Claims and substantiation: performance, green and origin claims

Disclosure tells the audience that a post is commercial. Substantiation is about whether what the post says is true and supported. Every objective claim in a sponsored post, whether made by the brand or by the creator in their own words, must be backed by evidence that exists before the claim is made. This lesson explains how to identify claims, including implied claims, what level of evidence different claims require, and the special rules for comparative, environmental and country-of-origin claims. Health and other regulated product claims, which carry extra rules, are covered in lesson 7.

What counts as a claim

A claim is any statement or impression about a product that the audience could treat as a fact. Claims can be express, stated directly in words, or implied, conveyed through images, demonstrations, context or what is left out.

• Express: "This charger fills your phone in 15 minutes." "Removes 99 % of stains."
• Implied: a video showing a creator drinking a tea and then visibly relaxing, captioned "my anxiety fix," implies that the tea treats anxiety.
• Demonstrations: a before-and-after video implies that the product produced the change shown.
• Omissions: describing a phone plan's price without mentioning a mandatory activation fee implies the price is complete.

Opinions and obvious exaggeration are treated differently. "I love the smell" is a personal opinion that needs no test. Puffery, such as "the best coffee in the universe," is generally not treated as a factual claim because no reasonable person takes it literally. But puffery has limits: "the fastest-charging phone on the market" or "Canada's most trusted brand" sound like facts that can be measured and must be supported.

Substantiation must come first

The core principle in both countries is that evidence must exist before the claim is made. A brand cannot make a claim and look for proof only if someone complains. For creators, this means asking brands for the basis of any objective claim they want you to make, and not inventing claims of your own about how a product performs.

In Canada, section 74.01(1)(b) of the Competition Act prohibits making a representation about the performance, efficacy or length of life of a product that is not based on an adequate and proper test, and the test must be completed before the claim is made. The burden of proving that the test was adequate and proper falls on the person making the claim. The Competition Bureau's guidance says that what is adequate and proper depends on the claim and the product, but that tests should be conducted under controlled conditions that reflect real use, by qualified people, with results that support the general impression of the claim, not just its literal words.

The creator's own claims

Creators often add their own claims to sponsored content, sometimes without realizing it. "This changed my life," "my skin has never been clearer" or "this saved me $200 a month" are statements of personal experience. They are acceptable if they are true for the creator and do not imply typical results that the brand cannot support. Problems arise when creators generalize: "this will clear your skin," "you'll save $200 a month." Those are product claims that need the brand's substantiation. A useful habit is to speak in the first person about real experiences and leave general product claims to the brand's approved, substantiated wording.

Comparative claims

Comparisons with competitors are lawful in both countries, and can be useful to consumers, but they must be fair and supported. A comparison must compare like with like, use tests that reflect real use, be current and not create a misleading overall impression, for example by choosing the one feature where the product wins and implying general superiority. Disparaging a competitor with false claims can also lead to lawsuits by the competitor. Creators should be careful about naming competitors in sponsored content; the brand should supply and stand behind any comparison.

Environmental claims

Environmental claims, often called green claims, are a growing area of enforcement. Vague words such as "eco-friendly," "green," "natural," "sustainable" or "planet-friendly" are risky because they imply broad environmental benefits that are rarely true across a product's whole life cycle. Specific, qualified claims, such as "packaging made from 80 % recycled paper," are safer when they are true and supported.

In June 2024, Parliament amended the Competition Act to add specific rules on environmental claims. Claims that a product is beneficial for the environment, or reduces environmental or ecological harm, or mitigates climate change, must be based on an adequate and proper test. Claims about the environmental benefits of a business or its activities must be based on adequate and proper substantiation. The original 2024 wording required that business-level substantiation follow an internationally recognized methodology, and from June 2025 allowed private parties to seek leave to bring cases about such claims. After businesses said the rules were unclear and were discouraging them from communicating climate efforts, Bill C-15 received royal assent on March 26, 2026. It removed the internationally recognized methodology requirement and removed private access for claims about a business or its activities, while keeping the test requirement for product claims and the Bureau's power to act on all environmental claims. The Bureau published final guidance on environmental claims in 2025, which it is expected to update to reflect the changes.

• Avoid general claims such as "eco-friendly" unless you can qualify them specifically and clearly.
• Specify whether a claim refers to the product, the packaging or part of either.
• Do not overstate: "made with recycled materials" when only 5 % is recycled is misleading.
• Treat "carbon neutral," "net zero" and "climate positive" claims with particular care; ask what emissions are included, how reductions were measured and whether offsets are relied on.
• Do not imply environmental certifications or seals that the product does not have.

Country-of-origin claims

Claims that a product is made in a particular country influence many buyers, so both countries regulate them.

In Canada, the Competition Bureau's guidelines for non-food products set two levels. "Product of Canada" can be used when the last substantial transformation happened in Canada and at least 98 % of the total direct costs of producing or manufacturing the product are Canadian. "Made in Canada" requires that the last substantial transformation happened in Canada, that at least 51 % of total direct costs are Canadian and that the claim carries a qualifying statement, such as "Made in Canada with imported parts." For food, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency applies its own rules: "Product of Canada" requires that all or virtually all the ingredients, processing and labour be Canadian, and "Made in Canada" requires the last substantial transformation in Canada with a qualifying statement such as "Made in Canada from imported ingredients."

Prices, savings and "free"

Price claims are common in creator content: discount codes, "save 50 %," "was $100, now $50," "free shipping," "free trial." They must be accurate. A "was" or "regular" price must be a genuine price at which the product was actually sold, not an inflated figure invented to make a discount look large. A "free" offer must really be free, with any conditions, such as a required purchase, subscription or shipping charge, stated clearly next to the offer. Creators should confirm the details of any price or savings claim with the brand and avoid exaggerating discounts in their own words.

Demonstrations and before-and-after content

Demonstrations are powerful because seeing feels like proof. That is why they must show what the product actually does, under conditions the audience would recognize. A stain remover tested on a fresh stain should not be presented as removing a stain that set for a week, and a vacuum shown picking up dry cereal should not imply equal performance on deep carpet. Mock-ups, such as using mashed potato instead of ice cream under hot lights, are generally acceptable only if they do not exaggerate the product's qualities being advertised. Before-and-after content needs particular care: the conditions in both shots, such as lighting, angle, makeup and time between shots, should be the same, the product should be the only meaningful difference, and the results should be typical of what users can expect or be clearly qualified. If you cannot honestly show a before-and-after without those safeguards, do not show it.