1. What the audit is
The Claims Verified audit is a review of marketing claims made by a supplement brand, against a fixed, publicly documented set of standards. Scope:
Delivered as a findings document within 5 business days of receipt of the source materials. Price is US$2,000 flat for up to 10 products, across every channel in scope (listing, A+ content, website, label, ads and email), unless otherwise stated in the engagement letter. More than 10 products is scoped and quoted in writing before any charge. The audit includes a draft of the FDA structure/function notice for you to sign and file. You pay either the full fee when you order, or a US$500 deposit when you order and the US$1,500 balance once the signed report is delivered (see 2c). The fee is the same whether the verdict passes or fails, and it does not change with the number of findings.
1b. Other services and prices
- Listing Clean and Launch Clean. One service with two names: Launch Clean for drafts before launch, Listing Clean for live listings. US$650, paid up front, for up to 3 products or listings. It includes a signed report, a draft of the FDA structure/function notice for you to sign and file, and 30 days of monitoring.
- Monitoring. US$250 a month for up to 5 products, or US$750 a month for up to 25 products, billed monthly. More than 25 products is quoted. Open to Listing Clean and audit clients. It can be cancelled at any time (see section 7).
- Listing Rescue. US$1,000, for a suppressed listing, delivered within 48 hours: the rewrite and a signed file to go with your appeal. You, or your appeal writer, file the appeal. We do not file it, and we do not promise reinstatement.
- FDA or FTC letter response. US$5,000, or US$10,000 for a 24-hour rush, confirmed in writing before any charge.
- Diligence review. From US$17,500, scoped and quoted in writing before any charge. A rush is quoted on request.
1c. Who reviews your file
Every Claims Review Report is reviewed and signed by an independent licensed pharmacist (the “reviewer”). The reviewer is an independent contractor engaged by Claims Verified, not an employee, and is paid a flat fee per file that is set before the review starts and does not depend on the verdict, the number or severity of findings, or whether you renew.
The reviewer can agree with, change or overrule any finding, and can refuse to sign any file. We do not deliver a file as signed unless the reviewer has signed it, and we do not change a signed file without a new signature.
Each signed file states the reviewer’s name and licence or registration number, the licensing body, a link to the public register where the licence can be checked, and the date signed. The licence jurisdiction is stated on each signed file, and it is the only jurisdiction in which the reviewer is represented as licensed. We do not name the reviewer on our website. Each signed file also carries the reviewer’s attestation, with its version, and says that software produced the initial findings, that the reviewer is paid a flat fee per file that does not depend on the findings, and that the review is of marketing claims for a business and is not patient care, dispensing, prescribing, a pharmaceutical opinion, a product endorsement or legal advice.
The reviewer’s signature is their professional opinion on the findings under the version of the Claims Verified Standard stated on the file. It is not legal advice, not a guarantee of any outcome (see 2b), and not an evaluation of your product (see 2d).
The reviewer does not act for you, does not provide pharmacy or clinical services to you, and does not form a professional relationship with you. Questions about a file come to us, and we take them to the reviewer.
1d. How findings are produced
Software, including AI models, reads the copy you supply or we capture and produces the initial findings, severity ratings and rewrite options. The reviewer then reviews every finding before delivery. We are responsible for the software and for the findings as delivered.
2. What we don't do
- We do not provide legal advice. Nothing in our reports constitutes an attorney-client relationship.
- We do not warrant that following our recommendations will prevent regulatory action, platform suppression, or private litigation. We make no promise that any risk is reduced or removed.
- We do not audit ingredient safety, product testing, facility compliance, or label design.
- We do not review claims made in surfaces we don't receive (e.g. an ad you didn't send us, a blog post we didn't audit).
- The reviewer does not give legal advice either. Every signed file says it is not legal advice.
2b. No guarantee of outcomes
- Our findings, ratings, and rewrites are professional opinion under the published Claims Verified standards. They say which lines break those standards, why, and what wording the standards allow instead. They do not and cannot guarantee any outcome from any third party, including Amazon or any marketplace, the FDA, FTC or Health Canada, any advertising platform, payment processor, insurer, or acquirer.
- Regulators and platforms apply their own judgment, change their policies, and act on factors beyond marketing copy. A passing verdict is an assessment of your copy against our standards on the scan date, not a shield against enforcement.
2c. What we do promise
- The balance on delivery. If you pay the US$500 deposit, it is applied in full to the fee and the US$1,500 balance is charged only once the signed report is delivered. You can also pay the full fee when you order. Either way, if the delivered report does not match the published sample report in scope, format and reviewer signature, you do not pay, and any amount already paid is refunded in full. The fee is never contingent on the verdict or on satisfaction with it: a reviewer paid only for welcome verdicts is not independent, and independence is what you are buying.
