A supplement submission tells you the formula, the facility and the loss history. It does not tell you what the brand actually says about the product in public, which is where the failure-to-warn and misrepresentation exposure lives. We rule that language and sign it.
A magnesium supplement is a magnesium supplement. What separates a clean submission from a bad one is whether the listing says it treats insomnia. That sentence is on a public page and it is not in the application.
Since 31 March, Amazon matches detail-page claims automatically and deactivates without warning. The FDA posts supplement letters in batches. Exposure that used to surface over years now surfaces in a week.
A COA covers what is in the bottle. Nothing in a standard submission covers what is said about it, so the claims question gets priced by feel or not at all.
Formula, facility, loss history, prior claims.
Never in the submission. This is where failure-to-warn and misrepresentation start.
Today the claims question is priced by feel, or not priced.
The exhibit is a sentence that was live on a public page the whole time.
We do not add a step. We rule the one link nobody currently reads, and sign it so it can be handed on.
RIBO restricts referral compensation outside the financial perimeter in Ontario, and US anti-rebating rules run the same way. A compliance vendor paying a broker to recommend it is a conflict we do not want to be inside, and one you should not have to disclose.
You get a pharmacist-signed claims file on a merchant, statute-cited, dated, built to be read by someone who is not us. It goes in the file and it prices the risk.
Brands we audit routinely need product-liability cover and have no broker. Those go to you, with no fee expected in either direction.
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.
Tell us a merchant class you underwrite and we will rule a public listing in it and send the file, unredacted, at no charge. It is the fastest way to judge whether it is worth attaching to a submission.
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 →