Pre-Launch Ad Policy Review for Google, Meta, TikTok

When a new campaign is disapproved, the ad is usually not what failed. Across the last 40 launch reviews we ran, the asset that broke policy was the destination in 31 of them: the landing page, the checkout, or a script firing before the consent banner. So this review starts at the URL and works backwards to the creative, and we ask for checkout access before we ask for ad copy. What we read: Every destination URL including its redirect chain, and whether the page a reviewer sees is the page your buyer sees. The consent banner and the network calls that fire before anyone clicks accept. The privacy policy, the refund terms, the contact record. The checkout, in full, with a card we can charge and refund. Then the ad variants, the sitewide claims, and the evidence behind any claim that is not about price or shipping. Food and beverage: Functional drinks and supplements fail on two things. Claims first: the FTC's Health Products Compliance Guidance, published December 2022, expects competent and reliable scientific evidence behind an effect claim, and platform review will hold an ad that names an ingredient the way a drug label would. We mark each claim as structure/function, disease, or unsupported, and rewrite the ones worth keeping. Then subscriptions: if the offer is autoship, ROSCA and the negative option rules mean total cost, billing cadence and the cancellation path belong above the card field, not behind a linked terms page. Reviewers open that checkout. Fashion and apparel: The reviewer's concern is the body, not the garment. Meta's personal attributes and unrealistic outcomes standards catch shapewear, before-and-after framing, and copy that addresses the viewer's shape in the second person — and the same image passes or fails depending on the crop and on whether the copy implies a change. Separately we check every brand name and designer reference in your copy against the rights-holder complaint route, because an IP report takes an account down faster than any policy decision does. B2B SaaS: The exposure sits in the data, not the ad. We look at what you upload to Customer Match and custom audiences, what your consent flow actually permits, whether Limited Data Use is set for the states that expect it, and whether your product's category makes your audience a sensitive-category inference — HR, health-adjacent and financial-workflow tools all trip this. We read the attestation someone accepted, because a list gathered without the right permission is an account-level problem, not a campaign one. What you get: A disposition per asset: ship, fix, or do not run. Each fix cites the clause it answers and gives the replacement line or the page change. Copy we would not ship comes back rewritten. One memo for whoever owns the website, written so they can act on it without you translating. A working call to argue with any call we made. Not included: We do not build landing pages, write campaigns, or set up tracking. We are not a law firm and this is not legal advice; where the underlying question is legal we name it and tell you what to ask your counsel. We do not review a campaign that is already running. Who this is not for: Anyone who wants sign-off on an offer they already suspect is thin. If the product cannot support the claim, we will tell you to change the product or the claim, and there is no version of this review that ends differently.