The claims consumers want, the ones you can make, and the ones that will still stand in 2030.
Every claim on a pack, a shelf strip, a campaign or a product page carries three questions: do shoppers ask for it, may we make it in each market we sell in, and will it still be lawful while the pack is on shelf. Claim Fit answers all three on one register, per claim and per market, so the team that owns the claim hands marketing a ranked list instead of a no.
Run by regulatory. Read by marketing. Scoped and priced up front for the first range.
Demand tools tell you what to say. Compliance tools tell you what you can't. Nobody puts the two answers on one row.
So the claim that sells gets designed in one meeting and challenged in another. Marketing arrives with a shopper insight, regulatory arrives with a veto, R&D reformulates late, and the reasons a claim was approved, softened or dropped leave with whoever rotated out of the brand.
The claims with the most pull often have the shortest legal life.
A claim becomes salient at exactly the moment an ingredient acquires a bad reputation or a practice becomes mandatory, and those are the two triggers that make it unlawful to boast about. "Free-from" and "natural" sell hardest when they are about to stop being allowed.
The demand engines are US-built and US-normed.
"Paraben-free", "BPA-free" and "100% natural" all sell freely in the US and are prohibited or high-risk in the EU. An engine that ranks claims by US shelf performance systematically recommends claims you cannot make in Europe.
Your pack, your site and the retailer's page say different things.
Reformulations reach the pack years before they reach a marketplace listing. A reduced-sugar figure that reads 30, 65 or 75 percent depending on where the shopper looks is a claim problem nobody owns, until a regulator or a plaintiff does.
Regulatory sets the threshold. R&D hits it. Marketing makes the claim.
A snack brand wanted a protein claim. The rule said 10 g a serving; the formula had 8. Regulatory set the number, R&D reformulated rather than settle for a weaker claim, and marketing got the claim it wanted. That decision happened in three inboxes and a meeting. Claim Fit is the record it should have happened on.
"Give me the citation before the brief, not after the artwork."
Every claim marketing wants to make, pre-checked per market with the regulation named. You arrive at the brief with evidence, not a veto, and stop being the department that says no.
"Which claims lift sales, and which of those can I bank?"
A ranked list of claims to add, enlarge or migrate, with the pull and the legal life of each. Growth you can put in the plan without a caveat from legal.
"Tell me the threshold before I reformulate."
The claim your category wants, the number it needs in each market and the date it needs it by, on one row. Reformulate once, to a target the whole company has agreed.
Legal gets a dated record showing the risk was seen and handled. Agencies get the claim set that will still stand before the master artwork is signed off.
One register. Every claim scored on three questions and placed on four quadrants.
Do shoppers ask for it?
Read from what shoppers write about your category, or read in from the research your insights team already trusts. Every demand score says how it was measured.
May we make it, in this market?
The legal test each market actually applies, with the regulation named on the verdict. Permission, not just substantiation: a true claim is not always a lawful one.
Will it still stand in 2030?
A claim lawful today may be banned, become mandatory, or be redefined before your next artwork cycle. Each claim gets a horizon against the rules already dated.
"No artificial colours" on a formula that still carries the dyes sits in the Danger Zone. The same claim after reformulation, same shopper, same demand, is one you can keep and press. That pair is the whole idea.
| Claim | Consumer pull | Permissibility | Durability | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| "No artificial colours" after reformulation | 96 illustrative | Permitted, EU · US Reg. (EU) 1169/2011 Art. 7 · 21 CFR 101.22 · colour system on file | Jan 2027 dated rule strengthens it FDA Red 3 delisting · California AB 418 | Press it |
| "Made with real cocoa" | 74 illustrative | Permitted, EU · US substantiation: cocoa content on the specification | No dated rule on the calendar | Press it |
| Synthetic colours, as-is demand for "no artificial colours", formula cannot carry it | 96 illustrative | Claim not available on the current formula dyes face delisting; retailer clean-label policies | Reprint before Jan 2027 FDA Red 3 · California AB 418 | Danger Zone |
| "100% natural" | 72 illustrative | No legal definition, EU · US assessed under general fairness rules; first US litigation target | Live litigation templates, no dated rule | Danger Zone |
| "Gluten-free" inherently gluten-free product | 22 illustrative | Permitted, EU · US Reg. (EU) 828/2014 · 21 CFR 101.91 · may read as implying a special characteristic | No dated rule on the calendar | Wasted panel space |
| "Resealable pack" | 9 illustrative | Permitted | None | Drop it |
The Claim Fit Scan
One product range, the markets you name. Start from your artwork, or outside-in from public surfaces before you share anything. You get the register back: every claim scored, placed, with the substitutions and the discrepancies between surfaces.
The watch
Rules, rulings, litigation, competitor claim moves and demand shifts re-score the register as they happen. When a Press-it claim drifts toward the Danger Zone, you know before the next print run.
The claim brief
Issued when a verdict changes: the claim, the source, the window and the lawful substitute. Built to be forwarded to the brand manager, the R&D lead or the agency.
Scoped and priced up front for the first range. After that, pay for what runs. Claim Fit is the claims half of Market Access Intelligence; Advocacy Intelligence is the half that watches the rule before it lands. Same register, same team, one budget line.
One brand, three markets, one day. Public sources only.
For a global food company we scanned one children's beverage brand as sold in Mexico, Brazil and France before we had seen a single artwork file. The finding was not a claim. It was that the surfaces disagree.
Claims on the register
Every claim in use, by SKU, market and surface.
Flagged for the team
Health claims on retailer copy for packs that carry warning seals. A front-of-pack score that was B on the listing and D on the pack the shopper received.
Discrepancies between surfaces
Four ingredient lists for one product across the brand page and three retailers, each pair logged with both sources and the date read.
Readings that held up
Across sixteen food and beverage companies in one quarter, 378 of 397 Prodeen outputs that received client feedback stood as issued.
Results described by sector and geography only. Client names stay with the client.
Is this a compliance tool?
Compliance tools tell you what you cannot say and stop there. Claim Fit starts from what sells, keeps what you can make, and replaces what you cannot with the lawful claim that carries the same demand.
Is this a consumer-insights tool?
It uses demand signals; it is not another one. If you already run a panel or a claims-testing vendor, that feed becomes the demand score and your research always outranks ours.
Who in our company buys this?
The team that signs the claims: regulatory, scientific and regulatory affairs, or the claims owner in legal. Marketing, R&D and agencies read the register.
Do we have to share artwork to start?
No. The first scan can run outside-in from public surfaces. It usually finds the surfaces that disagree with each other before it finds a claim problem.
Every verdict named, dated and approved by your team. Scoped and priced up front for the first range.