TL;DR: The U.S. dietary supplement industry generates $78.2 billion in annual sales and is growing at 9.29% per year, but supplement brands face a steep payment processing challenge. Mainstream processors like Stripe, Square, and PayPal routinely reject or terminate supplement merchants due to elevated chargeback rates, aggressive subscription models, and unverified product claims. Supplement companies that need reliable payment processing must pursue high-risk merchant accounts -- accepting processing fees of 3.5-6%, rolling reserves of 5-10%, and intensive regulatory compliance documentation including FDA-compliant labels, current Certificates of Analysis, and subscription billing disclosures that satisfy both ROSCA and the FTC's click-to-cancel framework. This article covers what actually drives the high-risk classification, what the FTC's enforcement record means for supplement businesses, how much high-risk processing costs, and what compliance steps keep accounts open and chargeback ratios manageable.
The U.S. dietary supplements market reached $78.2 billion in 2025 and is projected to grow to $85.4 billion in 2026, according to Precedence Research. The global nutraceuticals market is even larger, valued at $480.4 billion in 2025, per Global Market Insights. Despite this scale, payment processors routinely classify supplement businesses as high-risk -- not because their products are illegal, but because of a combination of structural factors that make these accounts statistically more likely to generate chargebacks, regulatory scrutiny, and financial losses for acquiring banks.
The core regulatory issue is that dietary supplements require no pre-market FDA approval. Under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA), manufacturers are responsible for verifying product safety before selling -- the FDA can only intervene after a product is already on the market. For processors evaluating merchant risk, the absence of pre-market regulatory validation shifts the risk burden entirely onto the financial ecosystem.
Four structural factors drive the high-risk classification for nearly every supplement merchant:
Elevated chargeback rates. Standard e-commerce merchants typically see chargeback rates of 0.5-0.7%, while subscription-based businesses -- which include the majority of nutraceutical direct-to-consumer (DTC) brands -- average 1-2%, nearly double the baseline, according to Presolve research. Chargeback ratios above 1% trigger immediate scrutiny from payment service providers in the nutraceutical space, according to PayAtlas industry benchmarks. The average nutraceutical merchant account approval rate is only 65-80%, meaning roughly one in five applicants is declined outright.
Subscription and auto-ship models. More than 50% of nutraceutical merchants use recurring billing, according to PayAtlas. These subscriptions are the single largest source of "unrecognized charge" disputes in the supplement industry, according to Payment Nerds. Free-trial conversion models alone account for 9.7% of all merchant chargeback risk, per Presolve. The typical pattern: a customer signs up for a "free" product (paying only $4.95 shipping), doesn't read the fine print authorizing a $49.99 monthly charge, sees it on their statement, and files a dispute as "unauthorized."
Subjective product efficacy. Unlike software or hardware, dietary supplements produce results that vary by individual biology and expectations. When outcomes don't match marketing claims -- and supplement marketing frequently raises expectations beyond what products can realistically deliver -- chargebacks follow. As PayShield Technology notes, this is not fraud in the traditional sense but is equally damaging to chargeback ratios. Customers don't dispute the claim with the seller -- they call their bank.
Regulatory and reputational exposure. The FTC has filed over 120 cases challenging health claims made by supplement companies and has brought major enforcement actions against dozens of nutraceutical businesses for deceptive advertising, subscription traps, and unauthorized billing. In April 2023, the FTC sent penalty notices to 670 health-related companies, warning that unsupported claims could trigger civil penalties up to $53,088 per violation. Payment processors monitor enforcement environments carefully: active FTC targeting of an industry increases underwriting scrutiny for every player in that space.
DTC supplement sales accounted for 29% of North American supplement sales in 2025, nearly doubling from 16% in 2020, per Champion Bio. As more supplement brands move to direct online sales with auto-ship programs, the payment processing burden intensifies -- brands become their own merchant of record, and all chargeback risk lands on their own accounts rather than a retailer's.
