Product Claims

What can you actually say about your product?

A product claim can be only a few words long.

But those few words can influence:

• formulation

• testing

• regulatory assessment

• packaging

• artwork

• advertising

• customer expectations

“pH neutral.”

“Coating safe.”

“12 months protection.”

“Biodegradable.”

“Ceramic.”

“Professional grade.”

“Antibacterial.”

These statements may look like marketing decisions.

They are often technical decisions too.

A strong private-label project therefore asks:

What do we want to be able to say about the product?

before development is finished.

Not after the label has already been designed.

A claim creates an expectation

When you state that a product:

lasts 12 months

you create an expectation about durability.

When you say:

safe for coatings

you create an expectation about compatibility.

When you say:

pH neutral

you make a measurable statement about the product.

When you say:

biodegradable

you make an environmental claim that may require significantly more context and substantiation than the word itself suggests.

A claim should therefore have a reason behind it.

Start with the difference between fact and positioning

Not all marketing language is the same.

Consider:

“Premium detailing shampoo”

Primarily positioning.

“pH 7”

A measurable technical statement.

“Removes road film”

A performance claim.

“Up to 12 months protection”

A durability claim.

“Biodegradable”

An environmental claim.

“Kills 99.9% of bacteria”

Potentially a biocidal efficacy claim with significant regulatory implications.

Different claims require different levels and types of support.

Claims should begin during the product brief

If a claim is commercially important, put it in the development brief.

For example:

DESIRED CLAIM

“Suitable for ceramic-coated vehicles.”

That tells R&D that compatibility with coated surfaces matters.

Or:

DESIRED CLAIM

“Up to six months protection.”

Now durability becomes part of the technical target.

Or:

DESIRED CLAIM

“Highly concentrated — up to 1:500.”

Now concentration, usability and performance at dilution become development parameters.

Claims can therefore help define the product.

A useful claim framework

For every proposed claim, ask five questions.

1. What exactly are we saying?

Avoid ambiguity.

2. Can it be measured or substantiated?

What evidence supports it?

3. Under what conditions is it true?

Application, dilution, surface, preparation, climate?

4. Does the wording create regulatory implications?

Particularly for environmental, safety or biocidal claims.

5. Does the customer actually care?

A technically valid claim is not automatically commercially useful.

pH neutral

Simple claim. Measurable characteristic.

“pH neutral” is common in car care.

But it should correspond to the actual product at the relevant condition.

For concentrates, also consider whether the claim refers to:

• the concentrate

• the recommended dilution

• both

And remember:

pH alone does not define how aggressive or gentle a cleaner is.

Cleaning behaviour also depends on:

• surfactants

• solvents

• concentration

• chelating agents

• dwell time

• substrate

So:

pH neutral

can be useful information.

But it should not automatically be interpreted as:

safe for absolutely every surface under every condition.

“Coating safe”

This sounds straightforward but needs definition.

Questions include:

• Which type of coating?

• At what dilution?

• Under what application conditions?

• Does “safe” mean no immediate visible damage?

• Does repeated use affect hydrophobicity or durability?

A better development target might be:

Intended for regular maintenance of ceramic-coated automotive paint when used according to instructions.

This gives the claim context.

“Safe on all surfaces”

Be careful with absolutes.

Claims containing words such as:

• all

• always

• completely

• never

• 100%

create very broad expectations.

Modern vehicles can contain:

• paint

• matte finishes

• polished metals

• sensitive plastics

• screens

• leather

• textiles

• coatings

• aftermarket surfaces

Unless that breadth is genuinely intended and supportable, narrower wording is often stronger.

Specificity can create more credibility than exaggeration.

Durability claims

“Up to 12 months” needs a context.

Protection durability is influenced by:

• surface preparation

• application quantity

• curing

• mileage

• climate

• washing frequency

• chemicals used during maintenance

• storage conditions

• substrate

A product may legitimately perform differently on two vehicles.

That means durability claims need carefully defined test and use conditions.

“Up to” does not remove the need for evidence

Writing:

up to 12 months

is not a substitute for understanding the product's actual durability.

The wording allows for variation.

It does not make an arbitrary maximum meaningful.

The underlying performance should still justify the claim.

