Website representations

A supplier report is not your laboratory’s report

Attribution is accurate only when it identifies the report’s actual issuer and describes the merchant’s role without assigning it work performed by someone else. Keep the issuer, the supplier that supplied the file, and the merchant’s documented activity separate. Receiving, commissioning, hosting, and performing testing are different activities. Compare the public wording with the report and the records behind the relationship; correct claims that turn supplier documentation into a claim that the merchant operated the laboratory.

For: A research-only merchant publishing a supplier-provided laboratory report beside its own brand or testing claims.

Updated 2026-10-01

Request a website review

Identify the issuer independently of the storefront brand

Preserve the report as received and read the issuer name printed on it, its identifier, and its issue date. Then compare the attribution on the product page, download button, report caption, and any image in which the report appears. The merchant’s logo near a document does not identify who issued that document.

A supplier can deliver a report issued by another organization. Record both roles instead of using the supplier’s name as the laboratory name. If the document names several organizations, distinguish their stated roles and leave an unclear issuer unresolved until the issuing organization clarifies it. Do not choose a name merely because it is familiar to customers.

This review concerns what the store says about the report’s authorship. The separate question of whether the document belongs to this product or batch should already have a traceable answer. Correct attribution cannot repair a product-to-report mismatch.

Describe only the work the merchant can document

Use purchasing correspondence, the report-delivery record, and any actual testing commission to establish what your business did. Receiving a file from a supplier supports a statement about receiving that file. A documented commission may support a statement about commissioning work. Neither activity, by itself, establishes that your business performed the test or operates the laboratory.

Read collective wording carefully. Phrases such as “our laboratory” or “tested by us” assign an activity to the merchant. If the records show only resale and receipt of supplier documentation, change the attribution so that the issuer and the merchant’s limited role are clear. Do not replace the wording with another relationship claim, such as partnership, unless that relationship is independently supported.

Preserve the issuer’s identity when writing a merchant summary. Reformatting a result table or adding your branding does not make you the report’s author. Label the merchant’s summary as a summary, retain a trace to the source report, and avoid presenting it as a newly issued laboratory document.

Keep accreditation and endorsement claims separate

ISO’s public page for ISO/IEC 17025:2017 describes requirements for competence, impartiality, and consistent operation of testing and calibration laboratories. It says accreditation bodies use the standard as assessment criteria. This is a description of a laboratory standard, not a certification of the merchant’s product or evidence that the merchant itself operates an accredited laboratory.

Do not move an issuer’s accreditation statement onto the merchant merely because its products have a supplier report. A claim about a particular laboratory and scope needs its own supporting accreditation record. The ISO page alone does not verify a named laboratory, authenticate this report, or establish a relationship between that laboratory and your store.

The FTC’s advertising guidance requires truthful, nonmisleading, substantiated claims across media including websites. Apply that principle to attribution and nearby captions as well as to the numbers quoted. A correct issuer name alongside unsupported claims of merchant testing still leaves a misleading relationship claim to resolve.

Correct the public relationship and retain the evidence

For every affected URL, record the published attribution, the issuer, the supplier’s role, and the activity your business can support. Choose a correction that states those facts in ordinary language. Where the role remains uncertain, remove or withhold the unsupported relationship claim while seeking clarification; do not fill the gap with a laboratory-looking badge.

Keep the original report unchanged. Record the replacement copy, its owner, and the date the corrected public page was checked. Review nearby text and downloadable summaries too, since changing the caption alone will not correct a contradictory heading. Permission to publish a report or logo is a separate matter to confirm through your actual records; identifying an issuer does not itself grant that permission.

For a Prism website-review consultation, provide the affected public URLs and the attribution question, and describe the research-only catalog accurately. Scope, fees, and terms are discussed before work. Send no passwords, card details, customer records, or private supplier files through the public contact form. The inquiry prompts email follow-up; it is not a purchased review or a processing application. The provider retains eligibility decisions.

Report attribution record

Complete one record for each published attribution. Use the original report and actual relationship records. A supported issuer name does not resolve an unsupported claim about the merchant’s activity; keep those findings separate and record the published correction.

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.

Report attribution record. The last column is for temporary notes.
Attribution elementEvidence to compareCorrection decisionYour record
Published attributionExact wording and URL, including the caption, download label, heading, or merchant summary.Identify which organization a reader would understand to have issued the report or performed the work.
Report issuerIssuer name, report identifier, date, and any explicit role printed on the unchanged report.Name that issuer accurately; seek clarification if the document does not distinguish roles.
Supplier relationshipActual delivery correspondence or purchasing record showing who supplied the document.Describe provision of a file separately from issuing a report or performing a test.
Merchant activityRecords of what the merchant actually received, commissioned, summarized, or performed.Retain only the activity those records establish; do not infer ownership of a laboratory.
Accreditation wordingAny claim that attributes laboratory accreditation to the issuer, merchant, or product.Keep the laboratory’s supported scope separate from merchant identity and product claims.
Required correctionSupported replacement text, affected surfaces, responsible editor, and public check date.Close each occurrence after the new attribution is visible; preserve the original report and unresolved questions.

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.

Limits

  • Attribution does not establish document authenticity, scientific validity, product quality, legal status, or payment-provider approval.
  • ISO/IEC 17025 describes laboratory requirements; its public description is not product certification or proof of a specific laboratory’s accreditation.

Related guides

Sources

  • FTC truth in advertising — checked 2026-09-28. FTC guidance requires truthful, nonmisleading, substantiated advertising across media including websites. This supports reviewing issuer and merchant-activity claims, without approving a particular phrase.
  • ISO/IEC 17025:2017 — checked 2026-09-21. ISO describes ISO/IEC 17025:2017 as requirements for laboratory competence, impartiality, and consistent operation, used by accreditation bodies as assessment criteria. Its public page does not certify a merchant product or verify a specific report issuer.
  • Prism solutions — checked 2026-09-21. Prism offers storefront review, processing preparation, and help with provider website questions. Scope, fees, and terms are discussed before work; the provider decides eligibility and account terms.
  • Prism contact — checked 2026-09-21. The consultation form asks for the website, products, and question, excluding payment-card details, passwords, and customer records. Follow-up is by email; a request is not a booking, purchase, or processing application.

Request a website review

Want a second look at your own storefront pages?

Request a website reviewAll resources