The problem is the promise, not the creative
Ad platforms treat health content more strictly than other categories because the consumer impact is higher. What review systems look for is an overstated result, a guarantee, or copy that makes readers feel there is something wrong with their body.
Phrases like "cured", "100% effective", or "results guaranteed" are the easiest to catch. What teams more often miss is the politer version — copy implying the reader "should fix" some physical characteristic, which reads as creating a negative self-perception.
Before-and-after imagery is the other frequent one. Even with genuine cases, a direct visual comparison is usually read as a promise of results.
A pre-publish checklist
Run this before anything goes into the ad manager. It takes under five minutes per asset and saves a lot of revision cycles.
- Does the copy guarantee an outcome — cured, definite results, works for everyone?
- Are there result figures with no cited source?
- Does the copy imply something is wrong with the reader’s body?
- Is there a direct before-and-after comparison?
- Are professional titles and licence references accurate?
- Does the landing page match what the ad promised?
Rewriting without losing the sell
Meeting policy does not mean writing something bland. The move that works is shifting emphasis from results you cannot guarantee to the things the clinic genuinely controls.
Instead of "clearer skin in 7 days, guaranteed", talk about the process: the assessment by a practitioner, the steps of care, the follow-up. That copy clears review more easily, and usually builds more trust anyway.
The other approach is letting customers speak, framed explicitly as an individual experience rather than a standard outcome everyone should expect.
Make review part of the process
The teams with the fewest rejections are not the ones who know policy best. They are the ones who put a review step into the workflow before upload, rather than after a rejection.
This is where a tool like Check Ads helps: it reads the copy and creative, points at the risky parts and explains why, so the team can decide what to change before waiting on a review outcome.
It is worth repeating that a review assistant is not a guarantee of approval, and not a substitute for legal advice or your own professional compliance checks.
