Pet supplement companies face stricter FDA, FTC, and retailer scrutiny than human supplement makers, with warning letters triggered by disease claims, unsubstantiated marketing, and improper use of testimonials and social media content. Compliance requires careful claim language, robust substantiation, proper engagement policies for reviews, and awareness that all marketing—including blogs, videos, and social media—is considered product labeling.
- Pet supplements receive higher regulatory scrutiny than human supplements; softening words like 'may help' or 'suggested' don't protect against disease claim violations
- Disease claims appear in unexpected places—ingredient sections, Facebook photos, hashtags, and implied messaging can all trigger FDA enforcement action
- Testimonials and third-party reviews become product marketing the moment a company engages with them, including likes, replies, or sharing on social media
- Substantiation must be current and comprehensive; claims like 'clinically proven' or 'No. 1 vet recommended' require ongoing surveys, regional data, and detailed documentation
- All online content is subject to review—websites, blogs, videos, images, and Amazon listings are considered labeling; the closer content is to the purchase point, the more scrutiny it receives
Recent FDA warning letters, class-action lawsuits and National Advertising Division (NAD) cases offer animal supplement companies practical lessons for avoiding marketing compliance problems, according to Asa Waldstein, principal of Apex Compliance, a NASC Preferred Supplier.
Waldstein presented "Lessons from Recent Animal Supplement Enforcement: Building a Smarter Marketing Compliance Process" during a National Animal Supplement Council (NASC) webinar. Waldstein, who has worked in the supplement industry for 25 years, writes the weekly Warning Letter Wednesday series on enforcement trends.
He said companies face risk from several directions: the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which oversees safety, labeling and disease claims; the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which oversees truth in advertising; retailers such as Amazon and Whole Foods, which set their own requirements; and class-action attorneys.
A warning letter is public record and can limit investment and acquisition opportunities, Waldstein said. He added that plaintiff attorneys often copy warning letters into demand letters or lawsuits, which companies usually settle.
“You do not want warning letters,” he said.
Claim language draws scrutiny
“In my opinion, animal supplement products tend to have a higher degree of scrutiny than human supplements,” Waldstein said.
Claims such as reducing anxious feelings, or certain sensitive terms, may not prompt a warning letter for a human product. “From a human FDA point of view, usually that’s not enough to tip the scale into a warning letter, but in animal product claims, that sometimes is enough,” he said.
Waldstein advised companies to follow NASC standards for structure/function claims. Disease claims about ingredients a company sells become claims about its products, even when they appear in an ingredient section of a website or on social media rather than on a product page.
Softening words such as “thought to,” “suggested” or “may help” do not protect a company making disease claims.
Claims without high-risk words can still draw attention when the overall net impression implies a disease claim. Waldstein cited a warning letter referencing a Facebook page and cat photos that together implied such claims.
“We want to be extra careful, even if we’re not using these super high-risk words,” he said.
Testimonials, social media and Amazon
Testimonials are considered claims, Waldstein said. Uncurated, uncompensated reviews posted through third-party widgets fall into a gray area until a company engages with them.
“The moment that we engage with them, say thanks, copy and paste them into social media, put them in a banner, use them in our marketing at all, that’s when it crosses from third-party reviews into product marketing,” he said.
That includes liking a customer’s post or replying with an emoji. “If you engage with it, it’s considered endorsing the testimonial, and therefore it becomes product labeling and marketing,” Waldstein said.
“All marketing is an extension of the label,” he said. “When in doubt, fight the urge to engage with those third-party reviews, and certainly don’t use them in your marketing.”
FDA issued a group of warning letters last year over claims related to neurological conditions in animal products, many involving Amazon listings. One cited product carried a disease name in its title. Waldstein said such batches of letters are “intended to cast a signal to the industry.”
He said Amazon’s automated compliance tools might not understand the nuances of different product queries and claims.
“Be really careful with any claims you put on Amazon,” Waldstein said. “More and more we’re seeing companies’ products be delisted.”
Substantiation, comparative claims and litigation
“You must have data to back up your claims,” Waldstein said.
He compared substantiation to a driver’s license, which is required by law but rarely checked. “You could go for years and years and never get pulled over and have to show your driver’s license,” he said. “The same thing with substantiation.”
