Claim rulingsFalse regulatory
No. It is an absolute that cannot be substantiated, and it also trips ad policy at Meta and Google, so it costs you the ad account as well as the substantiation argument. Remove it. A money-back guarantee is a refund policy and can be stated as one. It is not a results claim.
Why it fails
Unsubstantiable absolute. Also an ad-policy trigger.
We file this under false regulatory and rate it high. It is enforced by FTC, Meta, Google, which matters because a single phrase can fail in more than one place at once: a listing suppression, an ad-account review and a warning letter are three different consequences of the same sentence.
What to say instead
This is the rewrite an audit ships for this phrase: the strongest wording the standard allows, in the words we would hand you.
The rewrite the standard allows
Remove. A money-back guarantee is a refund policy, not a results claim.
Every structure/function claim on this page still needs the FDA disclaimer wherever it appears. That requirement has its own ruling.
Run one ASIN through the free check. You get the severity counts on your own copy, ruled against all 109 standards, with no sales call attached.
Nearby rulings
Cite usThis ruling is free to quote. Credit “Claims Verified” and link here. It is regulatory review of marketing language, not legal advice.
audit@claimsverified.org →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.