Every firm in this category publishes what it does. This page is the other half: what we do not test, what we cannot promise and where our data is thin, in one place instead of the small print.
We are not a law firm. The file is a pharmacist-signed review of wording against published rules, not legal advice, and we do not represent you before any agency.
We review supplement and telehealth advertising. We do not judge whether a prescription is appropriate, how a drug is prescribed or compounded, or whether you may lawfully sell it.
No verdict promises that Amazon, Google, Meta, a payment processor, the FDA or the FTC will act, or hold back, in a certain way.
We rule against 109 standards from nineteen rulebooks. If the market or platform you sell on is not among them, the verdict does not speak to it. The standards page lists what is covered.
Nothing we do involves a laboratory. We do not verify ingredient identity, potency or purity, we do not test for contaminants or banned substances, and we do not inspect a facility. We read what is said about the bottle.
The report is evidence that the wording was reviewed against a published rule. It is not evidence that the science is settled. If a claim requires substantiation, we tell you the standard it has to meet. We do not hold your study file or assess your study’s quality.
We do not control Amazon, Meta, Google, your payment processor, the FDA or the FTC. A passing verdict is an assessment of your wording against our standards on the date we read it. It is not a shield. We also never tell you enforcement is coming.
An audit covers the listings, pages, ads and emails you send us. An ad you did not include, a page we were not shown, an influencer post or a founder’s own social account is not reviewed and not covered by a passing verdict. The scope statement in every report lists exactly what was read.
Every finding is true of the copy as it stood on the scan date, against the standards in force on that date. Both change. That is what monitoring is for, and without it the report describes only the day it was signed.
A rank is only meaningful inside its own category. Categories differ in size, so a rate computed on a smaller category has a wider margin of error. The census covers top-selling listings, not every listing, and it is Amazon, so a brand whose real risk sits on its own site, in email or in ads is only partly described by it.
Nothing we produce is legal advice and no attorney-client relationship exists. We do not represent anyone before any agency in any country. Hand the report to counsel. It is the file they would otherwise bill you to build.
When we do, we publish it. Every figure we have withdrawn or restated is on the corrections page with the date and the reason. If you think a finding is wrong, we take it to the reviewer who signed it, who can go through the reasoning and revise it where you can show substantiation we had not seen.
Why this page exists: a firm that sells verification has one unforgivable failure, which is overstating its own work. If any of the above is a problem for what you need, we would rather you knew before you paid than after. The full method is on the standards page and the complete sample report is public, including its own limitations.
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.