Every claim ruled in minutes. Signed in 5 days.

No. We are not a regulator and we report to you alone. Nothing we find is disclosed to Amazon, Meta, the FDA or the FTC. The exposure already exists in your live copy, the audit tells you where, before someone else finds it. And if Amazon’s automated review flags you anyway, the file is your appeal documentation, ready the day you need it: the claim quoted, the standard cited, the compliant fix already written.

Because this is not a spend, it is the floor under the spend. Paid acquisition runs through copy a machine approves before any customer sees it, and a health-claims flag attaches to the ad account rather than the ad, so one rejected line follows every later campaign. A suppressed listing stops earning the hour it happens and takes the ranking and review history you paid months to build with it. And the rewrites go the other way from what brands expect: every failing line comes back as the strongest wording the rules allow, plus an approved claim list your agency and creators can write from without a legal round trip. Most brands sit in one of two bad positions, over-claiming and exposed, or self-censoring into copy that does not sell. The defensible middle is the one that does both jobs.

You pay the same fee and you get that in writing: a signed, dated pass on letterhead that cites the standards applied. That is the version your competitors cannot produce, and it is why the fee never moves with the verdict.

Processors publish what they will not carry, and supplement marketing is on the list. Stripe’s prohibited businesses include nutraceuticals that “make harmful claims”, businesses that make outrageous claims or use fake testimonials, and trials with hidden pricing; Square’s terms name suspended payouts and reserves as what it can do. Since standards v1.3 we rule your copy against those published rules too, so the file answers a processor’s question in one attachment: who reviewed your claims, against what, and when. No one can promise what a processor decides, and we do not.

You could fix them yourself, and some brands do. What you cannot produce on your own is a dated file listing every claim, the standard it has to meet and the compliant wording, signed by a licensed pharmacist. Notes you wrote about your own copy do not answer a processor or a buyer. The document is the product. The findings are how you judge whether we can write it.

A model can rewrite a sentence. It cannot reliably cite the statute, rate severity against every top-selling listing in the category, or sign the result, and when a retailer or acquirer asks who reviewed your claims, “a chatbot” ends the conversation. You are buying the signature and the benchmark, not the prose.

Tell us. The pharmacist who signed it will walk through the reasoning and, where you can produce substantiation we have not seen, revise the rating. Revisions within thirty days of delivery are included.

We publish our corrections. Every finding we have withdrawn or amended is listed at claimsverified.org/corrections with the date and the reason, including mistakes nobody outside the company would have seen. Disputes work as in the question above, and revisions within thirty days of delivery are included.