The words look ordinary. What matters is the purpose they describe, and that can sit in an image.
For cases we accept: the historical and current claim inventory across every surface, the product's actual intended use, and verification that the correction reached each one.
A real person reads your case and replies within about an hour.
ASA Compliance Group operates Amazon Sellers Appeal. On claims files we inventory every surface, correct what moved the classification, and verify the live result in Seller Central.
Include the flagged wording if it is named, what the product actually does, and the packaging and instructions. Four short steps. Or Shamosh reads every intake.
Or Shamosh · Founder and lead strategist
5,500+ enforcement cases since 2016. Every intake is personally assessed before acceptance.
Send what you have, including prior DIY or agency appeals. We say what is viable in writing before you commit.
Questionnaire
If the questionnaire does not load, open intake on the account page.
* Across ASA’s accepted and fully managed enforcement cases (all notice types we take on), not medical claims matters alone. Details under Proof.
Medical-claims enforcement is about intended use rather than the presence of health-related words. A claim that a product diagnoses, treats, cures, mitigates or prevents disease, or affects the structure or function of the body, can move an otherwise ordinary product into a regulated category.
That is why a keyword list is the wrong tool and this page does not publish one. The same word can be unremarkable on one product and controlling on another, because what matters is the purpose the whole presentation communicates: the surrounding text, the imagery, the product type, the audience and the implied promise.
Three things the notice may be asking for, and they are not the same request:
The product is fine and its description is not. A complete, verified correction across every surface is the answer.
The product may genuinely be regulated. Then the answer is the classification evidence, not a denial that it is medical.
Common. Inaccurate claims corrected, and the legitimate regulated status evidenced, without conceding either point wrongly.
One boundary worth stating early: a listing-level removal is not an account suspension, and the two are routinely confused in the same message. Amazon's disclosure and claim restrictions govern the marketplace side. FDA's own material on structure and function claims and cosmetic labelling claims explains where the regulatory line sits, and it is jurisdiction-specific. Where the outcome is that the product itself becomes ineligible, the lane is restricted products; where a claim is defensible because the product is tested and documented, product safety compliance may carry it; and the catalog half of any correction is incorrect detail page.
These are patterns rather than a blacklist. Whether any of them is a problem depends on the product and the whole presentation.
The clearest category. Language saying the product treats, cures, prevents or mitigates a named condition. Naming the condition is not required: describing its symptoms often carries the same meaning.
This is also where a defence is most likely to be legitimate rather than a retreat. If the product is genuinely regulated and authorised for that use, the answer is the status evidence, and the lane becomes FDA compliance.
The product detects, measures, screens for or indicates a condition. Measurement claims are particularly easy to make accidentally on devices that produce a number, because a number invites a clinical reading.
The most common wording on ordinary consumer goods, and the most often assumed harmless. Supports, textiles, topicals and devices routinely carry relief, healing or antibacterial language written as marketing rather than as a claim.
Antimicrobial language deserves separate care: depending on the product and the target it can also raise a pesticide question, which is a different regulator and a different evidence set.
The product changes how part of the body works. Metabolism, appetite, digestion, circulation, posture, sleep. This category is genuinely jurisdiction-dependent, and a claim permitted in one marketplace can be unauthorised in another under a register of approved wording.
Before-and-after photographs, body diagrams, clinical-style graphics, condition references, testimonials and comparison charts. An image can communicate a medical purpose entirely without text, and it survives every edit made to the written copy.
This is the single most common reason a corrected listing gets rejected again. The title is neutral, the enhanced content is not, and nobody looked.
Reviewers check whether the medical purpose is still being communicated anywhere. Most rejected responses corrected the place it was easiest to see.
The phrase removed from the title while equivalent meaning stays in bullets, images, enhanced content, video or backend terms.
Others use the same words. That establishes nothing about this listing, and reviewers are looking at this one.
The copy came from the brand. The seller remains responsible for content it contributes or adopts.
General scientific literature offered where the question is whether that wording is permitted for that product in that marketplace.
The product called non-medical while its packaging, instructions or historical content describe medical use.
Prohibited wording re-uploaded through a feed, enhanced content, advertising or external synchronisation after the appeal was filed.
Find what actually communicated the medical purpose, then correct every instance of it and prove each one landed.
Start from the notice and identify the flagged claim if it names one. Often it does not, and the work is to find the strongest likely trigger from the full historical capture. Content that has since been edited can still be what drove the classification, so the history matters as much as the current page.
Then establish what the product actually is and does, from the physical packaging, the label, the instructions, any insert and the manufacturer's own intended-use material. This decides whether the route is correction or classification evidence, and guessing it is how files go in the wrong direction for weeks.
Every place a medical purpose can be communicated, current and historical, each marked correct, to be corrected, or defensible:
The last two are outside the catalog and inside the problem. A physical insert making the claim is not fixed by any amount of catalog work.
Where the claims are inaccurate or unpermitted, correct them everywhere and keep the evidence of each removal. Where the product is genuinely regulated and authorised, the response should say so and prove it rather than denying the medical character, because a denial that the evidence contradicts damages the rest of the file.
Where a claim is defensible under a marketplace-specific authorised register, the wording usually has to match closely rather than approximately. A permitted claim rephrased for marketing is often no longer the permitted claim.
Where the exact claim is defensible because the product is lawfully classified or authorised for that intended use and the wording is permitted, the regulatory-status route carries it. Safety testing alone does not authorise a disease, treatment or medical-purpose claim. A test report answers whether the product is safe. It does not answer whether the sentence on the listing is one you are allowed to write.
Catalog work runs through prepared, uploaded, processed and live-verified, and each surface is checked on its own. A processing report saying rows were accepted says nothing about enhanced content or images.
Add the control that stops recurrence: who may write product copy, what patterns are prohibited, what gate approves a claim before publication, and where that record is kept. Feeds and external synchronisation need to be inside that gate, because they are the usual route back in.
If enhanced content or video was created by someone else and cannot be edited quickly, say so. It changes the sequencing rather than the outcome, and it is better known at the start.
Scoped historical outcomes on cases we accepted and fully managed. One seller voice below; deeper galleries live on account reinstatement.
Population: historical cases ASA accepted and fully managed (we prepared the compliance response and ran follow-ups in Seller Central). The figure combines reinstatement and restoration work across notice types in that managed population, not medical claims matters alone. Declined intakes and self-serve template buyers are not in the rate.
Success: reinstatement or restoration of the privileges Amazon had restricted for that file (account, listing, verification, funds, or related, depending on the case). Amazon decides every outcome; the rate is not a guarantee for future cases.
Review: the underlying records were independently reviewed. Verified as of .
More methodology context and galleries: account reinstatement proof.
“In less than 24 hours after the appeal, my account was reactivated with all products available for sale.”
More outcomes and video proof: account reinstatement proof.
For sellers who already have the Performance Notification. Broader questions: full FAQ library.
If Amazon removed a listing over medical or health claims, start with the questionnaire.
Listing removed rather than mis-described: listing reinstatement. Other notice names: all suspension types.
