Regulations

AI claim regulation sources

FTC enforcement records, SEC proceedings, and the ASA/CAP report each document what evidence was missing when regulators reviewed an AI claim. This page organizes those sources by claim surface so you can compare public AI marketing language against documented evidence gaps.

These sources record what regulators said was missing or unsubstantiated — not a current determination about any specific product, vendor, or claim. Not legal advice, a compliance certification, or a vendor approval list.

Claim sources

Each source has documented specific AI claim types where evidence was found missing. Case counts and claim types update as new cases are added.

FTC 16 cases

AI marketing claims in product advertising — accuracy, automation, testimonials, and business outcome claims.

Accuracy / PerformanceCompliance / SafetyAutomation / ReplacementVague AI-poweredROI / Outcome

Most recent Cox Active Listening · May 2026

SEC 4 cases

Investor-facing AI claims — trading platforms, investment advisor statements, and public company disclosures.

Accuracy / PerformanceFirst / Only / BestVague AI-poweredAutomation / Replacement

Most recent Presto Automation · January 2025

ASA/CAP 3 cases

Advertising substantiation for AI claims — what 'AI-powered' must explain to meet advertising standards.

Vague AI-poweredCompliance / Safety

Most recent ASA/CAP AI as a marketing term · November 2024

Claim patterns and evidence questions

Each row maps a documented AI claim pattern to the evidence questions it carries. Evidence questions are drawn from the case materials listed.

Source Common claim pattern Evidence questions Related cases
FTC Numeric accuracy, detection rate, or bias-free claim with a specific figure Benchmark scope and design, item types tested, sample size, false positive and false negative rates, retest schedule
FTC Testimonials or review counts used as independent social proof Reviewer independence, AI-generation or enhancement disclosure, collection timing relative to actual product use
FTC AI replaces a professional, eliminates human review, or automates a full workflow Task scope tested, professional comparison standard, human-review boundary, escalation path when AI output is insufficient
FTC AI-linked earnings, income, or business outcome claim Customer outcome distribution, total cost basis, time period, which result remains if the AI component is removed
SEC AI used for trading, investment decisions, or investor-facing capability statements Model description and ownership, how AI contribution is measured and isolated, independent validation, disclosure document references
ASA/CAP 'AI-powered,' 'AI-driven,' or 'AI-enabled' used as a descriptor without explaining what AI does What AI specifically does, what input it processes and output it produces, what the product would do without AI

Cases by source

Selected cases from official or high-confidence sources, grouped by regulator. Each case documents a claim type, evidence gap, and buyer questions — not a verdict on any product or company.

FTC

SEC

ASA/CAP

Browse all cases →

How to use these sources

  1. Find the claim pattern in the matrix above. A specific number — '98% accurate,' 'detects all threats,' 'zero bias' — maps to FTC Accuracy / Performance. Claims about replacing a professional or eliminating human review map to Automation / Replacement. Claims in investor communications or financial product contexts map to the SEC rows. 'AI-powered' without any explanation of what AI does maps to ASA/CAP.
  2. Open a related case and read the evidence gap. The Workado case and NIST detector evaluation show what evidence to ask for around AI detector accuracy claims. The Delphia and Global Predictions cases show what the SEC found missing for investor-facing AI performance claims. Read the 'Evidence gap' and 'Buyer questions' fields in each case.
  3. Compare the claim wording you are reviewing. If the marketing copy uses a number without a benchmark, 'fully automated' without a human-review boundary, or 'AI-powered' without explaining what AI does, the evidence burden is likely similar to the documented case.
  4. Use /check to generate an evidence-burden note. Paste the URL or claim text into /check to get evidence requests, buyer questions, and wording boundaries for that specific claim.

Source updates and corrections

If a source status, date, company response, or case context is outdated, send a correction. Submissions are private by default and reviewed before any update appears on this page.

Send a correction →