Colgate brushes off Pepsodent’s ‘10X’ marketing claim in court

The ruling closes a two-year legal battle over whether the claim was scientifically substantiated or amounted to misleading marketing.

Global multinationals Unilever and Colgate Palmolive are locked in a fight for the oral care market as they slow the pace of price increases and step up marketing spend in a bid to revive sales.

Unilever owns the Pepsodent and Close-up toothpaste brands, while its top rival has used Colgate products to grow and defend market share.

The increased focus on marketing spend has fuelled an advertising rivalry now playing out in the Kenyan courts.

While dismissing Unilever’s appeal, the court agreed that the SAC had authority to handle the advertising dispute even though the Pepsodent maker had withdrawn from the Marketing Society of Kenya (MSK).

The council ruled that the slogan “10X cavity fighting” should no longer appear in Kenyan advertisements.

The conflict began in June 2023 when Colgate filed a complaint with the Advertising Standards Committee (ASC), arguing that Pepsodent’s “10X cavity fighting” claim violated advertising regulations by making an unverified and deceptive promise.

Colgate reckoned that the claim breached multiple provisions of the Code of Advertising Practice and Direct Marketing, including rules against unsubstantiated claims, misleading representations, lack of honesty and unlawful comparative advertising.

Unilever, Pepsodent’s manufacturer, denied the allegations and defended the campaign, asserting that its research supported the claim. It argued that its advertisement complied with the Advertising Code and that the product’s claims were scientifically substantiated.

After hearing expert testimony from both sides, the ASC ruled in June 2024 that Unilever must remove the “10X cavity fighting” slogan from all media. Unilever appealed to the SAC, which dismissed the challenge in March 2025.

The company then took the matter to court, arguing that its withdrawal from the MSK during the proceedings meant the advertising code no longer applied to it, as the code binds only members of the marketers’ lobby.

Implementation of the SAC’s order had been suspended by mutual agreement of the parties on May 20, 2025, pending the court’s decision.

Unilever claimed that leaving the MSK stripped the council of its authority to pursue the case.

However, the court rejected this argument, emphasising that “jurisdiction is everything” and that once a body properly assumes jurisdiction, it retains authority until the case is fully resolved.

The ruling warned that allowing a party to withdraw mid-process would set a dangerous precedent and weaken self-regulation.

The court noted that Unilever was an MSK member when the complaint was filed and participated in the hearings, meaning the process remained valid.

“Once jurisdiction is validly invoked, a party generally cannot unilaterally withdraw from it retrospectively,” the court stated, ruling that the code does not permit jurisdiction to lapse due to a late exit.

Unilever also contested the appeal process, alleging that the council relied on a legal text without seeking input and that the hearing was conducted solely by the chairperson.

However, the court found no procedural unfairness, ruling that both sides had ample opportunity to present their cases and that no actual prejudice was demonstrated.

On the substance of the advertisement, the court did not revisit the scientific debate. Instead, it assessed whether regulators acted within their authority and followed due process.

Since the watchdogs had concluded that the “10X” promise was unsubstantiated and misleading, the court saw no legal grounds to overturn that conclusion and said the appeal lacked merit.

Unilever was ordered to pay costs to Colgate, and the SAC’s directive remains in force, barring Pepsodent from using the “10X cavity fighting” claim in its Kenyan advertising.

→ [email protected]

Follow ourWhatsApp channel for the latest business and markets updates.