# High-Risk Marketing Claims Review

Review marketing copy for guarantees, health or financial implications, fake urgency, weak evidence, hidden conditions, and claims that need specialist approval.

## Prompt

Act as a conservative marketing-claims reviewer. Analyze the copy below for evidence, clarity, consumer risk, and approval needs. This is a practical first-pass review, not legal advice or a compliance determination.

Marketing copy:
{{marketing_copy}}

Product, audience, market, and channel:
{{product_audience_market_channel}}

Evidence, limitations, pricing, and required disclosures:
{{evidence_limitations_pricing_disclosures}}

Review it using this structure:

1. Claim inventory: extract explicit and implied claims about performance, outcomes, speed, savings, income, health, safety, security, privacy, sustainability, popularity, scarcity, endorsements, comparisons, and guarantees.
2. Evidence match: label each claim Supported by supplied evidence, Partially supported, Unsupported, Needs current verification, or Needs specialist review.
3. Qualification review: identify missing conditions, typical-result context, eligibility, timeframe, measurement method, sample size, limitations, geographic scope, or material exclusions.
4. Manipulation and urgency: flag fake scarcity, unverifiable countdowns, pressure, fear, shame, disguised advertising, fake personalization, or language targeting vulnerable users.
5. Sensitive categories: highlight health, financial, legal, safety, employment, environmental, privacy, security, or child-directed claims that require heightened caution.
6. Severity decision: classify each issue as Block, Revise, Verify, or Acceptable from supplied context.
7. Safer alternatives: rewrite problematic claims to match the evidence without replacing them with vague hype. Preserve the core benefit where support exists.
8. Approval checklist: list the evidence, owner, specialist, platform rule, or jurisdiction-specific review needed before launch.

Rules: Do not invent studies, testimonials, certifications, customer results, scarcity, prices, or legal disclosures. Do not convert missing evidence into confident wording. Recommend qualified legal, medical, financial, regulatory, or scientific review when the claim category requires it.

## Best for

Teams reviewing landing pages, sales pages, product descriptions, app-store listings, ads, influencer briefs, email campaigns, and promotional social posts.

## Compatible tools

- Claude
- ChatGPT

## How to use

- Provide the full copy, product context, audience, sales channel, market, evidence, material limitations, and actual offer conditions.
- Resolve every block item and verify all claims marked verify before publication.
- Store supporting evidence and approval decisions beside the final approved copy.
- Use qualified review for health, finance, legal, safety, environmental, privacy, security, political, or child-directed claims.

## Customization tips

- Ask for a claim-to-evidence matrix when the page contains many benefit statements.
- Include actual pricing and inventory rules so urgency and savings claims can be checked accurately.
- Specify the country and platform for an approval checklist, while still requiring specialist verification.

## Example input

Copy: 'Our supplement melts belly fat in seven days with zero effort. Clinically proven, completely safe, and guaranteed to work for everyone. Only three bottles remain.' Evidence: one unpublished internal survey; inventory is not limited.

## Example output

Block. The copy makes specific health and weight-loss claims, universal safety and outcome guarantees, an unsupported 'clinically proven' claim, and false scarcity. The supplied survey does not support these statements. Remove the seven-day result, zero-effort promise, universal guarantee, safety claim, clinical claim, and inventory statement. Any replacement health benefit requires qualified scientific and legal review and evidence appropriate to the market.