For telehealth brands, MSOs & the marketers who run their ads

Your lawyer tells you whether a claim was substantiated. Veritura keeps it substantiated.

A legal substantiation review is a snapshot: it grades your claims once, hands you a memo, and starts going out of date the day it lands. But the rule is not a snapshot. Under the FTC's prior-substantiation doctrine, you need a reasonable basis for every objective claim before it runs, and that basis must keep supporting the claim for as long as it runs. Veritura is the system that keeps the evidence behind each claim on file, current, and producible in one click.

Why now

Enforcement moved into exactly this market.

The record-keeping is the case. In 2025 the agencies stopped treating unsupported ad claims as a paperwork problem.

FTC · 2025

FTC v. NextMed

A telehealth GLP-1 marketer was charged in part over a weight-loss claim it had no records to support. The FTC's core allegation was the missing substantiation itself. The final order landed in December 2025. The lesson brands took: the missing record was the case.

FDA · Sept 2025

The telehealth letter wave

FDA warned dozens of telehealth companies over compounded GLP-1 marketing, targeting "sameness" claims, safety and effectiveness claims for unapproved drugs, and ads that obscured who compounds the product. FTC (the ad) and FDA (the drug) now move together.

FTC · penalty offenses

~$50k per violation

The FTC's Notice of Penalty Offenses on substantiation put hundreds of health marketers on "actual knowledge," arming civil penalties of roughly $50,000 per violation for lacking a reasonable basis or misrepresenting the level or type of proof. On a national campaign, the per-violation math is existential.

Add the private referee brands hit first: a challenge at the National Advertising Division inverts the burden. Once you are challenged, you produce the substantiation, fast and organized, on a clock as short as 20 business days. A standing, current file is the difference between a two-day response and a fire drill.

What it does

Substantiation as a living system, not a memo.

The claim register

Every objective claim you run, held as a governed record: exact wording, the channels it runs on, its first-run date, the evidence bound behind it, and a dated history. The history is the product: it shows substantiation existed before the claim ran, and every day since, which a static memo can never show.

Living rot alerts the differentiator

Veritura already watches everything your evidence points to. When a document expires, a supplier lands on an FDA list, or a snapshot goes stale, the claim resting on it flips to "needs attention" the same day, with the suggested action. This is the FTC "continue to support" duty, running as a feed. Nobody else treats substantiation this way.

The substantiation binder

One button, per claim or the whole register: a dated file with the claim text, run dates, every evidence item with its hash and as-of date, and the full monitoring history. Built for a NAD SWIFT clock and an FTC inquiry, so day one of a challenge is assembly-free.

Public claim pages

Publish a white-labeled proof page for your brand, and give each claim a short citation link. Your ad's fine print carries the link; the reader sees exactly what documentation is on file behind that sentence, dated. An ad that footnotes itself, and a conversion edge: "see what is on file" beats "trust me."

Feature to outcome

Each feature is the operational form of a rule you already owe.

The dutyWhat you get
Substantiation must exist before a claim is disseminatedA dated claim register that timestamps the evidence behind a claim before it runs
Substantiation must keep supporting the claim for as long as it runsLiving rot alerts that flag a claim the day its evidence changes
Substantiation must be producible on demand, fast and organizedA one-button substantiation binder, standing and current, per claim or whole brand
The level and type of proof must match the claimA claim rewriter that returns the checkable, documentation-level version of an overclaim
Marketing and legal answer for the same claimsOne shared register both teams work from: same claims, same evidence status, same flags

The honest core is the rewriter. Take "rigorously tested" and get back the version you can prove, "testing documentation on file and independently reviewed for every lot," plus the evidence that makes it checkable. A smaller claim you can back beats a bigger one that draws an inquiry.

Your lawyer tells you whether a claim was substantiated. Veritura keeps it substantiated.

A single campaign substantiation review runs roughly $5,000 to $25,000 in specialist counsel fees, and it produces a static memo that starts rotting the day it is delivered. A subscription that keeps every claim continuously substantiated, producible in one click, and auto-flagged when the facts change costs less than one campaign's review. See the plans below.

Pricing

One brand, a group of brands, or a whole network.

Self-serve for a single brand or an MSO managing several. Larger networks are a conversation. Every plan is the same living register, binder, and public pages; the boundary holds on all of them: documentation evidence, never legal advice or a claim of compliance.

Brand

$199/mo per brand

One brand's claim register: the living register, rot alerts, the one-button substantiation binder, and white-labeled public claim pages. Add a second brand any time at the same per-brand rate, or move up to the MSO platform.

Activate the Brand tier

MSO platform

$999/mo, up to 10 brands

The multi-brand bundle for a group operator: manage up to ten brands' registers under one account, each with its own binder and public pages. Built for MSOs and marketing teams running several brands at once.

Activate the MSO platform

Enterprise

Custom

For larger networks: more than ten brands, SSO, volume terms, and a shared register across the whole portfolio. We scope it with you.

Talk to us

For context, a single campaign substantiation review runs roughly $5,000 to $25,000 in specialist counsel fees and produces a static memo. These plans keep every claim continuously substantiated for a fraction of that, and they never assert a claim is legal, compliant, or FDA-approved.

The honest boundary

We manage the evidence. Your counsel practices the law.

We do

Hold each claim's documentation evidence as a dated, hashed record; classify wording by the type of evidence it needs; suggest checkable, documentation-level rewrites; watch the bound evidence and flag a claim the day it changes; and produce a standing substantiation file on demand.

We do not

Give legal advice · tell you a claim is legal, compliant, or FDA-approved · test physical product · certify quality or safety · or decide what the law requires. Veritura manages documentation evidence; it is not a law firm, and the product is a gift to your counsel, not a replacement.

Documentation evidence, not legal advice. Every register, binder, and public page carries that boundary on its face. Invite your outside counsel into a read-only view of the register and binder, so their review gets faster and they stay in the loop.

See it on your own copy.

Paste an ad and get a claim map in seconds, free, no signup. Then open a workspace to hold the evidence behind each claim.