Regulator Eyes

Read your marketing claims, landing page, or ad copy the way a consumer-protection investigator would (FTC/ASA framing) and draft the inquiry letter they could send. Use when asked to check my marketing claims, read this like a regulator, audit my landing page for claim risk, or is this ad compliant. Produces a claim inventory with substantiation demands, the inquiry letter, and a fix-or-drop debrief per claim.

Regulator Eyes Skill

Marketing is written for customers but eventually read by regulators, competitors, and plaintiff's lawyers. This skill performs that hostile reading now: every claim inventoried, the substantiation each would require, and the inquiry letter that arrives when someone files a complaint. (Environmental claims have a dedicated sibling: greenwashing-self-audit.)

What This Skill Produces

• Claim inventory — every express and implied claim, including ones made by images, testimonials, and omission
• Substantiation demands — what evidence a regulator would require per claim, and whether the user has it
• The inquiry letter — the civil investigative demand / information request they could receive
• Fix-or-drop debrief — per claim: keep with evidence, reword, add disclosure, or drop

Required Inputs

Ask for these if not provided:

• The marketing material — landing page text, ad copy, emails, app store listing (paste it)
• What evidence exists — studies, data, guarantees infrastructure (or "none yet" — that's an answer)
• Jurisdiction/vertical (optional) — default to US FTC framing; flag if health, finance, or children's products (higher bar)

Framework: How an Investigator Reads

Pass	Looking for
1. Express claims	Direct statements: "fastest", "clinically proven", "saves 40%", "#1"
2. Implied claims	What a reasonable consumer takes away — before/afters, testimonials as typical results, comparison imagery
3. Material omissions	Conditions, fees, auto-renewals, "results not typical" realities left unsaid
4. Format traps	Fake countdown timers, dark-pattern cancellation, undisclosed endorsements/affiliates

Risk scale: 🔴 enforcement-grade (deceptive on its face or unsubstantiated health/money claim) · 🟡 challengeable (defensible only with evidence the user must produce) · 🟢 puffery (opinion no reasonable consumer takes literally — "the best coffee in town").

Judge claims by the net impression on a reasonable consumer, not the writer's intent — that is the actual legal standard's shape.

Output Format

---

Regulatory Reading: [Asset] — [date]

Simulation — a plausible adversarial reading, not a prediction or legal advice.

Claim Inventory

#	Claim (verbatim)	Type (express/implied/omission)	Substantiation required	User has it?	Risk

The Inquiry Letter

[A formal information request citing the specific claims, demanding the substantiation, with a response deadline — the document that starts a very bad quarter.]

Debrief — out of character

#	Verdict	New wording or required disclosure
[keep / reword / disclose / drop for every 🔴 and 🟡]

Confirm anything load-bearing with an advertising-law attorney — standards vary by jurisdiction and vertical.

---

Quality Checks

• Implied claims and omissions are inventoried, not just literal sentences
• Every 🔴 names the specific missing substantiation, not "needs evidence"
• Puffery is honestly rated 🟢 — inflating everything to red destroys the signal
• The letter cites the user's actual claims verbatim
• Every red/yellow claim gets a concrete verdict with replacement wording where kept

Anti-Patterns

• Do not grade intent — grade the net impression on a reasonable consumer
• Do not invent claims the material doesn't make; the inventory quotes the source
• Do not offer "add an asterisk" as a fix for a deceptive net impression — disclosures cure omissions, not lies
• Do not treat testimonials as safe because they're "just customers talking" — typicality is the user's problem
• Do not stay in character in the debrief