The Federal Trade Commission has maintained a consistent and escalating enforcement campaign against supplement subscription companies since the late 2000s. The FTC has documented nearly $1.4 billion in consumer losses from supplement and personal care free-trial scams -- covering only the operations the agency has flagged and shut down. In 2023, total FTC enforcement actions in the health and supplement space returned $330 million to consumers. The enforcement record below illustrates the specific practices that have drawn the largest actions.
| Case | Year | Core Violation | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tarr, Inc. (Fowler brothers) | 2017 | Fake celebrity endorsements, hidden subscriptions, $179M operation | $6 million settlement; permanent marketing ban |
| NutraClick LLC | 2016, 2020 | Hidden $29.99-$79.99/month charges; 70,000+ complaints; violated prior order | $1.04 million settlement; permanent negative option ban |
| Apex Capital Group | 2018-2024 | Free-trial supplement subscriptions; shell companies to obscure billing | $2.8 million+ refunds to 153,940 consumers |
| Roca Labs | 2015-2018 | Claimed supplement was "alternative to gastric bypass"; gag clauses on negative reviews | $409,000+ refunded to 7,481 consumers; $26.6M gross sales ruled subject to redress |
| TruHeight / Vanilla Chip LLC | 2026 | "Clinically proven" height claims backed by 32-person study; fake reviews; bot profiles | $4 million judgment; unsubstantiated health claim ban |
| Amazon Prime (ROSCA) | 2025 | Subscription enrollment without consent; deliberately difficult cancellation | $2.5 billion settlement - largest civil ROSCA penalty in FTC history |
The legal framework behind most FTC supplement actions combines two statutes. ROSCA (Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act), enacted in 2010, prohibits online sellers from charging consumers unless they clearly disclose all material terms, obtain express informed consent before charging, and provide a simple cancellation mechanism. ROSCA civil penalties reach $53,088 per violation as of 2025. The FTC has brought approximately 47 ROSCA cases since the law's enactment, with enforcement accelerating sharply in recent years.
The FTC's Click-to-Cancel Rule, finalized in October 2024, was driven by consumer complaint volume reaching approximately 70 per day in 2024 -- up from 42 per day in 2021. The rule required cancellation to be as simple as sign-up. While the Eighth Circuit vacated the rule on procedural grounds in July 2025, the FTC has continued enforcement via ROSCA and Section 5 of the FTC Act, explicitly stating it expects companies to comply with click-to-cancel principles regardless of the rule's legal status.
State law adds another layer. California's auto-renewal law, amended effective July 1, 2025, requires "express affirmative consent" to subscription terms, advance price change notices 7-30 days before billing, and annual renewal reminders, per Arnold & Porter. Minnesota and Utah have passed similar requirements effective 2025. Supplement brands selling nationally must comply with the strictest applicable state standard in addition to federal requirements.
The Rejuvica/Sobrenix case is a useful example of how advertising violations -- not just label violations -- trigger FTC action. The company marketed dietary supplements claiming to reduce alcohol cravings and consumption. The FTC found the claims unsubstantiated and the advertising was presented as objective news content rather than paid promotion. The result: $536,000 in consumer refunds and a permanent injunction. The practical lesson: every advertising channel -- social media, email, influencer posts, review sites -- carries FTC enforcement exposure independent of what appears on the physical label.
Stripe, Square, and PayPal are payment facilitators -- they aggregate thousands of businesses under a single master merchant account and apply automated risk monitoring across the entire portfolio. This model works efficiently for low-risk businesses but creates a structural incompatibility with supplement companies. As Vector Payments explains, payment facilitators "approve merchants quickly through automated screening, then monitor activity over time" -- once a risk flag is detected, automated systems act immediately, with no human review, no appeal process, and no advance notice.
Stripe's own documentation on business restrictions describes "pseudo-pharmaceuticals" as a restricted category due to "untested or unapproved products and exaggerated claims." While Stripe has approved some supplement companies with strong compliance records, nutraceutical accounts face heightened scrutiny from the outset. Triggers for account suspension include: exceeding an internal chargeback threshold (which may be lower than Visa's published 1.5% threshold), rapid account growth velocity, specific product-description keywords flagged in automated reviews, or links to previously terminated accounts.
A case study documented by We Tranxact illustrates the pattern: a supplement subscription business processed successfully on Stripe for 18 months before sudden suspension. The business maintained a chargeback rate of approximately 0.8% -- not particularly high for the supplement industry -- but above Stripe's internal threshold. The suspension was triggered not by product problems but by rapid growth: a 40% subscriber increase and doubled transaction volume in three months. Stripe's fraud detection systems flagged the growth velocity as suspicious, resulting in immediate account termination and frozen funds.
As Bankful notes, because most standard processors don't support high-risk industries, supplement companies need specialized payment processors from the start -- not after a suspended account has already halted the business.