Define the durability protocol

For important durability claims, decide:

SURFACE PREPARATION

How was the surface prepared?

APPLICATION

How much product was used and how?

CURING

What conditions were used?

EXPOSURE

Outdoor, indoor, mileage, washing?

MAINTENANCE

Which products were used afterward?

END POINT

What determines that protection is no longer considered effective?

Without a defined method, “12 months” can mean very different things.

Hydrophobicity claims

Statements such as:

• extreme beading

• highly hydrophobic

• water-repellent

should correspond to observable product behaviour.

But water behaviour alone does not necessarily describe:

• durability

• chemical resistance

• overall protection

A spectacular bead on day one is not the complete performance story.

“Ceramic”

Define what the word is communicating.

The word “ceramic” is widely used in automotive care.

It can refer commercially to very different technologies and product types.

Examples include:

• professional coatings

• consumer coatings

• spray sealants

• shampoos

• detailers

• maintenance products

If “ceramic” is important to the positioning, the underlying technology and intended customer interpretation should be understood.

Avoid relying on the word alone to communicate product quality.

“SiO₂”

Similar caution applies to ingredient-led claims.

If a product prominently references:

• SiO₂

• graphene

• ceramic

• polymer technology

• fluorine-free

• bio-based ingredients

the statement should accurately reflect the finished product and its intended meaning.

An ingredient name is not automatically evidence of performance.

Performance should still be demonstrated by the finished formulation.

“Professional grade”

This is largely a positioning statement.

But ask:

What actually makes the product professional?

Possibilities could include:

• higher concentration

• workflow efficiency

• faster processing

• specific technical application

• pack size

• dosing

• performance requirements

A strong brand can explain what “professional” means instead of simply printing the word.

“High gloss”

This can be a useful performance claim.

It can potentially be evaluated through:

• visual comparisons

• instrumental measurement where appropriate

• controlled panel testing

But ask whether gloss is actually the differentiating factor.

A product may create stronger:

• colour depth

• slickness

• clarity

• reflectivity

Different visual effects are sometimes grouped under the word “gloss.”

Define what matters.

“Streak-free”

This is application-dependent.

Potential variables include:

• surface temperature

• amount used

• microfiber

• humidity

• glass condition

• previous residues

A practical testing protocol should reflect realistic customer use.

“Residue-free”

Again, define the context.

A product used incorrectly can leave residue even if the formulation normally does not.

Instructions and claims should work together.

“Silicone-free”

This is fundamentally a composition claim.

It should be used only when the actual formulation and relevant raw-material information support it.

Also ask:

Why does the customer need this claim?

In some professional environments it may be commercially relevant.

In others, it may add little value.

Do not add technical claims simply because competitors do.

“Solvent-free”

Define what you mean.

The word “solvent” can be used imprecisely in marketing.

Water itself is a solvent in the chemical sense.

Commercially, customers may actually mean:

• no organic solvent

• no petroleum solvent

• no VOC solvent

• water-based

Those are different concepts.

Use language that communicates the intended technical distinction accurately.

“VOC-free”

This is another claim that needs definition.

The relevant meaning can depend on:

• composition

• applicable legal definition

• market

• measurement basis

Do not use “VOC-free” simply as another way of saying:

water-based.

They are not automatically equivalent.

“Biodegradable”

Environmental claims need particular care.

From 27 September 2026, EU consumer-protection rules expressly restrict generic environmental claims such as “environmentally friendly”, “green” and even “biodegradable” when the required recognised environmental performance relevant to the claim cannot be demonstrated. Specific environmental statements need to be clear and must not misleadingly turn one positive aspect into a claim about the whole product.

That makes wording particularly important.

Instead of starting with:

“Can we put biodegradable on the bottle?”

start with:

What exactly is biodegradable, according to which method, under which conditions, and what claim can the evidence support?

“Eco-friendly”

Avoid vague environmental superiority.

Terms such as:

• eco

• green

• environmentally friendly

• climate friendly

• sustainable

may create a very broad impression.

The current EU rules are deliberately stricter about generic environmental claims that are not supported by recognised excellent environmental performance relevant to the claim.

Specific information is often better.

