Last week in the sauna, I chatted with a successful founder about claims risk. He asked me if random posts from influencers pitching his supplements counted as legal exposure. When I said yes, I think his sweat rate kicked up a notch.
He’s not the only founder sweating this stuff. We’re at a unique time in marketing history. With AI gone mainstream, brands are spraying out content like a frog spraying out eggs. They are praying one or two survive and develop into the real thing.
It’s a losing strategy (read why here). But bulk content marketing has another, more visceral consequence: it increases the surface area for claims risk exponentially.
And the risk isn’t just what you say. It’s what partners say about you, even if you don’t know about it.
This isn’t abstract. This April, the FTC hit TruHeight with a $4m judgment (reduced to $750k because TruHeight couldn’t pay) for unsubstantiated claims related to childhood growth. And my conversations with attorneys in the space suggest that warning letters are arriving more rapidly than ever. Not to mention the other big dog: the FDA, which scrutinizes labels among other things.
Two things are happening at once:
- The AI content flood means more violations for officials to sniff out
- The FTC has become stricter since their updated guidelines in 2022
On number two, the FTC requires real science to substantiate claims—well-designed human trials that reflect a consensus of scientific knowledge. Even a perfectly-calibrated compliance bot can’t handle this nuance.
I speak from experience. I’ve built bots for clients and tested others that smart people built. They flag risky language, but can’t rewrite persuasively or catch bad studies like a skilled science marketing person can.
With that in mind, the first line of defense is to get your claims right the first time around. That keeps exposure low. The second is a contingency plan if an FTC warning letter arrives. In either case, you’ll want a skilled science generalist and legal counsel on speed dial. I’m a science marketing guy, so I’ll share two quick examples from my world.
A couple years ago, I did a deep scientific analysis to substantiate the formula of a category-leading electrolyte brand. Later, I worked alongside their lawyer to audit their content library for compliance. Both moves were on the prevention side, but brands also make them after the legal threat becomes explicit. The work is similar, but one is less stressful.
Which brings me back to what makes founders sweat. AI can blast out volume, but it comes with a high price tag: legal exposure. There isn’t a snap solution to this concern. You need smart humans who know the space watching your front, back, and everywhere in between.
I help wellness brands with science advisory and claims review.
If you’d like to chat, you can reach me here.
