Loading…
Paste the creative. See where “erases wrinkles” or “stimulates collagen” crosses the FD&C cosmetic-vs-drug line, and the lawful “appearance of” rewrite that keeps the hook.
Judged against the regulator (FTC) and Meta’s ad policy. Sign in to check other markets.
Between 20 and 2000 characters.
1 free check now · 8 more after sign-up · no card
FD&C Act §201(g)/(i) [21 USC §321] — the cosmetic-vs-drug line
FTC §5 substantiation + Endorsement Guides 16 CFR §255 (2023)
MoCRA (2022) cosmetic safety substantiation
FTC Green Guides 16 CFR §260 + Meta/Google appearance policy
Covers cosmetic / skincare / haircare / fragrance ad copy and flags the cosmetic→drug crossover (FD&C §201(g)/(i)) plus unsubstantiated efficacy, endorsement-disclosure, and green-claim failures. It does NOT cover OTC-monograph drugs (sunscreen SPF, anti-dandruff, acne actives), injectables / Rx topicals, or medical devices — it is the claim-line reviewer, not the OTC-drug rule set.
Not a risk score. The specific words that break the rule, highlighted in your copy.
Approved rewrites that keep the hook. One variant at a time — ask for another if it isn't the one.
Stop losing impressions to rejections you could've caught before you spent a cent.
Three plans, same classifier, same depth on every check. Volume is the only thing that changes between Operator and Studio.
Built by people who've run the ads, not a compliance desk reading rules. A working tool, not a guarantee: every finding cites the policy line we matched, and every override is logged, so you decide what to run.