For product-liability brokers and underwriters
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.
The problem
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.
Amazon publishes a supplements policy that prohibits disease claims, disease names in backend keywords, and ingredient weights that do not match your Supplement Facts panel. It enforces by suppression, not by a regulator, and its claims policy requires proof for "best" and "100% pure" with no puffery defence.
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.
The chain
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.
The economics
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 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
Tell us a merchant class you underwrite and we will rule a public listing in it and send the file with the brand redacted, 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 →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.