Claim rulingsSubstantiation
Only with the study on file and the dose matching it. “Clinical dose” says a named trial used this amount, so it needs the study and a dose that matches it. Cite the study, or remove the phrase. Both halves have to hold: the study has to exist, and your dose has to be the one it used.
Why it fails
Requires the study and matching dose on file.
We file this under substantiation and rate it medium. It is enforced by FTC, which matters because a single phrase can fail in more than one place at once: a listing suppression, an ad-account review and a warning letter are three different consequences of the same sentence.
What to say instead
This is the rewrite an audit ships for this phrase: the strongest wording the standard allows, in the words we would hand you.
The rewrite the standard allows
Cite the study, or remove.
Every structure/function claim on this page still needs the FDA disclaimer wherever it appears. That requirement has its own ruling.
Run one ASIN through the free check. You get the severity counts on your own copy, ruled against all 109 standards, with no sales call attached.
Nearby rulings
Cite usThis ruling is free to quote. Credit “Claims Verified” and link here. It is regulatory review of marketing language, not legal advice.
audit@claimsverified.org →Say the most the rules allow. Then keep selling it, everywhere, at any spend.
Clean copy can run on every channel at once, with the lines we flagged gone, so you can push budget knowing what a reviewer can find. And it is the brand a careful shopper can believe.
The independent standard for supplement and telehealth claims. Our AI rules a brand’s public supplement claims against 109 published standards. Each failing line is rewritten to the rules. A licensed pharmacist signs every Claims Review Report.