Beyond chargeback rates and growth velocity, supplement merchants face rejection from mainstream processors for several additional reasons: subscription billing models (which processors associate with elevated dispute rates), ingredient classifications that vary by jurisdiction (e.g., certain botanical extracts or hormone precursors), and website language that resembles drug claims. Automated underwriting systems scan merchant websites for specific phrases; language like "treats," "cures," "clinically proven," or "prevents" in health claim contexts can trigger automatic rejection without any human review of the actual product.
Supplement brands that secure a high-risk merchant account pay significantly more than standard retail merchants. The premium reflects the increased risk burden that specialized processors assume -- elevated chargeback exposure, regulatory scrutiny, and more intensive underwriting. Understanding these cost components upfront is essential for accurate financial planning.
| Cost Component | Standard Processor (Stripe/Square) | High-Risk Supplement Account |
|---|---|---|
| Processing rate | ~2.9% + $0.30/transaction | 3.5-6%+ per transaction |
| Monthly fee | None or minimal | $25-$100/month typical |
| Rolling reserve | None | 5-10% of monthly volume held 90-180 days |
| Chargeback fee | $15 (Stripe) | $20-$50 per dispute |
| Initial processing limit | No limit (or very high) | $25,000-$100,000/month for 3-6 months |
| Onboarding time | Instant (automated) | 2-4 weeks (manual underwriting) |
| Application requirements | Basic business info | Bank statements, COAs, processing history, label samples, PCI certification |
Processing fees for nutraceutical merchant accounts range from 3.5-4.5% at the lower end, according to Swell, with some accounts reaching 6% or higher for merchants with elevated risk profiles or limited processing history. QuadraPay pegs transaction fees at 1-5% plus $0.10-$0.50 per transaction, varying by provider and card type.
The rolling reserve is the cost element that most surprises new high-risk merchant applicants. A rolling reserve is a percentage of daily card sales -- typically 5-10%, though higher-risk accounts may face 15% or more -- withheld by the processor for 90-180 days, per SecureGlobalPay. The funds are held to cover potential chargebacks and fraud, then released on a rolling basis as the holding period expires.
Consider the cash flow impact on a supplement brand processing $100,000 per month at a 10% reserve held for 180 days: each month, $10,000 is withheld; in month seven, the month-one reserve is released while a new $10,000 is held. Net effect: $60,000 in capital is perpetually locked up during the first six months of operation. Rolling reserves can typically be reduced or eliminated after 6-12 months of clean processing history and controlled chargebacks, per TailoredPay.
New nutraceutical merchant accounts typically carry initial processing limits of $25,000-$100,000 per month for the first 3-6 months, per DigiPay Solutions. This allows processors to establish a risk baseline -- evaluating payment flows, average transaction sizes, and chargeback patterns -- before extending higher volume capacity. Supplement brands projecting rapid growth should negotiate processing limit expansion timelines as part of the initial merchant agreement.
Underwriting documentation requirements for high-risk supplement merchant accounts are substantially more intensive than standard applications, according to ARETO Payment and Payment Nerds. Applicants should expect to provide: business license and articles of incorporation, government-issued ID for all principals with 25%+ ownership, 3-6 months of bank statements, prior processing statements with chargeback reports, product descriptions with ingredient lists and Certificates of Analysis (COAs) from accredited independent laboratories, FDA disclaimer and label samples, subscription terms documentation, refund and cancellation policy, and evidence of active fraud prevention tools (AVS, CVV, 3-D Secure, PCI DSS compliance certificate).
Subscription billing compliance is not a separate issue from payment processing -- it is payment processing. Non-compliant subscription practices generate chargebacks, elevated chargeback ratios lead to account termination, and account termination can result in MATCH list placement. Payment Nerds states directly: "Subscriptions are the top source of 'unrecognized charge' disputes for supplement merchants."
The compliance framework for supplement subscriptions is built on federal law (ROSCA and FTC Act Section 5), the FTC's enforcement actions, and a growing network of state auto-renewal laws. The consent standard, as crystallized in recent settlements, requires five elements:
| State | Key Requirement | Effective Date |
|---|---|---|
| California | Express affirmative consent via separate checkbox; 7-30 day price change notice; annual reminder | July 1, 2025 |
| Minnesota | Annual written notice required for all ongoing subscriptions | January 1, 2025 |
| Utah | Separate free-trial end notice at least 3 days before billing begins | Active |
| Federal (ROSCA) | Clear disclosure, express consent, simple cancellation; $53,088/violation civil penalty | Active (2010) |
Practical steps that demonstrably reduce chargeback rates: merchants who implement clear billing descriptors, trial reminders, and one-click cancellation typically see chargeback rates drop 35% within 60 days, per Presolve's research. Specific implementation recommendations include sending pre-charge email reminders 3-5 days before each billing cycle (including the exact charge amount, date, and a direct cancellation link), matching the credit card billing descriptor exactly to the "doing business as" brand name, and providing a customer portal where subscribers can pause, modify, or cancel without contacting support.
