Sample report, nothing held back

Read the deliverable before you buy it.

A complete audit report, start to finish, on a real listing from our scan database. The brand is redacted because we never name a failing brand publicly. Everything else is exactly what a client receives: every failing claim quoted from their own copy, the rule it breaks, and the rewrite that replaces it.

This report at a glanceFail
79Risk score
1Critical
5High
1Medium
Pharmacist-in-the-loopSigned on delivery
What this is: a stress-support listing from our scan database, re-ruled on 13 Sep 2026 against the current 98 standards from the copy we captured on 8 Aug 2026, and rendered in the exact format a paying client receives: the same rulings, the same citations, the same rewrites. The brand is redacted because we never name a failing brand. It is not a client audit, and no client's file is ever published.
Claims Verified
Claims audit report
Sample · unsigned
Form CV-AR
Product
[redacted] · cortisol and stress-support supplement
Surfaces in this sample
Amazon title, bullets, A+ content (the images and text below the bullets)
Ruled against
98 standards (v1.3.1) · ruled 13 Sep 2026
Reviewer of record
Licensed pharmacist · named on delivery
§ 1Verdict
FAIL
Risk score79
Higher than 337 of the 384 stress-support listings in our database, each ruled on the standards in force at its scan.
1Critical
5High
1Medium
Where the findings sit
Title1
Bullets6
Published rules this report cites
Amazon Seller Central, Dietary Supplements policyAMAZON
FDCA s.201(g)(1)(B), 21 U.S.C. 321(g)(1)(B)FDA
21 CFR 101.93(g)FDA
FTC Act s.5(a), 15 U.S.C. 45(a)FTC
FTC Health Products Compliance Guidance (December 2022)FTC
Walmart Standards for Suppliers, Label and Market Products AccuratelyWALMART
Canadian Code of Advertising Standards, clause 1(e)AD STANDARDS CANADA

The Critical finding is disease-claim class: a named condition in the bullets, the category Amazon's supplements policy prohibits outright and FDA warning letters cite. Every one of the 7 findings comes with its fix, a compliant line to paste or a single action, so fixing it is an afternoon, not a rewrite of the listing. No payment-processor findings: this is an Amazon listing, and those standards read checkout, trial and review copy on a brand's own site.

§ 2Findings
Critical 01 · Platform policy Source: bullet 4 Rule CV-PP-08
As published
“Our adrenal fatigue supplements”
Compliant rewrite
“Helps the body adapt to occasional stress”
RulingNames a purported condition, framing the product as a treatment for it.
Rules applied · 3 published sources
Amazon Seller Central, Dietary Supplements policyAMAZON · CONTRACT, NOT LAW
https://sellercentral.amazon.com/help/hub/reference/external/G201829010
“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”
FDCA s.201(g)(1)(B), 21 U.S.C. 321(g)(1)(B)FDA
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/321
“articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals”
21 CFR 101.93(g)FDA
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/section-101.93
“(g)(2)(i) has an effect on a specific disease or class of diseases ... (x) otherwise suggests an effect on a disease or diseases”
What kind of finding this is: Interpretation of a governing test. We applied a published test to the published copy. The sources above are what the ruling rests on.
High 02 · Implied drug Source: title Rule CV-ID-08
As published
“Plant-Based Hormone Balance”
Compliant rewrite
“Supports healthy hormone levels”
Ruling'Hormone Balance' implies correcting a pathological hormonal imbalance.
Rules applied · 2 published sources
FDCA s.201(g)(1)(B), 21 U.S.C. 321(g)(1)(B)FDA
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/321
“articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals”
21 CFR 101.93(g)FDA
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/section-101.93
“(g)(2)(i) has an effect on a specific disease or class of diseases ... (x) otherwise suggests an effect on a disease or diseases”
What kind of finding this is: Interpretation of a governing test. We applied a published test to the published copy. The sources above are what the ruling rests on.
High 03 · Implied drug Source: bullet 1 Rule CV-ID-10
As published
“Uncover genuine cortisol balance and attain harmony in your body's cortisol levels”
Compliant rewrite
“Helps support healthy cortisol levels already within the normal range”
RulingImplies correction of an abnormal cortisol state.
Rules applied · 2 published sources
FDCA s.201(g)(1)(B), 21 U.S.C. 321(g)(1)(B)FDA
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/321
“articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals”
21 CFR 101.93(g)FDA
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/section-101.93
“(g)(2)(i) has an effect on a specific disease or class of diseases ... (x) otherwise suggests an effect on a disease or diseases”
What kind of finding this is: Interpretation of a governing test. We applied a published test to the published copy. The sources above are what the ruling rests on.
High 04 · Implied drug Source: bullet 1 Rule CV-ID-09
As published
“natural formula designed to regulate cortisol”
Compliant rewrite
“Supports healthy cortisol levels”
Ruling'Regulate' implies pharmacological control of a biological process.
Rules applied · 2 published sources
FDCA s.201(g)(1)(B), 21 U.S.C. 321(g)(1)(B)FDA
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/321
“articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals”
21 CFR 101.93(g)FDA
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/section-101.93
“(g)(2)(i) has an effect on a specific disease or class of diseases ... (x) otherwise suggests an effect on a disease or diseases”
What kind of finding this is: Interpretation of a governing test. We applied a published test to the published copy. The sources above are what the ruling rests on.
High 05 · Implied drug Source: bullet 3 Rule CV-ID-07
As published
“Embrace the immune-boosting might of Vitamin C”
Compliant rewrite
“Supports healthy immune function”
Ruling'Immune-boosting' implies enhancement beyond normal immune function.
Rules applied · 2 published sources
FDCA s.201(g)(1)(B), 21 U.S.C. 321(g)(1)(B)FDA
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/321
“articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals”
21 CFR 101.93(g)FDA
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/section-101.93
“(g)(2)(i) has an effect on a specific disease or class of diseases ... (x) otherwise suggests an effect on a disease or diseases”
What kind of finding this is: Interpretation of a governing test. We applied a published test to the published copy. The sources above are what the ruling rests on.
High 06 · False regulatory Source: bullet 4 Rule CV-FR-06
As published
“We deliver results!”
Corrective action
Remove the line.
RulingUnsubstantiated absolute results promise.
Rules applied · 2 published sources
FTC Act s.5(a), 15 U.S.C. 45(a)FTC
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/45
“Unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are hereby declared unlawful.”
FTC Health Products Compliance Guidance (December 2022)FTC
https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/health-products-compliance-guidance
“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.”
What kind of finding this is: Interpretation of a governing test. We applied a published test to the published copy. The sources above are what the ruling rests on.
Medium 07 · Substantiation Source: bullet 4 Rule CV-SB-12
As published
“free from GMOs and artificial additives”
Corrective action
Hold accepted documentation or remove the claim.
RulingNon-GMO claim requires one of Amazon's accepted documentation forms. The listing cannot show whether they are held, so confirm them.
Rules applied · 5 published sources
Amazon Seller Central, Dietary Supplements policyAMAZON · CONTRACT, NOT LAW
https://sellercentral.amazon.com/help/hub/reference/external/G201829010
“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”
FTC Act s.5(a), 15 U.S.C. 45(a)FTC
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/45
“Unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are hereby declared unlawful.”
FTC Health Products Compliance Guidance (December 2022)FTC
https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/health-products-compliance-guidance
“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.”
Walmart Standards for Suppliers, Label and Market Products AccuratelyWALMART
https://corporate.walmart.com/suppliers/requirements/standards-for-suppliers
“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.”
Canadian Code of Advertising Standards, clause 1(e)AD STANDARDS CANADA
https://adstandards.ca/code/the-code-online/
“All advertising claims and representations must be supported by competent and reliable evidence, which the advertiser will disclose to Ad Standards upon its request.”
What kind of finding this is: A claim that needs evidence on file. We applied a published test to the published copy. The sources above are what the ruling rests on.
§ 3Fix order
Today · 1 Critical

