Competitor comparison claims factually accurate and verifiable

FTC Act §5 and FTC comparative advertising guidance require that claims about competitor products be truthful, verifiable, and not misleading. A comparison table that marks a competitor feature as absent when that feature shipped six months ago exposes the company to FTC action and potential trade libel claims under state law. Stale competitor pricing shown as a cost comparison can constitute deception if the competitor reduced their price and the claim is now materially false. These claims are high-profile and easy for competitors or journalists to fact-check.

Establish a quarterly review process for all comparison content and surface verification metadata directly on the page.

Comparison content maintenance checklist:

1. Add 'Last verified' date to every comparison table footer
   Example: "Competitor data last verified February 2026.
   Source: competitor public pricing and documentation."

2. Feature comparison rows
   - Link each competitor row to their public docs or pricing page
   - If a feature is 'limited' or 'coming soon' for a competitor,
     say that rather than marking it unavailable
   - Review within 30 days of a competitor feature release

3. Price comparisons
   - Show prices from the competitor's published pricing page
   - Add: "As of [month year]; see [URL] for current pricing"
   - Do not compare per-seat rates unless that is how the
     competitor bills — different billing models are not comparable

4. Performance benchmarks
   - Publish methodology at /docs/benchmarks
   - Include: test date, environment, dataset, version tested
   - Disclose if the benchmark was self-run rather than third-party

• ID: ftc-consumer-protection.advertising-claims.comparison-claims-verifiable

• Severity: medium

• What to look for: Count all relevant instances and enumerate each. Search for comparison tables, "vs." pages, or any marketing copy that references competitor products, pricing, or features. Check for: (1) feature comparison tables — are the competitor feature states (checkmarks/X marks) accurate as of a recent date? Are the competitor rows sourced? (2) Price comparisons — do the prices shown for competitors match their current published pricing? (3) Performance comparisons — do claims like "2x faster than X" cite a benchmark with methodology, date, and test conditions? (4) "Switching from X" pages — do they accurately describe the competitor product's limitations without fabricating or exaggerating? The FTC requires comparative advertising to be truthful, non-deceptive, and not disparaging in misleading ways. False claims about a competitor can also constitute tortious interference or trade libel.

• Pass criteria: Comparison tables cite a source date and methodology. Competitor pricing shown is current (verified within the last 90 days) and links to the competitor's pricing page or notes the date checked. Performance comparisons include benchmark methodology. Competitor feature states in comparison tables are verifiable against the competitor's public documentation.

• Fail criteria: Comparison tables mark competitor features as absent when those features exist. Competitor pricing shown is out of date without a "as of [date]" qualifier. Performance claims cite no methodology. Comparison copy characterizes a competitor's product inaccurately or in a way that would mislead a reasonable consumer.

• Skip (N/A) when: The application has no comparison tables, competitor mentions, or "vs." marketing content of any kind.

• Detail on fail: Example: "Comparison table marks Competitor X's integration feature as unavailable, but Competitor X has offered that integration since 2024 — visible on their public feature page." or "'3x cheaper than Competitor Y' claim shown with no source date; Competitor Y reduced their pricing 6 months ago and the claim is no longer accurate." or "Performance comparison claims '50% faster' with no benchmark methodology or test conditions specified."

• Remediation: Establish a maintenance process for comparison content:

  Comparison content checklist (review quarterly):
  
  1. Add a "Last verified" date to all comparison tables
     Example footer: "Competitor data last verified February 2026.
     Source: competitor public pricing and documentation pages."
  
  2. For feature comparisons:
     - Link each competitor row to their public documentation or pricing page
     - Check accuracy quarterly; update within 30 days of a competitor feature release
     - If a feature is "limited" or "coming soon" for a competitor, say that
       rather than marking it as unavailable
  
  3. For price comparisons:
     - Show competitor prices from their published pricing page
     - Add: "Competitor prices as of [month year]; check [URL] for current pricing"
     - Do not calculate "per seat" prices unless that is how the competitor
       actually bills (different billing models are not directly comparable)
  
  4. For performance benchmarks:
     - Publish methodology at /docs/benchmarks or equivalent
     - Include: test date, environment, dataset size, version tested
     - Re-run benchmarks when you ship major performance changes
     - Disclose if the benchmark was run by you (not a neutral third party)