For free-trial conversion models specifically -- the highest-chargeback-risk format in the supplement industry -- the Presolve data shows that 76% of consumers prefer to resolve subscription disputes through their bank rather than contacting the merchant. A trial-end email sent 3-5 days before the first paid charge, including the subscription amount and an easy cancellation link, intercepts the majority of customers who would otherwise escalate to a bank dispute. This single intervention has the highest return on investment of any chargeback prevention measure for supplement subscription businesses.
FDA labeling compliance is a payment processing requirement, not just a regulatory formality. Processors review merchant websites during underwriting; missing disclaimers, disease claims, or absent Supplement Facts panels are near-automatic rejection triggers. Understanding what the FDA requires -- and how the FTC's separate advertising standards compound those requirements -- is essential for any supplement brand seeking stable payment processing.
Under the FDA's framework for dietary supplements, every product sold as a dietary supplement must carry seven required label elements, per Sttark's 2025 FDA labeling guide:
The distinction between permitted structure/function claims and prohibited disease claims is operationally critical. Supplement brands can make statements about how a product affects the structure or function of the body -- for example, "supports immune health," "helps maintain joint flexibility," or "supports energy production." These claims do not require FDA approval, but they do require the mandatory disclaimer: "This statement has not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease." This disclaimer must appear prominently and adjacent to the claim on both the label and marketing materials, per FDA structure/function claims guidance.
Disease claims -- "treats arthritis," "cures diabetes," "prevents cancer," "reduces risk of heart disease" -- require FDA drug approval that supplement companies cannot obtain. Any such language on a supplement website is a payment processor rejection trigger and an FTC enforcement target. Manufacturers must also notify the FDA within 30 days of first marketing a supplement with a structure/function claim.
The FTC operates a separate and parallel substantiation standard that applies to all supplement advertising. Even if a product label is technically compliant with FDA requirements, the FTC requires "competent and reliable scientific evidence" to support any efficacy claims made in advertising -- typically multiple well-controlled human clinical trials. The FTC updated its Health Products Compliance Guidance in December 2022, explicitly stating that the FDA disclaimer on a label does not satisfy FTC advertising substantiation requirements.
Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP) under 21 CFR Part 111 require supplement manufacturers to test every finished batch against established specifications, maintain a Master Manufacturing Record for every product, control raw material sourcing with incoming ingredient testing, maintain batch records for full product traceability, and conduct stability studies supporting shelf-life claims. cGMP compliance is increasingly required by major retail and marketplace partners as well: Amazon expanded its cGMP documentation requirements in December 2025, per Inventory Ready, effectively making cGMP mandatory for brands selling through that platform. Certificates of Analysis (COAs) from independent, accredited laboratories serve as the primary compliance documentation reviewed by processors and compliance platforms, per Qredible.
Chargebacks in the supplement industry are not primarily a fraud problem -- they are a structural problem created by the combination of subscription billing, subjective product expectations, and customer service friction. Understanding that distinction points toward the right solutions: chargebacks are reduced not by fraud filters alone but by removing the conditions that make customers reach for the phone to call their bank.
The financial stakes are substantial. A single $29 chargeback costs far more than the transaction value. Presolve's analysis calculates the full impact: $29 revenue reversal + $20-$30 chargeback fee + approximately $15 in lost product and shipping + $232 in lost future subscription revenue (average customer lifespan of 8 months at $29/month) = approximately $521 in total impact from a single dispute. An estimated 70-79% of supplement subscription chargebacks are "friendly fraud" -- the cardholder made the purchase, received the product, and disputes the charge anyway -- compared to 40-60% for standard e-commerce.
