Research · 9 min read
What “Results Not Typical” Does and Does Not Fix
It is the most familiar line in weight-loss marketing, and the Federal Trade Commission has said in print that it does not work. Here is what the Commission expects instead, and why the fix is a number rather than a warning.
Key takeaways
- An endorsement about a key attribute of a product is read as representing what consumers will generally achieve, whether or not the word typical appears.
- The Commission reports testing both the short and the longer version of the not-typical disclaimer, and says neither adequately reduced the impression of general representativeness.
- The expected fix is a clear and conspicuous disclosure of generally expected performance, substantiated, and strong enough to change the net impression.
- A published typical-results figure can still mislead through the wrong unit, an over-wide range, an outlier-driven average, or a denominator that excludes people who quit.
- A dramatic testimonial can stand when the endorser describes the exceptional circumstances that produced it, but a disclosure can never directly contradict the claim beside it.
The short answer
A disclaimer that tells you not to expect the same results does not cure a testimonial that promises them.
The Commission's position is not a guess about what readers think. It tested two versions of the disclaimer and reported that neither one adequately reduced the impression that the depicted experiences were generally representative.
What the Guides ask for instead is a number: a clear and conspicuous disclosure of the performance a person can generally expect, which the advertiser also has to be able to prove.
So the useful question on a marketing page is not whether a disclaimer exists. It is whether a typical outcome is stated anywhere at all.
Why a single story reads as a promise
The rule that creates the problem is one sentence in the Endorsement Guides, and it describes how people read rather than what companies intend.
An advertisement containing an endorsement about one or more consumers' experience on a central or key attribute of the product carries a second meaning. It will likely be interpreted as representing that the endorser's experience is representative of what consumers will generally achieve in actual, albeit variable, conditions of use.
Nobody has to say the word typical for that meaning to land. Showing an outcome on the thing the product is for is enough.
The Guides then set the advertiser's duty. If the advertiser does not have substantiation that the endorser's experience is representative, the advertisement should clearly and conspicuously disclose the generally expected performance in the depicted circumstances. The advertiser must have adequate substantiation for that figure too.
There is a further condition that is easy to skim past. The disclosure has to alter the net impression of the advertisement so that it is not misleading. A line that is present but ignored has not done the job.
What the Commission actually tested
The Guides carry an unusual passage. In a worked example about a home appliance, the Commission describes its own research rather than only asserting a view.
It tested how advertisements communicate when their testimonials carry a clear and prominent disclaimer. One version was the short form, results not typical. The other was a stronger sentence saying the testimonials are based on the experiences of a few people and you are not likely to have similar results.
Neither disclosure adequately reduced the communication that the experiences depicted are generally representative. On that basis the Commission says it believes similar disclaimers about the limited applicability of an endorser's experience are unlikely to be effective.
The Guides are careful about the legal posture. In an enforcement action the Commission would carry the burden of proof. An advertiser holding reliable empirical testing that its own advertisement's net impression is non-deceptive would avoid the risk of an action being started in the first place.
That is the honest shape of it. The disclaimer is not banned. It is a line the Commission has published research against, and using it puts the burden on the company to show its own version works.
What a working disclosure looks like
The Guides do not leave the alternative vague. They give phrasings.
For the appliance example, acceptable forms include stating what the average buyer achieves, what a typical household achieves in each season, or what proportion of families reach a given percentage of savings. Each one names an outcome and the group it applies to.
There is a catch attached. A generally-expected-results disclosure can still mislead if it applies only to limited circumstances the advertisement never describes. The Guides give the case of a nationally run advertisement whose disclosed figure came from customers in a warm climate, where buyers elsewhere could not expect the same.
The Commission's health advertising guidance shows the same repair on a supplement page. A fine-print asterisk saying the results are not typical is inadequate both because it is vague and because of where and how small it sits. What is likely to work is the study's own average stated beside the quote, in prominent type, alongside what the placebo group achieved.
Four ways a typical-results number still misleads
Once a company does publish an expected outcome, the Guides describe the ways that number can go wrong. All four are visible to a reader.
The wrong unit. In the Commission's own weight-loss hypothetical, an endorser reports losing fifty pounds in six months. Disclosing an average of one to two pounds a week is inadequate. It does not communicate the expected loss over six months, and it implies the rate holds for the whole period when it may not.
A range wide enough to mean nothing. In the same hypothetical, telling readers that most users lose somewhere between ten and fifty pounds is inadequate, because the range is so broad that it does not communicate what a user can generally expect.
An average pulled by outliers. If the mean is substantially affected by a few extreme results, the Guides say disclosing it would be misleading. Their illustration has a mean of fifteen pounds against a median of eight, and they suggest the median as the fix, phrased as what the typical user loses.
The wrong denominator. This is the sharpest one. In the hypothetical, only one-fifth of the people who start the program stick with it for six months. A disclosure describing the typical result among those who stayed is inadequate, because it does not tell you what people who start the program can generally expect.
The one case where a big number is fine
The Guides do allow a dramatic testimonial to stand, and the condition is instructive.
