Claim rulingsImplied drug
No. Detox language implies removing a pathological burden, and it also trips Meta ad policy. The compliant version is “supports the body’s natural detoxification pathways”.
Why it fails
Implies removal of a pathological burden. Also a Meta ad-policy trigger.
We file this under implied drug and rate it high. It is enforced by FDA, FTC, Meta, 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, in the words we would hand you.
The ruling’s own rewrite
'Supports the body's natural detoxification pathways'
Claims that hold in its place
The compliant detox claim.
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 98 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 →