Ad Claim Reviewer
Finds the claim that gets the ad rejected, or the account suspended
5 of 8 ad claims need attention.
8 ad claims checked. 5 flagged. The largest gap is 20 days.
Start with AD-04. Social has the most flagged.
Whether a claim is legally allowed in your market is a legal judgement, not in the data.
Why rows were flagged
- Absolute wording without evidence43%
- Live without approval29%
- Number or percentage without evidence29%
Value flagged by Channel
- Social2
- Print1
- Web1
- Radio1
Items to act on, worst first
| Item | Channel | Value | Days live without approval | Why |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AD-04 | 3 | 20 | Absolute wording without evidence, Live without approval | |
| AD-07 | Social | 3 | 5 | Live without approval, Number or percentage without evidence |
| AD-01 | Web | 3 | 0 | Absolute wording without evidence |
| AD-06 | Radio | 3 | 0 | Absolute wording without evidence |
| AD-02 | Social | 2 | 0 | Number or percentage without evidence |
What to do this week
- Resolve AD-04 first: it is the most urgent on the list.
- Fix the data or the status on every flagged row, then re-run.
- Re-run this check every time the list changes, before it reaches a decision.
Do
- Fix the highest-risk item first, then run the check again on fresh data.
Don't
- Don't act on one row alone: open the source record first.
How to improve
- Add more detail per row (owner, date, source) so the next report can trace each item.
- Add a second period of data so the next report can show whether things are improving.
Demo
Overview
Everything writes ad copy now. Almost nothing checks it, and checking is where the cost sits: a rejected ad set loses a launch window, a disallowed claim loses an account, and an unsubstantiated environmental or health claim in the EU or UK costs a great deal more.
This agent reviews copy before it runs. It separates claims that need evidence from opinion that does not, names what evidence each would require, and flags the categories platforms reject on sight — health outcomes, income promises, guaranteed results, before-and-after framing, comparative claims about named competitors.
It also finds what is absent: the disclosure a paid partnership needs, the terms a prize draw needs, the significant conditions hidden behind an asterisk. It reports risk and what would resolve it. It does not tell you an ad is compliant, because nobody can tell you that from the copy alone.
Benefits
Fewer rejected ad sets
Caught before the launch window closes.
Protects the ad account
The repeated small violation is what gets accounts suspended.
Volume-safe
Check fifty AI-written variants as fast as one.
What it does
Separates claim from opinion
"The best coffee in town" needs nothing. "Reduces bills by 30%" needs a study.
Names the evidence required
Not just that a claim is risky — what would actually substantiate it.
Catches the instant-rejection categories
Health outcomes, income promises, guaranteed results, before-and-after, personal attributes.
Finds what is missing
Partnership disclosures, prize draw terms, significant conditions buried in an asterisk.
Checks the landing page too
Most rejections come from the destination, not the ad. It reads both.
Never says compliant
It reports risks and what resolves them. Nobody can certify an ad from its copy.
What this changes
What this changes about your week
- It takes over
- Checking ad copy for claims that need evidence and disclosures that are missing.
- Done today by
- Nobody, until the ad set is rejected or the regulator writes.
- How often
- Every campaign, and every AI-written variant.
- Typical manual effort
- Reviewing fifty variants by hand is a day nobody has.
Why Advertising in particular. Everything writes copy now and almost nothing checks it. A rejected ad set costs a launch window; a bad environmental claim costs considerably more.
Runs unattended
Started by you or by an event, and it finishes on its own. Nothing waits for someone to be at a desk.
The same standard every time
The two-hundredth item is held to the bar the first one was. Consistency is the part people cannot sustain.
It cannot act on its own
Ad Claim Reviewer has no path to sending, spending or committing. That limit is why its output is safe to act on.
How it runs
This agent runs server-side through the PROMIVO runtime. Each run is logged step by step and every tool call is permission-checked before it executes.
- 1InputValidated against the agent input schema
- 2Modelclaude-sonnet-5 with automatic fallback
- 3Toolsfetch_web_page, extract_structured_data
- 4PermissionsRuns READ actions automatically; anything higher waits for approval
- 5OutputStructured result matching the output schema
- 6LoggingTokens, duration and every step recorded
Requirements
Integrations
No integrations required.
Before you start
- The ad copy
- The landing page or its text, where there is one
- Requires the Starter plan or higher
Use cases
Before a campaign launches
Review every variant while changing them is free.
After a rejection
Find what triggered it and what to change.
Auditing AI-generated copy
The generator invented a claim. This finds it.
Pricing
Starter
Billed monthly through your PROMIVO subscription. Cancel at any time.
Runs consume your plan allowance for agent executions and tokens. See plan limits
FAQ
Is this legal advice?
No. It flags claims that commonly require substantiation and disclosures commonly required, and says where a lawyer is needed. Advertising rules vary by country and platform, and it does not attempt to apply them.
Will it tell me the ad is safe to run?
No, and be suspicious of anything that does. Whether a claim is substantiated depends on evidence the copy does not contain.
Which platforms?
It flags claim categories that the major platforms consistently reject. Policies change, so it reports the risk and the reason rather than quoting a rule that may have moved.
Reviews
Reviews open once customers have run this agent.
Need this agent to work differently?
Tell us what to change and our team will scope a customised version for your business.
Customize this agent