Paste the rewrite for the adrenal-fatigue line first. It is the finding Amazon's published policy prohibits outright.

This week · 5 High

Swap the implied-drug language ("regulate", "balance", "boosting"), and drop the results promise. Confirm the Non-GMO documentation is on file with Amazon, or remove the claim.

Then · re-check

Send us the live listing. We re-scan the same surfaces, and a pass on the re-scan qualifies you for the Mark.

§ 4What this listing may say instead

Taking claims away is half the job. These are compliant claims from our standards for this product's benefit areas, at full strength: the ceiling of what the listing can say, not a watered-down version.

Stress
“Helps the body adapt to occasional stress”
'Occasional' is doing real work here: it keeps the claim on normal function.
Hormonal
“Supports healthy hormone levels”
Levels, not 'balance': support of a normal state, not correction of a disorder.
Immune
“Supports healthy immune function”
Structure/function on a normal system.
Mood
“Promotes a sense of calm”
The standard safe substitute for anxiety language.
§ 5In a full audit, not shown here
Every other surface

Your website, ad copy, email flows, SEO copy, label and influencer briefs, ruled the same way. This sample covers one Amazon listing.

What AI assistants say about you

The answers shoppers get when they ask ChatGPT through Amazon's Rufus about your brand, on record.

Your label, checked against the record

US: your listing’s amounts and your label’s printed claims, against your own label on file with the NIH. Canada: your copy against the purpose Health Canada approved for your licence. This brand has no label on file with the NIH; about 43% of the brands we scan do, and the report says so either way.

The signed page

A licensed pharmacist's name, licence and date on the verdict. The one thing software cannot supply.

§ 6Sign-off
Independent pharmacist review: Reviewed by [reviewer of record], PharmD, licensed pharmacist, independent review of marketing-claims findings under the published Claims Verified standards. Licence on file, verifiable on the public register.
Signature
Date
Sample

Every delivered report closes with this block, signed. On a sample it stays unsigned: no client file, no signature.

Claims Verified · Form CV-ARSample · not a client file

A passing report

This one failed. A pass looks different.

One listing in four we have ruled comes back clean or close to it.

That document is the point. It is what you produce when a retail buyer, an ad reviewer or a payment processor asks whether anyone has checked, and it is what lets you carry the Claims Verified seal, at the launch price, locked in the day you pass.

✓A passing report is shorter

  • The verdict
  • The surfaces we read
  • Anything Medium worth tidying
  • The signed confirmation that nothing Critical was found

Your own listing

Want this on your own listing?

Every surface you publish, ruled by our AI and signed by a licensed pharmacist.

$2,000 flat · five business days
  • Every surface you publish, not just the one shown here: Amazon, website, ad copy, email flows, label and what the AI assistants tell shoppers about you
  • Every finding severity-rated, quoted from your own copy, cited to the published rule, with a rewrite that keeps the sales promise
  • Pharmacist-signed and dated, so you have a document to produce when Amazon, an ad platform, your payment processor, a retail buyer, your lawyer or an acquirer asks. How the file gets used
  • $500 confirms it. The balance is due only when the signed file is in your hands

Review of marketing language only, not product testing, formulation, facility compliance, or legal advice. Findings are our professional opinion under the published Claims Verified standards, based on listing copy as captured on the scan date.