Supplements plus negative-option billing is the sharpest enforcement profile there is: ROSCA and the Negative Option Rule sitting on top of FTC substantiation. The copy that drives the conversion is the same copy that drives the chargebacks and the declinations.
An acquirer drops a merchant over claims language and the platform fees go with them. You had no visibility into the copy and no way to flag it early.
A claim that oversells the outcome produces a customer who disputes. Ratio thresholds do the rest. Tightening the claim is upstream of every dispute tool you already sell.
When claims get flagged in review, the merchant has nothing to submit. That is the moment a named remediation vendor is worth having on file.
Direct response lives on the strength of the claim.
Unmet expectation becomes a dispute. This is upstream of every dispute tool you already sell.
Chargebacks are a symptom; the copy is the cause.
Your platform fees end with the account.
We do not add a step. We rule the one link nobody currently reads, and sign it so it can be handed on.
High-risk processing runs 4 to 8 per cent plus rolling reserves against roughly 2.9 per cent standard. On $200,000 a month that spread is $6,000 to $10,000. A signed claims file that supports better underwriting pays for itself in days, which is an argument that works on operators who do not care about compliance for its own sake.
Twenty to twenty-five per cent on the first audit and ten per cent of year-one recurring, or no fee at all and we simply become the remediation vendor your risk team names when claims get flagged. Attribution runs 24 months across every tier the merchant later buys.
The same file every time, whatever route it arrives by.
Every public claim ruled against all 81 standards, drawn from published FDA, FTC and marketplace rules.
Each finding quoted verbatim from the copy, with the standard it runs into.
A compliant rewrite for every finding, written to keep the sales promise.
Severity rating, so the takedown triggers get fixed before the wording nits.
Where the brand sits against the 1,115 listings we have ruled, which is the one number nobody else can produce.
A licensed pharmacist signature, by name, on a file built to be forwarded.
Charge differently for a pass. The fee is identical whether a brand passes or fails. An incentive to find problems would make every finding worth less, including to you.
Pay a commission on the mark. No referral path leads to the certification mark, ever. It is earned by audit or not at all.
Contact your book. Non-circumvention and roster confidentiality go in the agreement before any client-level detail moves in either direction.
Call it legal advice. It is a marketing-claims review under a published rubric, signed by a licensed pharmacist. Where a brand needs counsel we say so and refer up.
Send a list of merchant sites you are comfortable sharing and we will rule them and return an aggregate: how many carry a Critical finding against our published baseline. No merchant is contacted, and roster confidentiality is in the agreement before anything moves.
Or write to audit@claimsverified.org directly. Terms are in writing before the first referral, in either direction.
The evidence behind all of this is public. The State of Supplement Claims runs the full dataset, the ten phrases that fail most, and the method, free to cite with attribution.
Read The State of Supplement Claims →