The more a company leans into claims such as “clinically proven,” the more likely it is to be asked for its substantiation file, he said.
Competitors often challenge each other’s advertising through NAD, which operates within BBB National Programs. “This is where competitors oftentimes hash it out,” Waldstein said. “That’s where a lot of case law is being developed.”
He described an NAD case in which one maker of flea and tick collars challenged a competitor’s advertising. NAD found “No. 1 vet recommended active ingredients” supported, but not “No. 1 brand in total flea and tick solutions” or “No. 1 fastest growing flea and tick brand.” Growth claims are typically measured by units sold rather than revenue, he said.
“Just be careful with very broad best-selling or No. 1 claims,” Waldstein said.
Supporting a claim such as “No. 1 vet recommended” requires surveys of veterinarians across U.S. regions, a clearly defined product category, a survey design that isn’t misleading, and current, dated data, he said. “You couldn’t just study vets on the West Coast.”
“You have to continue ongoing diligence, so you can’t just do it once,” he added.
Citing peer-reviewed research is not wrong, Waldstein said, but referencing it in product marketing implies the product is clinically proven. “Those studies very much have to match your strength,” he said.
Listing links to studies hosted elsewhere, such as PubMed, carries less risk. “Generally speaking, that’s considered fair discussion of the scientific literature,” he said. Promoting those studies with disease language, however, amounts to a disease claim.
FDA reviews websites, blogs and videos
With reduced staffing, FDA has turned to warning letters based on website reviews rather than facility inspections, Waldstein said.
He described a Colorado company that received a Form 483 inspectional observation in October 2025. When FDA reviewed the company’s website in April, it found disease claims, which he said likely led to a warning letter. Companies that have been inspected should review their websites and social media for disease claims, he said.
In another warning letter, FDA noted a domestic cat roaming freely in a warehouse. “Cats are not OK for pest control,” Waldstein said.
Blogs that discuss ingredients or products a company sells in disease terms are considered labeling, he said. “The closer it is to where consumers buy the product, the more likely it is to be scrutinized.”
Blogs about ingredients a company does not sell carry less risk, but that content should be revisited if the company later adds the ingredient. “Make sure you’re cleaning up your online content,” Waldstein said.
Videos that discuss products in disease terms and link to a shopping cart are subject to enforcement. “That is the commercial bridge,” he said. “That is the bridge to commerce.”
Hashtags that include product or ingredient names also tie posts to marketing. “Be careful with hashtags because they certainly are considered product marketing,” Waldstein said.
“Images are considered claims,” he added, noting that software can find text within images posted 10 or more years ago.
During the webinar, Waldstein demonstrated an AI-assisted review tool developed by Apex Compliance, using it to flag disease, implied, performance and endorsement claims in a sample product brochure.
Reviews, disclaimers and retailers
When it comes to customer reviews, Waldstein said companies that leave them as-is face little risk. Companies that hide or delete reviews, however, should apply a written policy equally to favorable and unfavorable comments, he said, noting FTC action against companies that suppressed low-star reviews. Profanity, hate speech and off-topic comments can generally be removed under such a policy.
“Have a policy,” Waldstein said. “Start with the policy, then follow that policy.”
Adding a legal disclaimer to marketing offers little protection, he said. “It’s not a get-out-of-jail-free card,” he explained. “I think of it as the compliance version of ‘with all due respect.’
“We probably can’t disclaim our way out of it,” he added.
Retailers such as Costco and Whole Foods often hold claims to higher standards than FDA or FTC, Waldstein said, driven by litigation risk and concerns about adulteration. “Costco is very, very strict with their substantiation requirements for on-package claims,” he said.
Warning letters go mostly to brands rather than business-to-business ingredient suppliers. “In real-world practicality, it’s mostly the consumer-facing, direct-to-consumer brands,” Waldstein said.
Still, suppliers should consider how customers use their research. “I wouldn’t want my customers to then copy and paste my clinical research onto their finished product website and then get a warning letter,” he said.
Companies are responsible for claims made by influencers, affiliates and others they compensate. “If there is a direct commercial relationship, you’re responsible for what they say,” Waldstein said.
That is not the case for independent third-party sellers. “If someone takes your product and you don’t have a direct commercial business relationship with them, it’s very unlikely that you would be scrutinized,” he said.