In their example, an endorser describes an extreme regimen alongside the product: eating only raw vegetables and exercising for many hours a day, over six months. Because the endorser clearly describes the limited and truly exceptional circumstances that produced the result, the advertisement is not likely to convey that ordinary users will do the same.
Change one thing and it fails. If the advertisement simply says the endorser lost the weight using the product together with diet and exercise, that wording does not adequately alert readers to the remarkable circumstances behind it.
The advertiser still needs substantiation for whatever performance claim the endorsement conveys, including that the product itself did something and the result was not caused entirely by the diet and the exercise.
So the exception is not a loophole. It is a demand for specificity, and specificity is exactly what a vague disclaimer avoids.
A disclaimer cannot contradict the claim
There is a limit on what any disclosure can do, and it applies well beyond typical results.
The Commission's health guidance puts it directly: a clear and conspicuous disclosure might be effective to clarify an ambiguous claim, but it cannot directly contradict a claim.
Its examples are blunt about the failure mode. A page that expressly says a product improves a skin condition, followed by a same-size line saying the product is not intended to treat any medical condition, is described as directly contradictory and ineffective.
The Guides show the same thing on a testimonial page. Picture a site built entirely from stories of dramatic results, carrying a notice that the testimonials do not prove the product works and readers should not expect similar results. It is likely to be deceptive anyway, unless the advertiser can substantiate that new users typically do experience similar results.
The Commission's own summary of the escape route is worth keeping. If it is not possible to make an effective disclosure, the claim should be modified so a disclosure is not needed, or the claim should not be made.
How to read a page with this in hand
Start by looking for a typical outcome, stated as a number, near the story that made you interested.
If you find one, ask who it describes. Everyone who started, or only the people who finished? Under what conditions, and are those conditions on the page?
If you find a range, ask whether it is narrow enough to plan around. If you find an average, ask whether it is the mean or the middle, since the Guides treat that difference as material.
If all you find is a warning that your results may vary, you have learned something real. You have learned that the page is not telling you what to expect.
None of this is a verdict about a company. It is a way of noticing when a page shows you the best case and calls it information.
Sources
- 16 CFR Part 255 — Guides Concerning Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising (§ 255.2, Consumer endorsements, and its examples)That an endorsement about a central or key attribute is likely read as representing what consumers will generally achieve; the duty to disclose generally expected performance with substantiation when the advertiser cannot substantiate representativeness; the requirement that the disclosure alter the net impression; the Commission's account of its own testing of both the short and longer not-typical disclaimers and its conclusion that similar disclaimers are unlikely to be effective; the burden-of-proof note and the empirical-testing route; the acceptable phrasings for a generally-expected-results disclosure; the limited-circumstances caveat; the four failure modes of a published figure (wrong unit, over-wide range, outlier-driven mean, and the completer denominator); the exceptional-circumstances example and its failure when reworded; and the testimonial page whose disclaimer does not save it.
- Health Products Compliance GuidanceThat testimonials reporting results more dramatic than users can generally expect are likely to be deceptive, and that attempts to disclaim them with statements like results not typical do not cure the deception; that such testimonials should be accompanied by a clear and conspicuous disclosure of what a typical consumer can actually expect; the worked example replacing a vague fine-print asterisk with the study's own average stated beside the quote; that a disclosure cannot directly contradict a claim; and that where no effective disclosure is possible the claim should be modified or not made.
Frequently asked questions
Is “results not typical” illegal?
The Endorsement Guides do not ban the phrase. They report that the Commission tested advertisements carrying either that disclaimer or a longer version, and that neither adequately reduced the impression that the depicted experiences were generally representative. On that basis the Commission says similar disclaimers are unlikely to be effective. The Guides also note that the Commission would bear the burden of proof in an enforcement action. They add that an advertiser holding reliable empirical testing showing its own advertisement's net impression is non-deceptive would avoid the risk of an action being initiated.
What is an advertiser supposed to disclose instead?
The generally expected performance in the depicted circumstances, clearly and conspicuously, with adequate substantiation for that figure. The Guides list workable phrasings built around what an average or typical customer achieves, or what proportion of customers reach a stated level. The disclosure must also alter the net impression of the advertisement so that it is not misleading.
Why does the difference between an average and a median matter?
Because an average can be dragged upward by a small number of extreme results. The Guides say that if the mean is substantially affected by outliers, disclosing it would be misleading, and they illustrate this with a hypothetical where the mean is roughly double the median. In such cases they suggest disclosing the median instead, phrased as what the typical user achieves.
Can a company disclose the results of people who completed its program?
The Guides treat that as inadequate on its own when most people do not complete it. Their hypothetical has only one-fifth of starters staying for six months, and they conclude that a disclosure limited to those who stuck with the program does not communicate what people who join can generally expect. The denominator behind a published figure is part of what makes it meaningful.
Can a disclaimer fix any misleading claim if it is prominent enough?
No. The Commission's health advertising guidance states that a clear and conspicuous disclosure might clarify an ambiguous claim but cannot directly contradict one, and its examples describe a same-size contradictory disclaimer as ineffective. The guidance adds that where an effective disclosure is not possible, the claim should be modified so that no disclosure is needed, or should not be made.