Affiliate and partner pages: find claims that conflict with your store

Start from pages you authorized

A conflict matters here when the page is one your business authorized: an affiliate link you issued, a partner page you approved, a post you paid for, or an employee speaking for the company. A stranger's comment that you did not authorize is a different problem. Do not build the inventory out of pages you have not actually found.

This page is about how other people describe the store. It is not the page for editing your own product description, and it is not the page for the fulfillment promise on a preorder. Prism's features page says a website review can look at marketing claims in banners, images, testimonials, and linked content, including statements that conflict with the product description. That is a review of published material within an agreed scope. It is not a program that runs your affiliate network.

Compare the claim with the catalog, and stop there

The FTC's staff Q&A says the Guides reflect the principle that endorsements must be honest and not misleading. An endorsement must reflect the honest opinion of the endorser and cannot be used to make a claim the marketer of the product could not legally make. The same document says the Guides themselves do not have the force of law, that staff guidance is not a safe harbor, and that whether a claim is deceptive depends on the facts of the case.

For this worksheet, the comparison is mechanical. Read the sentence on the partner page. Read the product description on your store. If the partner page adds a result, a buyer, or a use the store does not state, record the two sentences and the URL. Do not rewrite the partner sentence into a new claim, and do not copy it onto the product page. A research-only catalog does not gain a human-use description because a partner wrote one.

The Q&A says a reasonable monitoring program explains what network members can and cannot say, instructs them how to disclose the connection, searches periodically for what they say, and acts on questionable practices. It also says there is no one-size-fits-all search schedule, and that pre-approval is easier than searching afterward. It says the scope depends on the risk of harm and gives health-related networks as an example of closer supervision. That example is not a list of claims this page will supply. You still decide, with counsel if you need it, which statements your own catalog can support.

A connection the reader would not expect has to be visible

The Q&A says that if there is a connection between an endorser and the marketer that a significant minority of consumers would not expect, and it would affect how they evaluate the endorsement, the connection should be disclosed clearly and conspicuously. Payment, an employee relationship, or something of value are the examples it gives. It says a profile page that names an employer is not enough when the reader may only see the post.

For an affiliate who earns a commission, the Q&A says to disclose the relationship clearly and conspicuously, close to the recommendation. It says a statement such as commissions for purchases made through links in the post can do that, and that "paid link" beside the link should disclose the nature of the link. It says "commissionable link" is probably not clear. The same guidance applies when the review appears on someone else's site or in a short post. If the page is obviously a paid advertisement, the Q&A says an additional commission disclosure is not required, and it warns that what is obvious to the merchant may not be obvious to the visitor.

Record whether the page you authorized has a disclosure a reader can see next to the claim. Do not treat a platform's built-in label as automatically sufficient. The Q&A says the brand and the endorser remain responsible for a clear disclosure, and that a platform tool is evaluated on whether it actually discloses the connection.

Assign a correction owner and keep the proof

A found conflict is not finished when you paste the URL into a note. The Q&A says to take appropriate action when you find questionable practices, and that delegating the program to a public-relations firm does not remove the advertiser's responsibility. Name the person at your business who will ask for the correction, the person who controls the other page, and the date you will check that the sentence changed.

You can decide to withdraw approval, stop paying for the placement, or ask the publisher to remove the sentence. You cannot decide from this page that the FTC will or will not treat a sentence as deceptive. You cannot decide that a payment provider has a rule about affiliate copy unless that provider's current documentation says so. No such provider rule is stated here.

Prism can include linked marketing claims in a storefront review when that scope is agreed. The review is informational, not a legal opinion or a compliance certification. Scope, fees, and terms are discussed before work. The provider still decides eligibility and account terms. What remains unknown is every page you have not opened and every claim on a network you have not authorized.

Authorized-page inventory

Use one row for one real URL you authorized or that a paid or affiliated publisher controls. Quote the conflicting sentence from the page itself. Do not invent a partner, a quotation, or a product claim.

Worksheet entries are not submitted by Prism’s worksheet and are not saved by the site. Use record types, availability, anonymized observations, or match/mismatch results. Do not enter government identifiers, customer names or addresses, customer messages, receipt-access links, card or bank details, passwords, or keys. Send sensitive documents only through the provider’s verified secure channel.

These are temporary notes. Leaving or reloading this page may clear them. Worksheet entries are not sent automatically. If you copy notes into the consultation message and submit the form, Prism receives them as part of your request.