For example, a properly substantiated and appropriately worded statement about:

• packaging material

• concentration

• refill structure

• manufacturing characteristic

may communicate more than simply writing:

GREEN PRODUCT

Specific beats vague.

Do not make the whole product greener because of one component

Suppose:

The bottle contains recycled plastic.

That does not automatically mean:

The product is environmentally friendly.

EU rules now expressly address environmental claims that imply a benefit for the entire product or business when the underlying benefit concerns only a particular aspect.

Say what is actually better.

Climate-neutral claims

Claims based solely on carbon offsetting require particular caution under the current EU consumer framework. The 2026 rules prohibit claims that a product has a neutral, reduced or positive greenhouse-gas impact when that claim is based on offsetting outside the product's own value chain.

For private-label projects, this means environmental messaging should be reviewed just as seriously as chemical claims.

“Natural”

Natural does not automatically mean safer.

The fact that an ingredient originates from a natural source does not by itself define:

• toxicity

• irritation

• environmental impact

• performance

• regulatory classification

Avoid allowing “natural” to become a shortcut for “harmless.”

They are not the same concept.

Antibacterial claims

This is where marketing can change the regulatory category.

Consider:

Cleans interior surfaces.

versus:

Kills bacteria on interior surfaces.

The second statement is no longer just describing cleaning performance.

Claims of controlling harmful organisms can bring the product into the biocidal regulatory framework.

That changes the project substantially.

Biocidal claims should never be added casually

EU biocidal rules regulate how authorised biocidal products may be labelled and advertised. They also specifically prohibit certain risk-minimising advertising language such as “non-toxic”, “harmless”, “natural” or “environmentally friendly”, and similar indications, for biocidal products.

Therefore, marketing should not add claims such as:

• antibacterial

• disinfecting

• kills germs

• prevents microbial growth

to ordinary cleaning products without first determining the regulatory consequences.

“99.9%”

Numbers look powerful.

They also look precise.

A statement such as:

Removes 99.9% of X

or

Kills 99.9% of bacteria

needs evidence appropriate to what is being claimed.

The more precise the marketing statement, the more important it becomes to understand:

• test method

• conditions

• substrate

• contact time

• organism or contaminant

• reproducibility

Do not create precision that the evidence does not support.

Comparative claims

Examples:

30% more durable.

Twice the cleaning power.

Faster than conventional products.

Comparative claims require a clear reference.

Compared with what?

Under what conditions?

Using which measurement?

A comparative claim without a defined comparator can easily become meaningless.

Competitor comparisons

If a claim directly or indirectly compares the product with a competitor, the test structure becomes particularly important.

Ideally define:

• competitor product

• product version

• application method

• quantity

• test surface

• evaluation method

Comparative marketing should follow comparative evidence.

“Tested”

Tested for what?

A label that says:

Laboratory tested

sounds reassuring.

But practically every developed formulation has been tested somehow.

A stronger claim explains what was tested when that information matters.

For example:

Tested for compatibility with X under Y conditions.

Specific information is more meaningful than the generic word “tested.”

Certification claims

If a product references:

• certification

• accreditation

• external approval

• independent testing

the wording should accurately reflect:

• who performed it

• what was assessed

• what the certification covers

Do not allow the certification of one component or process to imply certification of something broader.

“Made in Germany”

Origin claims should correspond to the actual production and value-creation structure applicable to the product.

For a private-label customer, this is worth clarifying early because the desired origin messaging may form part of the brand proposition.

Claims can change the formulation

Suppose two formulations perform similarly.

Formula A

Produces excellent cleaning performance but prevents the desired composition claim.

Formula B

Produces almost identical cleaning performance and supports the commercially important claim.

If the claim matters to the target market, Formula B may be the stronger commercial solution.

This is why marketing should communicate important claim requirements before development is complete.

Claims can change packaging

For example:

A customer wants a strong environmental positioning.

That might influence decisions around:

• bottle material

• refill format

• concentration

• pack size

• secondary packaging

The product proposition should be considered as a whole.

Claims can change testing

A normal performance test may be sufficient to decide:

Do we like the product?

But a marketing claim may require a different level of evidence.

For example:

GENERAL INTERNAL TARGET

Good durability.

versus

CUSTOMER-FACING CLAIM

Up to 12 months durability.

