Novo Nordisk vs Eli Lilly: when a competitor claims your advertising is misleading, do you really need to go to court?
The escalating battle between Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly over their GLP-1 drugs provides an interesting example of the potential cost of competitive advertising disputes.
Novo Nordisk sued Eli Lilly in the US last month, alleging that Lilly’s advertising for Zepbound and Mounjaro is misleading because it compares Lilly’s products with older/lower-dose versions of its Wegovy and Ozempic products, while allegedly failing to reflect newer, higher-dose Wegovy data.
Novo is seeking, among other things, withdrawal of the advertisements, corrective advertising and damages.
Lilly disputes the allegations and says it relied on gold-standard, robustly designed clinical-trial evidence.
Whatever the eventual outcome, litigation is likely to prove to be an expensive and slow way of resolving what is, at its core, a question about whether particular advertising claims can be substantiated and comply with advertising standards.
There can be a better alternative in New Zealand.
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has a specific Competitor Complaints process designed for exactly this type of dispute.
It is a user-pays process in which a competitor can put forward a detailed complaint identifying the advertisements and the provisions of the Advertising Codes it believes have been breached. The advertiser then has an opportunity to respond, followed by a hearing involving three ASA panel members, which the parties attend.
And it is remarkably fast.
It has been around three weeks since the Novo claim was filed. In most cases, an ASA Competitor Complaints process would be complete by now, with a decision that would be expected to be followed by the advertiser and media parties that abide by ASA rulings.
The ASA’s fees for the process range between $7,500 and $15,000. Even if you also get professional help to represent you, the overall cost is likely to be a fraction of the cost of full legal litigation.
The ASA cannot award damages or make a court order, such as an order for corrective advertising, as Novo is seeking. But if the primary goal is to limit the damage caused by potentially misleading advertising, the faster, cheaper process offered by the ASA — together with its high level of compliance — is worth considering.

I spent 18 years on the ASA’s complaints and appeal boards, including adjudicating on many competitive complaints and now help advertisers with ASA compliance and complaints.