The claim that converts is worthless if the listing gets pulled.
Growth teams live between two walls: copy that’s too timid to sell, and copy that gets ads rejected and listings delisted. The EU Register defines what you can say. We make it usable: flag the violations, suggest the nearest permitted wording, keep the copy alive.
Free to join. Compliance modules in early access.
One sentence of copy can take down a campaign.
- Platforms enforce health claim policies because they face regulatory pressure in the markets they operate in. Meta, Google, and Amazon each have policies against health claims on supplements — ad rejections often mirror the same logic as EU regulatory non-compliance, because the underlying rule is the same: you cannot imply an unauthorized therapeutic effect.
- 43.8% of protein supplements analyzed on Amazon and Google Shopping carried health claims not authorized under Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006.¹ The gap between what brands say and what is permitted is large — and growing more expensive to ignore as enforcement tightens.
- The answer is not timid copy. The EU Register contains hundreds of authorized claims with specific permitted wording. The constraint is not ‘say nothing’ — it is ‘say it correctly.’ The brands that understand the Register write copy that converts and survives review.
From violation to permitted copy.
Claim listing control
See how your products and claims currently appear in the Suplementor catalog — 200k+ formulations indexed. Correct normalized data and get the verified brand badge — the same badge agents see when querying product data.
Claims checker
Paste product page copy, ad text, or a label. Every health and nutrition claim is flagged against the EU Register of nutrition and health claims: authorized, on-hold (botanical claims), or prohibited.
Nearest permitted wording
For each violation, the checker suggests the nearest authorized claim — so your copywriter has a starting point that converts within the permitted boundaries, not a blank page.
Competitor claim monitoring
See what claims competitors currently run in the catalog. Spot unauthorized patterns before you copy them — and identify the authorized language your market is converging on.
Frequently asked questions
Why do supplement ads get rejected on Meta and Google?
Meta, Google, and similar platforms have policies against health claims that imply a supplement can treat, cure, or prevent a medical condition. These policies exist partly in response to EU and US regulatory pressure on platform liability for health misinformation. In practice, the same claim that fails EFSA evaluation — because it implies a therapeutic benefit not authorized under Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 — is often the claim that triggers an ad rejection. The underlying logic is the same: the claim must not exceed what is permitted for a food supplement.
Can I use customer testimonials that mention health effects on my product page?
A customer testimonial that implies an unauthorized health benefit is still a health claim under Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 — the claim's legal status is not changed by putting it in someone else's words. If a testimonial says 'this product cured my joint pain' or 'my immune system improved dramatically,' and those effects are not authorized by the EU Register, the testimonial presents the same compliance risk as a brand claim. Testimonials that describe taste, convenience, or general satisfaction do not typically raise claim issues.
Can I link to clinical studies from my product page without making a claim?
Linking to studies is not automatically a claim — but context matters. If the study link is placed directly next to an ingredient and implies the ingredient provides the studied benefit, regulators and platform reviewers are likely to treat it as an implied health claim. The safest approach is to discuss the evidence in neutral, non-therapeutic language and avoid creating an implied benefit statement. This area is fact-specific and benefits from regulatory legal review before publication.
Is 'supports' safer than 'boosts' for supplement copy?
No. Wording games do not change claim status under Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006. The regulation does not exempt claims because they use softer verbs. 'Supports immune function' is not automatically compliant just because it avoids 'boosts.' What matters is whether the claim as a whole implies a relationship between the ingredient and a health outcome. If it does, it needs to match an authorized claim in the EU Register with the exact permitted wording. 'Supports' language that is not in the Register is still non-compliant.
The claim that converts is worthless if the listing gets pulled.
Free to join. Compliance modules in early access.
¹ Rodríguez-Hernández et al., 2025 — analysis of 209 health claims on protein supplements sold via Amazon and Google Shopping.