- Upgrade credit. If you buy Launch Clean or Listing Clean and order the full audit within 30 days of paying, the whole US$650 is applied to the audit fee.
- Fix and appeal. If a platform flags a line we cleared, we fix it and back your appeal. No charge. For 12 months after your file is signed, on the full audit and on Listing Clean or Launch Clean alike, this covers any line in the signed file that we cleared and that Amazon, Meta, Google, Walmart or a payment processor then flags. We rewrite it within 2 business days and give you a signed statement of our ruling for your appeal. It does not cover copy changed after the file is signed, claims we flagged that were kept, or the outcome of the appeal. The promise continues for as long as monitoring stays active.
- The fee does not move with the verdict. The price is the same whether your copy passes or fails, and no part of anyone's compensation depends on the number of findings, their severity, or the outcome.
- Thirty days of revisions. If you disagree with a finding, tell us within 30 days of delivery. We take it to the reviewer who signed it, who can go through the reasoning with us and revise the rating where you produce substantiation we had not seen. A revised finding is signed as a new version of the report. The reviewer does not deal with you directly, and any call about a file includes someone from Claims Verified.
- These promises are about our work, which we control. They are deliberately not promises about what any marketplace, platform, processor or regulator will do, because those are not ours to give (see 2b).
2d. What you may say about having been reviewed
This applies to every service we sell, whether or not you ever license the mark: the audit, Launch Clean, monitoring, a diligence review and a warning-letter response.
- The one line you may publish. If you mention the review anywhere you publish (a listing, your website, an ad, packaging, an email, a post or a pitch), use this line, word for word: Marketing claims reviewed [date] by a licensed pharmacist ([jurisdiction]) for Claims Verified. Paid review. Fill in the date signed and the jurisdiction exactly as they appear on your signed file. Otherwise, do not mention the review at all. Those are the only two choices.
- Never “pharmacist-approved”, “pharmacist-endorsed”, “RPh”, “PharmD” or “Dr.”, and never “pharmacist-reviewed” or “reviewed by a pharmacist” without the words “Paid review.” in the same line. The credential on your file belongs to the reviewer and describes their licence, not your product.
- Not “pharmacist approved”. Not “pharmacist recommended”. Not “doctor approved”. Not any wording that implies a health professional endorses the product. Our reviewer reads the wording of your marketing against published rules. In no engagement do they evaluate the product, the formulation, the dose, or the evidence behind it, so in no engagement are they in a position to approve or recommend it. An expert endorsement has to rest on the expert actually applying their expertise to the thing endorsed, and none of our services do that.
- Why the line names what was reviewed. “Pharmacist reviewed” written on its own, in your copy, is ambiguous: a reader takes the product to be the thing reviewed. The approved line says what is true: the marketing claims were reviewed. The object of the sentence is the whole difference. Do not name the reviewer, or use their licence number or signature, anywhere except by showing the signed file itself.
- Why it says “Paid review.” A reader is entitled to know that you paid for it, so the approved line always ends with those words and they may not be dropped or moved away from it.
- Words you may not use about the review: “pharmacist-approved”, “pharmacist-endorsed”, “precleared”, “compliant” and “FDA approved”, or any variation of them. A review is our opinion of your copy on a date. It is not approval, endorsement or clearance by a pharmacist, a regulator or anyone else.
- The mark itself is different, and this is why. The seal reads CLAIMS VERIFIED above PHARMACIST REVIEWED, as one unit: the object is named on the mark. It is also a defined mark whose meaning is fixed, published on your verification page, and revocable if you stretch it. That is what a certification mark is for. The rule above governs sentences you write yourself, where nothing fixes the meaning except the sentence.
- A review is not a verdict about your product. It is a statement about your copy, on a date, against a version of a standard. If you want a claim about the product itself, that is laboratory or clinical work and somebody else does it.
- We would rather lose the sale than have a customer make this claim on the strength of our name. A brand doing it is making exactly the class of claim we are paid to find, which is the fastest way to make both of us look ridiculous.
3. Your responsibilities
- Provide accurate, complete copies (or URLs) of the marketing surfaces you want reviewed. We can only find issues in copy we can see.
- Implement (or have us implement) recommended rewrites promptly if you want your published copy to match the file.
- Show a signed report only whole and unaltered. You can share it with a marketplace, advertising platform, payment processor, insurer, buyer, their advisers or a regulator. Each file says so on every page: show it as evidence that every claim was reviewed. Anyone else relying on it for their own decisions needs our written reliance letter. You cannot extract the reviewer’s name, licence number or signature from it, put them in your marketing, or contact the reviewer directly about a file.
- Notify us promptly of any FDA warning letter, FTC action, platform action, or legal claim received relating to material we reviewed, so we can update our internal precedent.
4. Liability
To the maximum extent permitted by applicable law:
- Our total aggregate liability arising from any audit is capped at the fee paid for that audit.
