The claims that get your listing pulled, a working blacklist

A listing taken down is expensive in a way new brands underestimate. You lose the sales, you lose the review history, you lose the search ranking you paid to build, and reinstatement takes weeks you do not have if it happens in your season.

And it almost never happens because a listing was generally vague. It happens because of specific phrases.

So this is a working blacklist: the constructions that get listings removed, why each one triggers, and what you can say instead that is both compliant and more persuasive.

This is orientation, not legal or regulatory advice. Permitted claims, marketplace policies and advertising restrictions change. Have your copy reviewed by a competent regulatory consultant, and check the current marketplace policy, before you publish.

Why this happens at all

Two separate systems can remove your listing, and they are worth distinguishing because they behave differently.

Regulatory. In India, food and nutraceutical claims are governed under the FSSAI framework; Ayurvedic medicines sit under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and the AYUSH route. And separately from either, the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act restricts advertising for a schedule of conditions, regardless of which licence you hold. Advertising standards bodies also act on misleading claims.

Marketplace policy. Which is usually stricter than the law, enforced by automated keyword detection plus complaints, and not appealable on the grounds that the law permits it.

The practical consequence: you need to clear both, and the marketplace one is the one that triggers in minutes.

The disease-name problem

The single largest category. Naming a disease, in any grammatical construction, is the trigger.

Phrases that get listings pulled: cures diabetes, controls blood sugar, reverses diabetes, sugar jad se khatam, natural insulin, for arthritis, cures joint pain, treats piles, cures asthma, for thyroid, cures PCOD, treats infertility, cures cancer, dissolves kidney stones, opens heart blockages, cures fatty liver, treats depression.

Why it triggers: a product that claims to treat, cure or prevent a disease is, by that claim, a drug. And several of these conditions fall within the Magic Remedies Act schedule, where the restriction on advertising applies irrespective of licence.

What to say instead, and this is the real craft: describe the ingredient and its traditional category, not an outcome. “Karela and jamun, used in traditional Indian kitchens and classical formulations” works. “Controls blood sugar” does not, cannot be made to, and is not worth attempting through synonyms.

The synonym trap

And this is where most brands waste a month.

The assumption is that the detection is literal, so a euphemism passes.

It does not, for either system. “Manages sugar levels”, “supports healthy glucose”, “for sugar patients”, “madhumeh ke liye”, “helps maintain normal blood sugar”, these are read as the same claim, because they are the same claim.

And “sugar patients” is worse than “diabetes”, not better, because it names the patient population explicitly.

The same applies across the board: “joint comfort for arthritis sufferers”, “for BP patients”, “thyroid support”, “PCOD care”. Naming the patient is naming the disease.

“Boost immunity”

Worth its own section because it is so widespread that brands assume it must be allowed.

It is not an authorised claim, and it is also not a meaningful statement, the immune system is not a quantity that goes up, and a genuinely up-regulated immune response is an autoimmune problem, not a benefit.

We refuse this one, and we have lost orders over it.

What to say instead: the nutrient-function language that actually exists for vitamins and minerals, where a product delivers a meaningful amount of, say, vitamin C or zinc, the authorised nutrient-function wording for those nutrients is available to you, and it is specific about what the nutrient does. Check the current authorised wording rather than paraphrasing it.

For botanicals, there are no such authorised health claims. So describe the herb, its traditional use and your standardisation, and let the ingredient do the work.

“Detox”, “purifies blood”, “flushes toxins”

Removed routinely, and rightly.

There is no toxin these products remove, no measurement of the removal, and no mechanism described. “Raktashodhak” translated as “blood purifier” is a mistranslation of a classical category, and we have written separately about what that word actually meant.

What to say instead: nothing that pretends to be the same claim. If the product is a bitter-herb formulation used traditionally in that category, say that in those words.

Comparative and superlative claims

These trigger on a different basis, substantiation.

Problem phrases: world’s best, No. 1 Ayurvedic brand, India’s most trusted, clinically proven, doctor recommended, 100% safe, no side effects, chemical-free, FSSAI approved, FDA approved, government approved.

Three separate problems in that list.

Unsubstantiated superlatives need evidence you almost certainly do not have in a form that survives a challenge.

“Clinically proven” and “doctor recommended” need a specific study on your specific product, or a documented basis. A study on an ingredient at a dose you do not deliver is not a study on your product.

And the approval claims are factually wrong. A licence is not an approval of your product or your claims. “FSSAI approved” is a misrepresentation of what a licence number means, and it is one of the faster ways to attract attention.

“100% safe” and “no side effects” are also false for most of these ingredients, and we list the specific cautions on our ingredient pages precisely because leaving them out would be the easier and worse choice.

Before-and-after, and testimonial content

Progressively more enforced, and the risk is not only the listing.

Problem content: before-after photographs, weight-loss transformations, “lost 12 kg in 2 months”, skin-lightening sequences, hair-regrowth photo sets, patient testimonials naming a condition, and influencer content where the claim sits in a video rather than in your copy.

