{"id":620,"slug":"ftc-reasonable-basis-doctrine-1984","title":"FTC reasonable-basis doctrine: advertisers must possess \"the amount and type of substantiation the ad actually communicates\"","kind":"reference","scope":"business","status":"current","audiences":["kevin","claude-code","candid-team"],"topics":["regulatory-compliance","citation-practices"],"reference_body":"**Claim:** The FTC's Policy Statement on Advertising Substantiation (1984, building on a 1971 line of decisions): advertisers must possess **\"the amount and type of substantiation the ad actually communicates to consumers\"** for any objective ad claim. Section 5 of the FTC Act remains the enforcement basis.\n\n**Source:** <https://ftc.gov> Substantiation Statement; FTC training materials.\n\n**Confidence:** Verified.\n\n**Specific phrases that trigger heightened substantiation thresholds:**\n\n> \"Tests Prove... Doctors Recommend... **Studies Show**...\"\n\n*Source: FTC training materials* — <https://ftc.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/training-materials/substantiation.pdf>\n\n**The operational implication:** the phrase \"studies show\" in marketing copy without a specific named study is **not just a sourcing failure** — it is **potentially FTC-actionable**. The reader's instinct that \"studies show\" is a tell of unsourced claims aligns with FTC enforcement reality.\n\n**Status in 2026:** **Xlear v. FTC** litigation (filed late 2024, citing *Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo*, 2024) is challenging the doctrine. **Absent injunction, the doctrine remains in full force as of May 2026.** Monitor for outcome.\n\n**For Canadian clients:** FTC enforcement is US-only, but the **substantiation principle applies via comparable Canadian rules** (Competition Bureau's \"general impression test\" under the Competition Act, plus CRTC and provincial consumer-protection statutes). The discipline is portable; the legal mechanism differs.","rationale_body":null,"metadata":null,"links":{"outgoing":[{"slug":"rule-cite-with-named-source-and-url","title":"RULE: Every non-trivial claim carries a named source with author/institution + date + URL. Confidence flag honest.","kind":"rule","scope":"business","link_type":"relates-to"},{"slug":"rule-never-claim-tool-name-without-citation","title":"RULE: Never publish a tool or library name without a citation that can be verified by a reader.","kind":"rule","scope":"business","link_type":"relates-to"}],"incoming":[{"slug":"what-to-source-checklist","title":"CANDID REFERENCE: \"what to source\" checklist — Must / Should / Doesn't need","kind":"reference","scope":"business","link_type":"depends-on"},{"slug":"rule-every-objective-claim-sourced-with-confidence-label","title":"RULE: Every objective claim in Candid content carries a named source + date + verbatim quote ≤25 words + confidence label","kind":"rule","scope":"business","link_type":"depends-on"},{"slug":"research-brief-confidence-sources-dated-claims","title":"Research brief: Confidence Levels, Sources, and Dated Claims — why every statement on a credible site should be verifiable (piece 15 of 15)","kind":"reference","scope":"business","link_type":"relates-to"}]},"created_at":"2026-05-22T20:51:26.987Z","updated_at":"2026-05-22T20:51:26.987Z"}