Question
What is label-claim and advertising liability for a supplement company?
Short answer
Label-claim and advertising liability is the exposure a supplement company faces from what it says about its product, as distinct from what the product does to the body. Dietary supplements may make structure-function claims but not disease claims under DSHEA, the FTC requires advertising claims to be substantiated, and state laws such as California's Proposition 65 add labeling requirements. Claims that a supplement was misbranded, made unsupported claims, or was falsely advertised drive regulatory action and consumer class actions that a bodily-injury products policy may not fully address, so the program has to account for the claims exposure separately.
A distinct exposure from product injury
A supplement company faces two different kinds of loss. One is bodily injury from the product, covered by products liability. The other is loss arising from what the company says about the product - the label claims and the advertising. These are separate exposures, and the second one is heavily policed.
Under DSHEA, supplements may make structure-function claims (how an ingredient affects the structure or function of the body) but may not claim to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent a disease. Crossing that line turns a supplement into an unapproved drug in the eyes of FDA.
FTC substantiation and false-advertising exposure
The FTC requires that advertising claims for supplements be truthful and substantiated by competent and reliable scientific evidence. Aggressive weight-loss, performance, or health claims without adequate substantiation are a frequent target of FTC enforcement and of consumer class actions alleging false advertising. These claims can be expensive to defend and are not always fully addressed by a standard bodily-injury products policy.
The program should account for this through the appropriate advertising-injury and, where available, specialty coverage, and through disciplined claims substantiation on the business side.
State-law and labeling requirements
State laws add further labeling and disclosure exposure. California's Proposition 65, for example, requires warnings for products that expose consumers to listed substances, and Prop 65 litigation is a real and active exposure for supplement companies selling into California. Allergen and ingredient-disclosure requirements add to the labeling risk.
Getting the labeling and the claims right is both a compliance and an insurance matter, because a labeling or claims failure can drive a recall, an FTC action, or a class action.
How to manage it
The practical approach pairs disciplined claims substantiation and labeling review on the business side with a program that accounts for the advertising and regulatory exposure alongside the bodily-injury products coverage. Because the claims environment is category-specific, placing the program through markets that understand supplement labeling and advertising exposure is part of getting the coverage right.
Primary sources
Sources and references
This answer draws on the following regulatory, statutory, and standards-body sources. Coverage availability and program structure also depend on carrier appetite and underwriter discretion not captured by these sources.
- FTC - Dietary Supplements Advertising Guide for Industryhttps://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/dietary-supplements-advertising-guide-industry
- FDA - Structure/Function Claimshttps://www.fda.gov/food/nutrition-food-labeling-and-critical-foods/structurefunction-claims
Related practice areas
Insurance clauses in this area
Related questions
Have a more specific question?
A specialist will reach out by the end of the day.
Request a free coverage review