And that last one is the trap: you are responsible for the claims made on your behalf. A video review you commissioned saying the product cured something is your claim in the eyes of both systems.

What to do instead: brief creators in writing on what cannot be said, and review the content before it is published. Most brands brief on messaging and not on prohibition, which is the wrong half.

Specific traps we see repeatedly

Platelet claims in dengue season. Papaya leaf extract listings routinely mention dengue or platelets and routinely get removed. This is also the one with real potential for harm, because a family treating dengue at home instead of going to hospital is the actual risk, not a regulatory one.

Fairness and skin-lightening. Restricted, enforced, and separately indefensible.

Children and academic performance. “Improves memory and concentration for exams”, not substantiated, and heavily targeted.

Testosterone and performance claims. “Increases testosterone”, “stamina booster”, and the entire euphemism set around sexual performance. The Magic Remedies Act schedule is directly relevant here.

Weight loss with numbers. Any specific quantity of loss in a specific time.

And B12 from plant sources. Spirulina listings claiming vitamin B12, the form in spirulina is largely pseudo-B12, and this is a factual error as well as a claims problem.

The pattern to notice

Across every category above, the compliant version is not a weaker version of the same claim. It is a different kind of statement.

Non-compliant claims are about outcomes in a body.

Compliant copy is about what is in the pack, the ingredient, the part used, the extract ratio, the standardisation percentage with its test method, the dose per serving, the batch testing you did, the certificates you hold.

And in our experience that copy sells better to the customer who repeat-purchases, which is the only customer worth having. A customer who bought because you promised to cure something does not come back; they conclude it did not work, because you promised something no supplement does.

A pre-publication checklist

Run your listing copy, label, website and creator briefs through this:

No disease name, in any language or transliteration. No patient population named. No “boost immunity”, “detox”, “purifies blood”, “flushes toxins”. No cure, treat, prevent, reverse, heal, or their Hindi and Hinglish equivalents. No superlative without documentation. No “clinically proven” without a study on this product at this dose. No “approved by” any regulator. No “100% safe”, “no side effects”, “chemical-free”. No before-and-after imagery. No testimonial naming a condition. Creator briefs state prohibitions in writing. Nutrient-function wording for vitamins and minerals checked against the current authorised text. And every ingredient’s actual cautions present rather than omitted.

And what we do about it

We review client artwork for claims before plates are made, and we decline orders that ask us to print claims from the list above.

This loses us business to manufacturers who will print anything, and we think those manufacturers are not doing their clients a favour, because under Indian law the brand owner carries the consequences of the label, not the plant that printed it.

If your current manufacturer has never questioned a line in your artwork, that is information about them, not a compliment to your copy.

The short version

1. Listings are pulled for specific phrases, not general vagueness
2. Two systems: regulatory, and marketplace policy
3. Marketplace policy is stricter and triggers in minutes
4. Naming a disease in any construction is the largest trigger
5. Cures, controls, reverses, treats, all the same claim
6. Several conditions fall under the Magic Remedies Act schedule regardless of licence
7. Synonyms do not pass; they are read as the same claim
8. “For sugar patients” is worse than “diabetes”, it names the population
9. “Boost immunity” is not an authorised claim and not a meaningful statement
10. An up-regulated immune response is an autoimmune problem, not a benefit
11. Authorised nutrient-function wording exists for vitamins and minerals
12. It does not exist for botanicals, so describe the herb instead
13. “Detox” and “blood purifier” are removed routinely and rightly
14. Superlatives need substantiation that survives a challenge
15. “Clinically proven” needs a study on your product at your dose
16. A study on an ingredient at another dose is not your study
17. “FSSAI approved” misrepresents what a licence number is
18. “100% safe” and “no side effects” are false for most of these ingredients
19. Before-and-after imagery and condition-naming testimonials are enforced
20. You are responsible for claims made on your behalf by creators
21. So brief creators on prohibitions in writing, not only on messaging
22. Dengue and platelet claims: removed, and genuinely dangerous
23. Delay in treating dengue at home is the real harm there
24. Fairness and skin-lightening: restricted and indefensible
25. Children’s exam-performance claims are heavily targeted
26. Testosterone, stamina and performance euphemisms sit under the Act’s schedule
27. Any numeric weight-loss promise in a time period
28. Spirulina B12 is largely pseudo-B12, a factual error too
29. Compliant copy is a different kind of statement, not a weaker one
30. It is about what is in the pack, not outcomes in a body
31. Ingredient, part used, extract ratio, standardisation, dose, test certificates
32. That copy sells better to the repeat customer, who is the only one worth having
33. A manufacturer who never questions your artwork is telling you about themselves

Related guides: supplement label compliance in India, licences for Ayurvedic manufacturing, how to start a supplement brand in India. Related reading: what must be on a supplement label in India, FSSAI vs AYUSH, which route, the claims that tell you to walk away, and FSSAI लाइसेंस कैसे लें.