/marketing-claims-review

name: marketing-claims-review
description: >
  Review marketing copy for claims that need substantiation, reframing, or cutting.
  Use when the user says "review this marketing copy", "check these claims",
  "can we say this", "is this puffery or a problem", or pastes marketing content
  (landing pages, emails, ads, taglines).
argument-hint: "[paste copy, or file path]"

/marketing-claims-review

1. Load `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/product-legal/CLAUDE.md` → Marketing claims standards. 2. Apply the claim taxonomy and review workflow below. 3. Extract every claim. Classify: puffery / factual / comparative / implied / absolute. 4. For each non-puffery claim: substantiation check, suggested fix. 5. Output: claim-by-claim with calls, suggested revision if short enough.

/product-legal:marketing-claims-review
[paste landing page copy]

---

Matter context

**Matter context.** Check `## Matter workspaces` in the practice-level CLAUDE.md. If `Enabled` is `✗` (the default for in-house users), skip the rest of this paragraph — skills use practice-level context and the matter machinery is invisible. If enabled and there is no active matter, ask: "Which matter is this for? Run `/product-legal:matter-workspace switch <slug>` or say `practice-level`." Load the active matter's `matter.md` for matter-specific context and overrides. Write outputs to the matter folder at `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/product-legal/matters/<matter-slug>/`. Never read another matter's files unless `Cross-matter context` is `on`.

---

Purpose

Marketing wants to say the product is the best. Legal needs it to be true, or at least not provably false. This skill finds the claims that will get a demand letter from a competitor or an inquiry from a regulator, and suggests how to keep the energy while fixing the exposure.

Load standards

Read `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/product-legal/CLAUDE.md` → `## Marketing claims`:

• Comparative claims policy (allowed with substantiation / discouraged / never)
• Substantiation standard (what's required before a claim ships)
• Common rejected claims (learn from history)

Research the applicable standards before clearing copy

Research the currently operative advertising and substantiation standards for the applicable jurisdictions and media (for example, FTC, NAD, state UDAP regimes, sector regulators for healthcare / financial / children's products, and platform-specific policies). Identify what substantiation the *specific claim* requires — who measured it, when, sample size, apples-to-apples basis — not just whether *some* substantiation exists on file. Flag implied claims and comparative claims for heightened scrutiny. Verify currency: endorsement and review guides have been updated recently and continue to evolve. Cite primary sources with pinpoint references. If you cannot verify the current standard, flag for attorney verification — do not state a rule you haven't confirmed.

> **Only cite the standards that apply to the specific claims under review.** A blanket list of every FTC guideline, NAD practice note, or sector rule makes the load-bearing ones invisible. Do not cite the Endorsement Guides (16 CFR Part 255) unless the copy contains an endorsement, testimonial, or influencer content. Do not cite disclosure-overlay rules unless a claim in the asset triggers the overlay. Do not cite a sector regulator unless the copy targets or implicates that sector. A standard earns its place in the output by mapping to a specific quoted claim; otherwise drop it.

> **No silent supplement.** If a research query to the configured legal research tool returns few or no results for the applicable standard (FTC rule, NAD decision, state UDAP, sector rule, platform policy), report what was found and stop. Do NOT fill the gap from web search or model knowledge without asking. Say: "The search returned [N] results from [tool]. Coverage appears thin for [standard / jurisdiction]. Options: (1) broaden the search query, (2) try a different research tool, (3) search the web — results will be tagged `[web search — verify]` and should be checked against the issuing authority before relying, or (4) flag as unverified and stop. Which would you like?" A lawyer decides whether to accept lower-confidence sources. > > **Source attribution tiering.** Tag every citation with its source. For model-knowledge citations, use one of three tiers rather than a single blanket "verify" tag: > > - `[settled]` — stable, well-known statutory and regulatory references unlikely to have changed (e.g., FTC Act § 5, Lanham Act § 43(a) as a concept). Still verify before approving copy, but lower priority. > - `[verify]` — model-knowledge citations that are real but should be verified: specific FTC enforcement actions, NAD decisions, state UDAP statutes, sector-specific rules, platform policies, case holdings, thresholds, effective dates, recent updates (the Endorsement Guides and disclosure rules update frequently). > - `[verify-pinpoint]` — pinpoint citations (specific subsection letters, CFR subpart references, case paragraph numbers) carry the highest fabrication risk and should ALWAYS be verified against a primary source. > > Tool-retrieved citations keep their source tag (`[Westlaw]`, `[CourtListener]`, `[FTC site]`, `[NAD]`, `[platform policy]`, or the MCP tool name); web-search citations remain `[web search — verify]`; user-supplied citations (from substantiation files) remain `[user provided]`. The tiering surfaces the real verification work — a reader who verifies everything verifies nothing. Never strip or collapse the tags.

Claim taxonomy

The categories below are structural patterns the reviewer should be able to recognize. Whether a given phrase is actionable depends on the currently operative rule in the applicable jurisdiction, the specific substantiation available, and the audience — research that before concluding.

Vague / subjective cla