Claim rulingsSubstantiation
Only with a defensible survey behind it, which almost no brand holds. It is a superiority claim, so it needs a documented survey of the right population asked the right question. Remove it unless that survey exists. The survey has to exist before the claim runs, not after someone asks.
Why it fails
Requires a defensible survey. Almost never held.
We file this under substantiation and rate it high. It is enforced by FTC, Amazon, 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: the strongest wording the standard allows, in the words we would hand you.
The rewrite the standard allows
Remove unless a documented survey exists.
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.