AI claims that carry high evidence burden

Last reviewed May 24, 2026

These are not banned terms. Each phrase below represents a claim pattern that requires specific evidence before a buyer can rely on it. When an AI vendor uses this wording without the corresponding evidence, that is an evidence signal — not a verdict about the company.

Nine patterns that need evidence

Risk level reflects evidence burden and wording risk — not legality, compliance status, or purchasing safety.

"Fully automated""No human review needed""End-to-end automation"
Automation / Replacement High
Evidence needed
Task scope definition, human oversight steps, escalation protocol, failure handling, and which tasks still require a human decision.
Buyer question
Which tasks still require human review or escalation, and what triggers that handoff?
Source basis
FTC accessiBe final order (2025) · SEC Presto Automation order (2025)
"98% accurate""Human-level accuracy""Outperforms experts"
Accuracy / Performance High
Evidence needed
Benchmark dataset, content types covered, model version tested, sample size, false-positive and false-negative rates, and whether the test matches your actual workflow.
Buyer question
Does the accuracy figure hold for the document types and volume in your specific workflow?
Source basis
FTC v. Workado complaint (2025) · NIST GenAI text-to-text evaluation (2024)
"Bias-free AI""Zero bias""Fair AI""Equitable model"
Compliance / Safety High
Evidence needed
Subgroup performance breakdown by demographic group, false-positive and false-negative rates per group, training-data coverage, and deployment conditions under which fairness was measured.
Buyer question
What subgroup performance data is available, and were the test conditions representative of your deployment setting?
Source basis
FTC v. IntelliVision (2024) · NIST AI RMF 1.0 · ICO AI fairness guidance
"HIPAA compliant AI""GDPR-safe AI""Meets regulatory standards"
Compliance / Safety High
Evidence needed
Framework scope, covered controls, audit or assessment method, customer responsibilities, exclusions, and whether a BAA or DPA is required.
Buyer question
Does this cover your deployment configuration, data flows, and sub-processor chain — or just the vendor's own infrastructure?
Source basis
HHS/OCR HIPAA guidance · EDPB Guidelines on Automated Decision-Making · GDPR Art. 22 & 35
"Guaranteed ROI""Cut costs by 80%""10× cost savings"
ROI / Outcome High
Evidence needed
Customer outcome distribution (median and percentile range, not just top performers), baseline and measurement-period definition, cohort definition, cost basis, and attribution methodology.
Buyer question
What does the full distribution of customer outcomes look like, and which customers are excluded from the headline figure?
Source basis
FTC v. Air AI complaint (2025) · FTC business guidance on AI claims
"AI-powered""AI-native""AI-driven""Agentic AI"
Vague AI-powered Medium
Evidence needed
What the AI specifically does, what input it processes, what output it produces, how it differs from a non-AI version, and what human oversight is involved.
Buyer question
What specific task does the AI component perform, and what does the non-AI fallback path look like?
Source basis
ASA/CAP AI as a marketing term report (2024)
"Replaces lawyers""No agent needed""AI does the work of 10 people"
Automation / Replacement High
Evidence needed
Task scope, which tasks still require professional oversight, escalation protocol, and when the vendor recommends involving a qualified professional.
Buyer question
For which tasks does the vendor still recommend or require professional review, and how is that escalation triggered?
Source basis
FTC v. DoNotPay final order (2025)
"First AI to...""Only platform that...""Industry-leading AI""Most advanced"
First / Only / Best High
Evidence needed
Market scope definition, comparison methodology, point-in-time reference when the claim was verified, and evidence that no prior comparable offering existed.
Buyer question
What comparison set was used to establish this claim, and when was it last verified against alternatives?
Source basis
SEC v. Delphia & Global Predictions (2024)
"Enterprise-grade security""SOC 2 AI""Secure by design"
Compliance / Safety High
Evidence needed
Audit scope and SOC 2 type, certification date, which data flows are in scope, third-party audit report availability, and known exclusions or customer-side requirements.
Buyer question
Which SOC 2 criteria are included and which of your data flows — including sub-processors — fall within the audit scope?
Source basis
FTC guidance on substantiation of technical security claims

Have the vendor's exact claim text ready?

Paste their product page URL or the exact claim wording. The checker returns an evidence-burden note, evidence requests, and buyer questions based on their specific language.

Check an AI vendor claim

Go deeper by claim type