marketing-claims-review

Marketing copy review breaks text into individual claims and labels each as puffery, factual, comparative, implied, or absolute. This classification determines which marketing claims require substantiation evidence before you can safely publish the copy.

Puffery vs factual claims distinguishes subjective, exaggerated statements from verifiable assertions. In advertising compliance, puffery is non-actionable opinion, while factual claims require substantiation. Claim-by-claim extraction separates these categories to flag only statements that legally require evidence.

Reviewing landing page copy for comparative advertising risks involves extracting each comparative claim and checking it against substantiation standards. The process flags claims comparing your product to competitors that lack supporting evidence, then provides suggested revisions or removals to reduce enforcement risk.

Yes, claim-by-claim review applies to emails, ads, taglines, and landing pages. The process extracts each promotional statement, classifies it by claim type, checks available substantiation, and outputs structured fixes with shipping readiness decisions for any marketing text you provide.

The best way to fix risky marketing statements is through structured redlines that suggest specific revisions per claim. After identifying statements needing substantiation, reframing, or removal, the workflow provides actionable next steps and a decision structure for what to ship versus escalate.

Yes, advertising compliance requires jurisdiction-appropriate rule research before approving changes. The review workflow prompts you to research operative substantiation rules for applicable jurisdictions and channels, ensuring claim classifications and suggested fixes align with relevant legal standards.