tagline: “The sun isn’t poison. Your sunscreen is.”—all in the name of its new beef tallow sunscreen.
Primally Pure’s blatant conspirituality messaging sent the beauty industry reeling: scientists, brand founders, and skinfluencers called out the brand’s misinformation campaign. Kirbie Johnson, co-host of the Gloss Angeles podcast, admonished the brand’s irresponsibility in her Substack.
Citing what she felt was one of the brand’s most egregious offenses, Johnson pointed to Primally Pure taking dermatologist and Mohs surgeon Dr. Teo Soleymani far out of context, potentially endangering his career. Dr. Soleymani’s cherry-picked words came from a guest appearance he did on Primally Pure founder Bethany McDaniel's podcast, and, unbeknownst to him (uncovered by Johnson), the interview set him up to be a poster boy for the brand's anti-sunscreen campaign.
When Dr. Soleymani saw his association with the brand’s “Sunscreen Is Poison” campaign, he quickly took to Instagram to clarify his pro-sunscreen position and asked the brand to remove him from its marketing materials. Even after deleting Dr. Soleymani’s false endorsement from its campaign, Primally Pure still achieved its goal of rage baiting itself into the zeitgeist.
On its Instagram account, the brand posted a video of McDaniel praising the marketing campaign: “Our recent billboard campaign has got a lot of people talking, which was kind of the point.” She then explained that Primally Pure is not anti-sunscreen, because, of course, the brand was launching its own line of sunscreen.
Primally Pure knew it was taking a risk with such an explosive misinformation campaign, and apparently, that was the point. But did the brand know that its marketing campaign could lead to enforcement action by the FTC, which could include anything from warning letters to suing the company in federal court? According to Ugurlayan, Primally Pure could face an enforcement action if the FTC believes the claims violate Section 5 of the FTC Act.
Was the brand’s rage-bait marketing scheme worth potentially going out of business from legal fees? Is this the canary in the coal mine for watchdog and government agencies cracking down on “clean” beauty claims?
If a brand claims its products are "non-toxic," it should be advised that Section 260.10 of the FTC's “Green Guides” states that “marketers making non-toxic claims should have competent and reliable scientific evidence that the product, package, or service is non-toxic for humans and for the environment or should clearly and prominently qualify their claims to avoid deception.”
Now it’s just a question of how the FTC will handle this, and how Primally Pure will survive its “find out” era.
As of press time, Primally Pure declined to comment for this story.