Card networks enforce chargeback thresholds that determine whether a merchant account survives:
| Program | Monitoring Threshold | Excessive Threshold | Consequences at Excessive |
|---|---|---|---|
| Visa VAMP (effective April 2026) | 0.9% (90 basis points) | 1.5% (150 basis points) | $8/transaction fee on fraud + dispute transactions; acquirer sanctions |
| Mastercard ECP | 1% + 150 chargebacks/month (ECM) | 3% + 300 chargebacks/month (HECM) | $1,000-$200,000/month in fines; potential cumulative liability |
The MATCH list (Mastercard's Member Alert to Control High-Risk Merchants) creates a five-year processing blacklist for merchants terminated for excessive chargebacks. According to Merchant Maverick and eMerchant Authority, a processor must add a merchant to MATCH within one business day of termination if the merchant's Mastercard chargeback rate exceeded 1% in any single month with $5,000 or more in chargebacks. Records remain for five years, with removal only possible through passage of five years, proven erroneous listing, or PCI noncompliance remediation.
Chargeback prevention for supplement merchants involves multiple layers. Chargeback alert services -- Ethoca and Verifi, as described by PayShield Technology -- notify merchants in real time when a customer files a bank dispute, allowing the merchant to resolve the issue before the dispute becomes a formal chargeback counted against the ratio. Verifi's Rapid Dispute Resolution (RDR) service automatically refunds high-probability disputes based on merchant-defined rules, protecting chargeback ratios without manual review of every alert.
Technical fraud prevention tools reduce card-not-present fraud that creates chargebacks: Address Verification Service (AVS) compares billing address with card issuer records; CVV verification validates physical card possession; 3-D Secure (Verified by Visa, Mastercard SecureCode) adds an authentication step at checkout; velocity filters flag unusual transaction patterns; and device fingerprinting identifies suspicious patterns linked to prior fraud. For borderline customer service contacts involving product dissatisfaction, Verified Credit Card Processing recommends offering an immediate refund rather than waiting for the customer to escalate: processing a refund costs the transaction amount; absorbing a formal chargeback costs the transaction amount plus a $20-$50 fee plus a chargeback ratio mark.
Supplement merchants should monitor chargeback ratios weekly -- not monthly -- and maintain internal alert thresholds well below card network minimums. European Merchant Services recommends setting internal alerts at 0.5%, giving merchants time to identify and remediate problems before approaching Visa's 0.9% monitoring threshold. The relationship between chargeback ratio and account stability is asymmetric: ratios above threshold accumulate consequences quickly, while improving a damaged ratio takes multiple billing cycles.
Most supplement merchant account failures are preventable. The patterns that lead to account termination -- and in the worst cases, MATCH list placement -- are well documented and consistently repeat across the industry. The following are the most common mistakes that end supplement merchant accounts.
Misrepresenting the business during application. A supplement company that describes itself as a "health and wellness retail" business on its merchant application but actually runs an aggressive auto-ship subscription model will face account termination for material misrepresentation when the processor discovers the discrepancy during a website review. Processors review websites during application and conduct ongoing reviews post-approval. Per Qredible, supplement businesses should conduct a thorough compliance assessment covering all product claims, website content, COAs, and processing history before applying -- and present documentation proactively rather than waiting for underwriters to ask.
Making disease claims in advertising or on the website. Disease claims on supplement websites are a payment processor rejection trigger independent of FDA enforcement risk. Underwriters review merchant websites and may conduct ongoing monitoring post-approval. Language like "clinically proven to cure," "treats," "reverses," or "prevents" specific diseases crosses from permitted structure/function territory into drug claim territory requiring FDA drug approval that supplement brands cannot provide. The FTC's action against TruHeight demonstrates that "clinically proven" language backed by a single company-sponsored study of 32 subjects does not constitute adequate substantiation under the FTC's standard.
Poor subscription disclosure. Burying subscription terms in fine print, requiring multi-step cancellation, or failing to send pre-billing reminders are the dominant sources of supplement merchant chargebacks. The ROSCA civil penalties in cases have reached $22 million (and now $2.5 billion for Amazon), and each individual violation generates an additional $53,088 civil penalty. From a payment processing standpoint, the consequences are equally severe: chargebacks accumulate until the ratio triggers processor termination.
Single processor dependency. Relying on one payment processor leaves supplement businesses existentially vulnerable. When a mainstream processor terminates an account -- which can happen with no notice and an immediate freeze on funds -- the business cannot process payments until a new high-risk processor completes underwriting (2-4 weeks minimum). Account freeze events during Shopify Payments reviews can result in 90-120 day holds, per Swell. The best practice is maintaining relationships with at least two processing entities and routing meaningful transaction volume through both to keep each account active.
