The National Advertising Division has recommended that BP Lubricants USA, Inc. discontinue comparative advertising claims based on a torture test that pits BPs Castrol EDGE motor oil against ExxonMobils Mobil 1 motor oil.

NAD, an investigative unit of the advertising industrys system of self-regulation, is administered by the Council of Better Business Bureaus.

The advertising at issue depicted two Dodge Challengers on dynamometers running at 75 miles per hour on a seven percent grade and fully loaded at 1,600 pounds. As a voiceover stated: We pushed Castrol EDGE at maximum output for five days straight, visuals depicting the control panel of the dynamometer displayed the load, speed and incline, while Day 1, Day 2, Day 3, Day 4, and Day 5 text flashed and the cars ran in the background. At Day 5, the Mobil 1 engine failed, shooting smoke and sparks into the air while the Castrol EDGE engine continued to run.

NAD reviewed the claims that "Castrol EDGE is stronger than Mobil 1" and it "Destroyed Mobil 1 in [BPs] own test of extreme endurance". In this case, BP relied on a torture test to support its claims that its oil was proven stronger than Mobil 1. NAD noted in its decision that there was no dispute that the advertising at issue accurately depicted the conditions of the torture test, and the parties agreed that the test conditions did not represent conditions to which consumers would ever subject a cars engine. The sole questions for NAD were (1) whether a torture test, when clearly depicting the conditions of the test, must be consumer relevant; and (2) whether BPs testing was sufficiently reliable to support the comparative claims made. BP Lubricants argued that NAD has never held that torture testing must be consumer relevant only that the testing conditions must be accurately disclosed or depicted in the advertising and that the underlying testing must be reliable. NAD disagreed, noting in its decision that previous NAD cases have made clear that all advertising must be consumer-relevant. Torture tests, NAD noted, can be used to support product claims but only if they represent conditions which have real world relevance.

NAD also noted several weaknesses in the test protocol, including the small sample size, failure to randomize the order of the oils tested, a failure to prepare a statistical design for the number of tests performed and the statistical model to be used for determining statistical significance before the tests were performed. Following its review of the evidence in the record, NAD determined that the testing was not sufficiently reliable to support the strong comparative claims and denigrating demonstration at issue. NAD recommended that the advertiser discontinue any comparative superiority claims based upon its torture testing. BP Lubricants USA said it will appeal to the NARB the portions of the NADs decision regarding consumer relevance, as well as NADs adverse findings regarding its testing. Advertisers have the right to advertise true, distinguishing features of their products even if those distinguishing features are present only in extreme conditions. Consumers can weigh for themselves whether the product attributes are desirable or meaningful to them, BP noted in its advertisers statement. Further, BP noted, the NAD has unfortunately struck the wrong balance between BPs ability to communicate a truthful message and the desire to protect the Challenger from perceived disparagement.