NAD Review: DISH vs DIRECTV Savings Claims

BBB National Programs National Advertising Division (NAD) advised DISH Network to stop or revise a set of comparative savings claims against DIRECTV after a Fast-Track SWIFT challenge brought by DIRECTV.

DISH vs DIRECTV Plan-Specific Savings vs Broad Claims

NAD reviewed TV spots, website copy, and social media that conveyed a simple, headline message that consumers could save $30 per month by switching to DISH, often paired with promotions like three months free. The creatives referenced the brands broadlyDISH versus DIRECTVwithout clearly tying the comparison to specific service tiers, and the savings message appeared prominently while limits and conditions were relegated to fine print. NAD concluded that the overall impression was a broad-line claim covering DIRECTV’s full lineup rather than a narrow, plan-to-plan comparison.

How Inadequate RSN Disclosures Undermined DISH’s DIRECTV Savings Claims

According to NAD’s summary, the intended comparison was between DISH’s Americas Top 200 (AT200) plan and DIRECTV’s ULTIMATE plan, a nuance disclosed only in small print. NAD determined that this disclosure was not clear and conspicuous relative to the main message. Further, the advertising omitted material differences between the packagesmost notably, that DIRECTV includes regional sports networks (RSNs) and DISH does not, differences that meaningfully affect value for many customers. NAD also flagged the use of upgrade language as implying superior overall value, a claim DISH did not substantiate.

NAD Ruling Outcome: DISH to Revise or Drop DIRECTV Savings Claims

NAD recommended that DISH either discontinue the challenged savings claims or modify them to avoid conveying a broad-line or upgrade message. If modified, NAD advised that the ads clearly identify the specific plans being compared and disclose material differences in channel lineups. DISH stated it disagrees with NAD’s conclusion but will comply and adjust its advertising.

Why NAD’s DISH vs DIRECTV Review Matters for Pay-TV Advertising Compliance

In a market where acquisition hinges on price and content, this decision underscores how easily a simple savings claim can cross the line without robust disclosures and precise framing.

DISH vs DIRECTV: Rising Scrutiny of Comparative Pricing in Pay-TV

Comparative pricing is central to subscriber growth across satellite TV, cable, and vMVPDs, but it carries elevated scrutiny. NAD’s position here is a reminder that save up to messages, when paired with broad branding and big-font headlines, will be read as promises about a competitor’s entire product line unless the advertiser clearly anchors the comparison to named tiers. Language such as upgrade raises the bar further by implying superiority beyond price, requiring evidence of overall better value.

RSN Availability: A Material Factor in DISH vs DIRECTV Advertising Claims

RSNs and premium sports are not peripheral; they are often the biggest drivers of package differentiation, cost structures, and churn. Any comparison that omits sports availability risks misleading value signals, especially when RSN carriage can be a primary reason subscribers choose one provider over another. Marketers must treat content differences like RSNs, premium add-ons, and regional blackouts as material and disclose them near the main claim.

Beyond NAD: Regulatory Risks from Non-Compliant Advertising Claims

NAD is a self-regulatory forum, but outcomes can escalate to appellate review (NARB) or be referred to government authorities if advertisers do not comply. In parallel, federal and state regulators continue to push for greater transparency around subscription pricing, promotions, and cancellation flows. Brands should expect tighter expectations around clear and conspicuous disclosures across TV, web, and mobile experiences.

What to Do Now: Compliant Comparative Advertising Playbook

Providers and partners should tighten the guardrails on comparative marketing to reduce challenge risk while preserving persuasive power.

Build a Defensible Plan-to-Plan Comparison Framework

Compare like-for-like tiers and name them in the headline or in immediate proximity to it. Maintain a living substantiation file: current monthly prices, fees, promotional terms, channel lineups, and date-stamped screenshots. Separate base price comparisons from time-limited promotions to avoid inflating savings. If you model up to savings, base the figure on typical user scenarios, not best-case outliers.

Ensuring Disclosures Are Clear and Proximate in Pay-TV Ads

Ensure disclosures are clear, conspicuous, and proximate to the main claim across all media. On TV, that means readable on-screen text and, where feasible, audible qualifiers. On digital, avoid burying key limitations in footnotes; place plan names and material differences adjacent to the claim and persist them through scroll and carousel states. Treat RSN availability, premium sports, and device or regional limitations as material, not optional.

Avoid “Upgrade” and Unsubstantiated Superiority Claims

Avoid upgrade, best, or superior unless you can substantiate overall value across attributes beyond price. If you highlight savings, explicitly qualify with versus [competitor plan name] and disclose what is excluded. Replace vague save up to with precise statements like compared to [plan], as of [date], excluding taxes/fees, supported by current data.

Prepare for NAD Fast-Track SWIFT Challenges

Fast-Track SWIFT moves quickly. Establish a rapid-response playbook spanning legal, marketing, pricing, and product. Pre-approve alternative claims and templates so you can pivot without going dark. Monitor competitor ads and your affiliates’ creatives; many challenges originate from partner or reseller misstatements. Include comparison governance in creative briefs and agency contracts.

What’s Next: Pricing, Sports, and Bundle Disclosures

Expect continued scrutiny of price and value claims as providers juggle sports rights, evolving bundles, and promotional offers heading into the next subscriber acquisition cycle.

Guidance on Bundles, Add-Ons, and Net Pricing

As providers package live TV with streaming apps, sports add-ons, or device credits, look for additional clarity from NAD and NARB on how to present net price versus headline price and how to disclose material content differences within bundles and promotional stacks.

Align Incentives with Effective Monthly Rate Disclosures

Free months, bill credits, price locks, and contract buyouts are back in rotation. Advertisers should align on how these incentives affect the effective monthly rate and ensure disclosures travel with the claim across channels and formats, including influencer and affiliate content.

Keep Partner and Retail Messaging Compliant

Retailers and dealers must mirror compliant messaging in-store and online. Provide standardized comparison sheets, enforce approval workflows, and audit signage and scripts to prevent mismatches that trigger challenges or erode consumer trust post-sale.

Bottom line: comparative savings can be powerful, but only when anchored to specific plans, paired with unmissable disclosures, and stripped of unsubstantiated superiority claimsespecially when sports content is in play.