Dietary supplements brands walk a regulatory tightrope with every ad they publish. An AI reviewer trained on the regulator's claim rules checks all copy before it ships, flags risky phrasing with suggested rewrites and logs every approval, so risky claims are caught before they go live.
Typical results
0
Flagged violations once live
3 min
AI review per asset
45/wk
Assets cleared, up from 12
100%
Approvals logged for audit
Figures reflect typical results for this kind of automation.
The challenge
Health claims in supplements marketing are a legal minefield: one 'cures' instead of 'supports' can trigger fines and a forced recall of the campaign. Every ad, email, and product page waited days for an outside lawyer's review, launches slipped, and the brand had already received two regulator warnings for phrasing that slipped through.
Before and after
Draft-to-approved turnaround
−99%Marketing assets cleared per week
3.8×Copy escalated to outside counsel
−92%The automation
We trained an AI reviewer on the regulator's claim rules and the brand's own legal guidance, then wired it into the content workflow: every ad, email, and product page passes through it automatically before publishing. Risky phrasing is highlighted inline with a compliant rewrite suggested next to it, marketers accept or escalate with one click, and every version, flag, and approval is timestamped into an audit log the lawyers can pull at any time.
How it works
- 01
Rules encoded
The regulator's claim rules and the brand's legal guidance become the AI reviewer's rulebook.
- 02
Every asset in
Ads, emails, and product pages flow through the reviewer automatically before publishing.
- 03
Flag and rewrite
Risky phrasing is highlighted inline with a compliant rewrite suggested beside it.
- 04
One-click decision
Marketers accept the rewrite, edit it, or escalate genuinely gray cases to counsel.
- 05
Audit log
Every version, flag, and approval is timestamped and stored for regulator audits.
Starts from
- Ads, emails, pages
- Regulator claim rules
Delivers
- Risky phrasing flagged
- Suggested rewrites
- Audit-ready approval log
The impact
Risky claims are caught before publishing instead of in a regulator's letter. Copy review typically drops from a four-day legal wait to about three minutes of self-serve checking, output can more than triple to around 45 assets a week, and outside counsel reviews only the genuinely gray cases the AI escalates.
Questions about this automation
How does the AI reviewer know which claims are risky?
Its rulebook is built from the regulator's claim rules and the brand's own legal guidance, including forbidden and permitted wording, such as 'cures' versus 'supports'. Each ad, email or product page is checked against those rules, and risky phrasing is highlighted inline with a compliant rewrite suggested beside it.
Does the AI replace the brand's legal counsel?
No. Marketers accept or edit the suggested rewrite in clear-cut cases, and anything genuinely gray is escalated to counsel with one click. Lawyers spend their time on the hard calls, and the rulebook is updated whenever counsel issues new guidance or the regulator changes its position on a claim.
What does the audit log record?
Every version of each asset, every flag the reviewer raised, the rewrite chosen and the person who approved it, all timestamped. The log is searchable by asset, date or campaign, so the brand can pull a full review trail for any piece of published copy when a regulator or auditor asks for one.