For subscription-billing and direct-response platforms
Supplements sold on subscription draw attention under ROSCA and FTC substantiation rules. Stripe prohibits negative option marketing with unclear or hidden pricing. The copy that drives the conversion is the same copy that drives the chargebacks and the declinations.
The problem
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 vendor who fixes it is worth having on file.
The chain
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.
The economics
High-risk pricing can run well above standard pricing. Use your own rates to work out the spread. A signed claims file that supports better underwriting can pay for itself in days, which is an argument that works on operators who do not care about compliance for its own sake.
Twenty per cent of the cash a referred merchant pays us in its first 12 months, except monitoring, which earns ten per cent for those 12 months. That covers Listing Clean at $950, the $3,500 audit and anything else it buys. Or no fee at all, and we simply become the vendor your risk team points merchants to when claims get flagged. Partners can take no fee. We recommend that for any team that underwrites.
The file
One signed file, whatever route it arrives by. It answers Amazon, a processor, an ad reviewer or a buyer.
Every public claim ruled against all 109 standards, drawn from published FDA, FTC and marketplace rules.
Each finding quoted verbatim from the copy, with the standard it runs into.
A rewrite at the strongest wording the standard allows 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 2,243 listings we have ruled, a number that takes the whole category ruled to produce.
A licensed pharmacist's signature on a file built to be forwarded.
Independence
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 published standards, signed by a licensed pharmacist. Where a brand needs counsel we say so and refer up.
Start here
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 →Say the most the rules allow. Then keep selling it, everywhere, at any spend.
Clean copy can run on every channel at once with nothing for a machine to switch off, so you can push budget knowing what a reviewer can find. And it is the brand a careful shopper can believe.