Verdict: fail
One Critical finding: a named condition in bullet 4. Amazon’s supplements policy prohibits that class of claim outright, and FDA warning letters cite it. All 7 findings come with a fix, so clearing this listing takes an afternoon. Only the flagged lines change. The rest of the listing stays.
No payment-processor findings. Those standards read checkout and review copy on a brand’s own site, not an Amazon listing.
Findings, worst first
“Our adrenal fatigue supplements”
“Helps the body adapt to occasional stress”
Why it fails. Names a purported condition, framing the product as a treatment for it.
›3 published sources · interpretation of a governing test
“Make disease claims or implied disease claims, unless the FDA approved the statement. Disease claims include claims to diagnose, cure, reduce, treat, or prevent a disease in humans”
“articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals”
“(g)(2)(i) has an effect on a specific disease or class of diseases ... (x) otherwise suggests an effect on a disease or diseases”
We applied a published test to the published copy. The sources above are what the ruling rests on.
“Plant-Based Hormone Balance”
“Supports healthy hormone levels”
Why it fails. 'Hormone Balance' implies correcting a pathological hormonal imbalance.
›2 published sources · interpretation of a governing test
“articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals”
“(g)(2)(i) has an effect on a specific disease or class of diseases ... (x) otherwise suggests an effect on a disease or diseases”
We applied a published test to the published copy. The sources above are what the ruling rests on.
“Uncover genuine cortisol balance and attain harmony in your body's cortisol levels”
“Helps support healthy cortisol levels already within the normal range”
Why it fails. Implies correction of an abnormal cortisol state.
›2 published sources · interpretation of a governing test
“articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals”
“(g)(2)(i) has an effect on a specific disease or class of diseases ... (x) otherwise suggests an effect on a disease or diseases”
We applied a published test to the published copy. The sources above are what the ruling rests on.
“natural formula designed to regulate cortisol”
“Supports healthy cortisol levels”
Why it fails. 'Regulate' implies pharmacological control of a biological process.
›2 published sources · interpretation of a governing test
“articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals”
“(g)(2)(i) has an effect on a specific disease or class of diseases ... (x) otherwise suggests an effect on a disease or diseases”
We applied a published test to the published copy. The sources above are what the ruling rests on.
“Embrace the immune-boosting might of Vitamin C”
“Supports healthy immune function”
Why it fails. 'Immune-boosting' implies enhancement beyond normal immune function.
›2 published sources · interpretation of a governing test
“articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals”
“(g)(2)(i) has an effect on a specific disease or class of diseases ... (x) otherwise suggests an effect on a disease or diseases”
We applied a published test to the published copy. The sources above are what the ruling rests on.
“We deliver results!”
Remove the line.
Why it fails. Unsubstantiated absolute results promise.
›2 published sources · interpretation of a governing test
“Unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are hereby declared unlawful.”
“Before disseminating an ad, advertisers must have adequate substantiation for all objective product claims conveyed, expressly or by implication. ... As a general matter, substantiation of health-related benefits will need to be in the form of randomized, controlled human clinical testing to meet the competent and reliable scientific standard.”
We applied a published test to the published copy. The sources above are what the ruling rests on.
“free from GMOs and artificial additives”
Hold accepted documentation or remove the claim.
Why it fails. Non-GMO claim requires one of Amazon's accepted documentation forms. The listing cannot show whether they are held, so confirm them.
›5 published sources · a claim that needs evidence on file
“Include "Non-genetically modified organism (GMO)" claims without providing documentation using one of the following options: Product-level certification ... Lab test results ... US Department of Agriculture (USDA) organic certification”
“Unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are hereby declared unlawful.”
“Before disseminating an ad, advertisers must have adequate substantiation for all objective product claims conveyed, expressly or by implication. ... As a general matter, substantiation of health-related benefits will need to be in the form of randomized, controlled human clinical testing to meet the competent and reliable scientific standard.”
“Make sure all product labels and descriptions are clear, accurate, truthful, and not misleading. Include all appropriate disclaimers, disclosures, and warranties, and support any claims you make with adequate substantiation.”
“All advertising claims and representations must be supported by competent and reliable evidence, which the advertiser will disclose to Ad Standards upon its request.”
We applied a published test to the published copy. The sources above are what the ruling rests on.
Fix order
- Today1 CriticalPaste the rewrite the standard allows for the adrenal-fatigue line. Amazon’s published policy prohibits it outright.
- This week5 High, 1 MediumSwap "regulate", "balance" and "boosting", and drop the results promise. Confirm the Non-GMO documentation is on file with Amazon, or remove the claim.
- ThenRe-checkSend us the live listing. We re-scan the same title, bullets and A+ content, and a pass qualifies you for the Mark.
What this listing may say instead
Taking claims away is half the job. These are the strongest claims our standards allow for this product’s benefit areas.
“Helps the body adapt to occasional stress”
'Occasional' is doing real work here: it keeps the claim on normal function.
“Supports healthy hormone levels”
Levels, not 'balance': support of a normal state, not correction of a disorder.
“Supports healthy immune function”
Structure/function on a normal system.
“Promotes a sense of calm”
The standard safe substitute for anxiety language.
In a full audit, not shown here
Your website, ad copy, email flows, SEO copy, label and influencer briefs, ruled the same way. This sample covers one Amazon listing.
When available: the answers shoppers get when they ask ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Perplexity or Grok about your brand, on record.
The title, bullets and description with each flagged line replaced by the strongest wording the standard allows, checked again, ready to paste.
The panel checked rule by rule: identity statement, net quantity, Supplement Facts, allergens and the FDA disclaimer. US: your listed amounts and printed claims against your label on file with the NIH. Canada: your copy against the purpose Health Canada approved for your licence.
The pharmacist’s name, licence and date on the verdict. It turns the report into evidence you can hand Amazon, a processor or a buyer.
Sample sign-off
Independent review of the marketing-claims findings under the published Claims Verified standards.
On a client file this line names who signed and where they are licensed, from the reviewer’s own record: Reviewed and signed by Sample Reviewer, pharmacist licensed in Ontario, Canada (licence no. 000000, verify at register link). It also says the licence covers that jurisdiction only.
Signed statement. The reviewer states that they reviewed every finding against the Standard version on the file, that software, including AI, produced the initial findings, and that they agreed with, changed or overruled each one. Each signed statement carries a version number.
The initial findings were produced by software and reviewed by the pharmacist. The reviewer is paid a flat fee per file by Claims Verified. The fee does not depend on the findings.
This is a review of marketing claims for a business. It is not patient care, dispensing, prescribing, a pharmaceutical opinion, a product endorsement, or legal advice.
On every page. Prepared for [your brand] under terms version 2026-10-26. Show it to a platform, processor or buyer as evidence that every claim was reviewed. Anyone else relying on it for their own decisions needs our written reliance letter.
Every delivered report closes with this block, signed and dated. It is what you can hand to an Amazon appeal, a processor review or a buyer’s diligence. A delivered file carries the reviewer’s name, licence number and signature, so you, Amazon, a processor or a buyer can check the register. We keep them off the public sample. The listing ruling behind this sample is in our dated public record, which nobody can backdate, including us.