Animal Supplement Makers Face Growing Marketing Compliance Risks From Regulators and Rivals

Companies that sell animal supplements are being pushed from several directions at once. According to Asa Waldstein, principal of Apex Compliance and a NASC Preferred Supplier, recent FDA warning letters, class-action lawsuits and National Advertising Division cases offer practical lessons on how marketing claims go wrong.

Several Enforcers Watch the Same Claims

Waldstein described risk coming from four sources. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration oversees safety, labeling and disease claims. The Federal Trade Commission oversees truth in advertising. Retailers such as Amazon and Whole Foods set their own requirements, and class-action attorneys look for violations to sue over.

A warning letter from the FDA is public record, and Waldstein said it can limit investment and acquisition opportunities. Plaintiff attorneys often copy warning letters into demand letters or lawsuits, and companies usually settle those cases. "You do not want warning letters," he said.

Claim Language and Net Impression

Waldstein said animal supplements tend to draw more scrutiny than human supplements. Language about reducing anxious feelings may not trigger a warning letter for a human product, but he said for animal products that kind of wording sometimes is enough.

Hedging does not solve the problem. Words such as "thought to," "suggested" or "may help" do not protect a company that makes disease claims. Claims without high-risk terms can still be flagged when the overall net impression implies a disease claim. Waldstein cited a warning letter that referenced a Facebook page and cat photos that together suggested such claims.

Testimonials, Social Media and Retail Listings

Waldstein said testimonials count as claims. Uncurated reviews collected through third-party widgets sit in a gray area until a company engages with them. Liking a post, thanking a customer or copying a review into a banner can turn it into product marketing, he said. "When in doubt, fight the urge to engage with those third-party reviews, and certainly don't use them in your marketing."

Waldstein also cautioned about Amazon listings. FDA issued a batch of warning letters last year over neurological claims, many tied to Amazon products, and he said such batches are meant to signal the industry. He noted that Amazon's automated tools may not grasp the nuances of claims, and more products are being delisted.

Substantiation and Competitor Challenges

"You must have data to back up your claims," Waldstein said. He compared substantiation to a driver's license: it is required but rarely checked. The more a company uses terms such as "clinically proven," the more likely it is to be asked for its substantiation file.

Competitors often challenge each other through the National Advertising Division, which operates within BBB National Programs. In one case described by Waldstein, a flea and tick collar maker's "No. 1 vet recommended active ingredients" claim was supported, but broader "No. 1 brand" and growth claims were not. Growth claims are typically measured by units sold rather than revenue, he said. A "No. 1 vet recommended" claim requires current surveys of veterinarians across U.S. regions, a clearly defined product category and a sound survey design.

Waldstein added that citing peer-reviewed research can be fair when it is presented as scientific literature, but using studies to promote disease outcomes amounts to a disease claim.

Limits and Practical Steps

Waldstein offered several cautions. Blogs, videos and hashtags that discuss a company's own products in disease terms can be treated as labeling, especially when they link to a shopping cart. Images are also treated as claims, and software can locate text within images posted many years earlier.

Waldstein also said a legal disclaimer offers little protection. "We probably can't disclaim our way out of it," he said. Companies that hide or delete reviews should apply a written policy equally to favorable and unfavorable comments. Companies are responsible for claims made by influencers or affiliates they pay, but generally not for independent third-party sellers without a direct business relationship.

• Audit websites, social media and product listings for disease and implied claims.
• Maintain dated substantiation files and refresh them regularly.
• Apply a written review policy and avoid engaging with third-party testimonials.
• Check retailer requirements, which can be stricter than federal standards.