Using aggregator platforms that restrict supplements. Shopify Payments, PayPal, and similar aggregators are attractive to supplement startups because setup is fast and initial fees appear competitive. The problem is that these platforms' acceptable use policies restrict supplements to varying degrees, and enforcement is automated and sometimes arbitrary. As Payment Nerds notes, merchants who rely on out-of-the-box aggregator processing often experience shut-down accounts, frozen payouts, and excessive reserves -- typically at critical revenue moments.
Ignoring chargeback ratios until formal warning. Many supplement merchants only learn they have a chargeback ratio problem when their processor sends a formal warning -- by which point the ratio may already be high enough to trigger MATCH listing upon termination. Internal monitoring should use a 0.5% alert threshold, well below Visa's 0.9% monitoring threshold, to allow time for remediation before the account enters formal dispute programs.
Neglecting Certificate of Analysis documentation. Processors increasingly require COAs from independent, accredited laboratories as a condition of both initial approval and ongoing account maintenance. Per Qredible, inadequate COA management is one of the most common reasons supplement merchant applications are rejected: "For payment processors, properly managed COAs represent a crucial risk-mitigation tool." COAs must come from verified labs -- not from the manufacturer -- and must be current (typically no older than one year for active products).
Technically, some supplement brands have been approved on Stripe and PayPal, particularly those with strong compliance documentation, no subscription or free-trial models, and clean chargeback histories. However, these platforms are payment facilitators that use automated risk monitoring, and supplement merchants face a substantially higher risk of sudden account termination or fund holds compared to standard retail businesses. Brands relying on Stripe or PayPal for supplement sales are exposed to the possibility of account suspension with no advance notice and immediate frozen funds. Purpose-built high-risk merchant accounts offer more stability for supplement businesses, at a higher cost. As Bankful explains, supplement companies ideally establish high-risk accounts before they ever need one, rather than scrambling after a mainstream processor terminates their account.
There is no single universal termination threshold -- each processor sets its own internal limits, which may be lower than card network published thresholds. However, processors take action when accounts consistently exceed Visa's 0.9% monitoring threshold (90 basis points) or Mastercard's 1% with 150 chargebacks per month. Visa's updated VAMP program, effective April 2026, designates merchants "Excessive" at 150 basis points (1.5%) and applies per-transaction surcharges. Mastercard's Excessive Chargeback Program levies fines of $1,000-$200,000 per month for accounts exceeding thresholds, per AltoPay. Supplement merchants should maintain internal chargeback monitoring with an alert threshold of 0.5%, giving them time to remediate before approaching formal monitoring program limits.
A rolling reserve is a percentage of daily card sales -- typically 5-10% for supplement merchant accounts -- withheld by the processor for 90-180 days to cover potential chargebacks and fraud, per SecureGlobalPay. The reserve "rolls" rather than being a single upfront hold: each day's withholding is released after the holding period expires, with new withheld amounts replacing it continuously. Rolling reserves are standard for new high-risk supplement accounts and can typically be reduced or eliminated after 6-12 months of clean processing history, according to TailoredPay. Supplement brands should factor the reserve's cash flow impact into their financial planning -- for a brand processing $100,000 per month at a 10% reserve for 180 days, $60,000 is effectively tied up during the initial period.
Supplement brands can make "structure/function claims" that describe how a product affects the structure or function of the body -- for example, "supports immune health," "helps maintain joint flexibility," or "supports energy production." These claims must be accompanied by the required FDA disclaimer: "This statement has not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease," per FDA guidance. Disease claims -- "treats," "cures," "prevents," or "reduces risk of" specific diseases -- require FDA drug approval and are off-limits for supplement brands. The FTC independently requires "competent and reliable scientific evidence" to support any efficacy claims in advertising, regardless of what appears on the label. This typically means multiple well-controlled human clinical trials, not a single company-sponsored study, per Qredible's FTC compliance analysis.
The MATCH list (Member Alert to Control High-Risk Merchants) is Mastercard's system for flagging terminated merchants so that other processors can identify them during underwriting. A merchant's processor is required to add the merchant to MATCH within one business day of account termination if the merchant's Mastercard chargeback rate exceeded 1% in any single month with $5,000 or more in chargebacks, per Stripe's MATCH documentation. MATCH records remain active for five years, per Merchant Maverick. Being on MATCH does not make it impossible to find payment processing, but it significantly restricts options, increases the rate and reserve requirements that processors will offer, and requires full disclosure during any new merchant application. Processors cannot remove MATCH entries upon request -- even if chargebacks were later reversed or the merchant won disputes -- and there are only three paths to removal: passage of five years, proven erroneous listing, or PCI noncompliance followed by becoming compliant.