- We are not liable for indirect, consequential, incidental, or punitive damages.
- We are not liable for regulatory action, platform action, or private litigation against your brand, including actions arising from copy we reviewed and did not flag.
These limitations reflect the fixed-price nature of the service and the fact that risk cannot be eliminated even by a competent review. They are a material part of the pricing structure.
4b. Your contract is with us, not the reviewer
You engage Claims Verified, not the reviewer. You rely on the report as the work of Claims Verified, and not on any personal duty, undertaking or professional relationship of the reviewer. The reviewer owes you no separate duty in contract or otherwise.
To the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, any claim arising from a report, a finding, a rewrite or the review is to be brought against Claims Verified only, and not against the reviewer personally, except for the reviewer’s fraud or wilful misconduct. The limits in section 4 apply to any such claim. The reviewer can rely on and enforce this section as if they were a party to these terms.
This section does not limit any right you have to complain to the reviewer’s licensing body.
5. The certification mark (when licensed)
Brands that pass an audit may license the Claims Verified mark. The licence is included with monitoring at no extra fee, and it lasts while the brand keeps passing and monitoring stays active. The mark license is governed by a separate agreement. The following core rules always apply:
- Display the mark only in the forms we provide (one colour, defined clear space, minimum reproduction size).
- Never modify, recolour, stretch, or otherwise alter the mark.
- Never place the mark adjacent to phrases like “FDA approved”, “safe”, “clinically proven”, “guaranteed”, or any efficacy claim.
- Never imply that the mark means the product was tested, that the ingredients were verified, or that any government agency has endorsed the product.
- Never say “pharmacist approved”, “pharmacist recommended”, “doctor approved”, or any wording that implies a health professional endorses the product. Our reviewer reads the wording of your marketing against published rules. They do not evaluate the product, the formulation, the dose or the evidence for it, and they are not in a position to approve or recommend it. An expert endorsement is a specific kind of claim: it has to rest on the expert actually exercising their expertise on the thing being endorsed, and no review we perform does that. A licensee making it would be making precisely the class of claim this audit exists to find.
- What you may say instead, because it is accurate: the one line in 2d, word for word: Marketing claims reviewed [date] by a licensed pharmacist ([jurisdiction]) for Claims Verified. Paid review. Or nothing at all beside the mark. Never “RPh”, “PharmD”, “Dr.”, “pharmacist-endorsed”, or “pharmacist-reviewed” without “Paid review.” The line is about the review, not the product, and the difference is the whole point. Your public verification page states exactly what the mark means, and that page is the definition a buyer or a platform will read.
- Certification is revocable on misuse. Revocation removes the brand from the public directory and prohibits further display of the mark.
6. Confidentiality
Audit materials you send us are confidential and used only for the audit. We may reference aggregate patterns (e.g. “X% of listings in our sleep-supplement database use phrase Y”) in published research. We never disclose that a specific brand engaged us, or that a specific brand's copy contains a specific violation, without prior written consent, unless the law requires it. The one exception belongs to the reviewer, not to us, and is set out in 6a.
Once you carry the mark, your appearance in the public directory is by definition public (that's the point of the directory).
6a. Safety comes first
We do not report your copy to any marketplace, platform or regulator. There is one exception, and it belongs to the reviewer, not to us.
The reviewer is a licensed health professional with duties to protect public health that no contract can remove. If the reviewer reasonably believes a product or offer poses a serious risk to health (for example, it appears to contain an unapproved drug or a banned ingredient, or its directions could cause harm), they will not sign the file.
Where the risk is not imminent, we will tell you in writing and give you 5 business days to act. Nothing in these terms stops the reviewer from reporting that risk to Health Canada, the FDA, their licensing body or another public authority, if their professional judgment or the law requires it. You agree not to bring any claim against the reviewer or us for a report made in good faith.
Otherwise, we disclose findings only as the law requires.
7. Term and termination
The audit engagement is a one-shot: it terminates on delivery. Monitoring is billed monthly and can be cancelled at any time. It ends at the close of the month already paid. A mark license runs under separate terms and ends when monitoring ends. If a month’s re-scan report is not what the monitoring page describes, that month is refunded in full. Apart from that and the promises in 2c, termination does not entitle either party to a refund of prepaid fees.
8. Governing law
These terms are governed by the laws of the Province of Ontario and the federal laws of Canada applicable therein. Any dispute arising out of these terms is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the Province of Ontario.
9. Changes
We may update these terms. Material changes are noted at the top of this page with a new effective date. For existing engagements and mark licenses, the terms in effect at the date of the signed agreement continue to govern.
Contact
Claims Verified
1200 Bay Street, Suite 1201, Toronto, ON M5R 2A5, Canada
228 Park Ave S, New York, NY 10003, USA
Email: audit@claimsverified.org