The second creates a much clearer evidentiary requirement.

Build a Claims Matrix

For every product, create a simple table.

This turns marketing claims into project inputs.

Claim status

I would use four statuses.

PROPOSED

Marketing would like to use it.

UNDER REVIEW

Technical/regulatory assessment required.

SUBSTANTIATED

Supporting information exists.

APPROVED

Final wording cleared for use.

No important product should reach final artwork with major claims still sitting at:

Proposed.

A claims review should ask

Is it true?

First and most important.

Is it specific?

Could a customer misunderstand it?

Is it relevant?

Does it communicate something customers value?

Can we demonstrate it?

What evidence exists?

Is it compliant?

Does the wording create regulatory issues?

Is it consistent?

Does the website say the same thing as the label, TDS and sales material?

Claims need consistency across channels

A claim can appear on:

• bottle

• carton

• website

• Amazon

• distributor page

• social media

• brochure

• trade-show stand

• sales presentation

Regulatory risk does not disappear because the claim is made on Instagram instead of the label.

The product's claim strategy should be consistent.

Online product pages need special attention

Under the updated CLP framework, advertising for hazardous mixtures must communicate specified hazard information, and distance-sales offers have explicit requirements to display relevant label elements.

For brands selling through:

• Shopify

• Amazon

• marketplaces

• distributor portals

the online product presentation therefore needs to be considered as part of compliance—not separately from it.

Do not let sales invent new claims

This is a surprisingly important operational rule.

After product launch, salespeople and distributors may create wording such as:

completely harmless

totally chemical resistant

safe on absolutely everything

permanent protection

because it sounds commercially attractive.

Those statements can go far beyond the approved product positioning.

For important products, maintain an approved claim library.

The Approved Claim Library

For every SKU, store:

PRIMARY CLAIMS

Approved headline statements.

TECHNICAL CLAIMS

Approved measurable characteristics.

APPLICATION CLAIMS

Approved use and compatibility statements.

ENVIRONMENTAL CLAIMS

Approved specific wording.

PROHIBITED / UNAPPROVED CLAIMS

Statements that should not be used.

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

Reference to relevant tests or specifications.

This makes international marketing much easier to control.

Example: spray sealant

Initial marketing wish list

• ceramic

• ultra-hydrophobic

• 12 months protection

• eco-friendly

• safe on everything

• VOC-free

• biodegradable

That sounds impressive.

It is also a poor starting point.

After technical and commercial review, the final proposition might become:

CORE CLAIMS

Fast spray-on protection.

High gloss and slickness.

Strong water-repellent behaviour.

Suitable for maintenance of coated paint.

TECHNICAL CLAIM

Up to six months durability under defined conditions.

ADDITIONAL POSITIONING

Easy application with low product consumption.

This is more focused and potentially far more credible.

Better claims can mean fewer claims

The strongest product label is not necessarily the one with:

14 icons

12 claims

8 badges

and

5 superlatives.

Sometimes three precise statements communicate far more confidence.

For example:

High-lubricity maintenance shampoo

pH neutral

Developed for protected surfaces

That can be stronger than filling the label with unsupported buzzwords.

Separate claim from proof

The front label needs to communicate quickly.

The website can provide deeper evidence.

For example:

LABEL

“Up to 6 months protection.”

WEBSITE

Explain:

• application conditions

• recommended preparation

• maintenance assumptions

• testing approach

TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION

Maintain detailed supporting information.

This creates layers of communication.

Claims are part of product strategy

Before development starts, identify:

HERO CLAIM

What is the one thing we want the customer to remember?

SUPPORT CLAIMS

Which two or three characteristics make the hero claim credible?

TECHNICAL CLAIMS

Which measurable characteristics matter to professionals?

REQUIRED CLAIMS

Are any statements commercially essential?

This creates much better product positioning.

The Infinitec approach

For strategically important developments, we prefer to discuss product claims during the briefing stage.

The process becomes:

PRODUCT POSITIONING

↓

PROPOSED CLAIMS

↓

FORMULATION DEVELOPMENT

↓

TESTING / EVIDENCE

↓

REGULATORY REVIEW

↓

FINAL CLAIMS

↓

ARTWORK

↓

MARKET COMMUNICATION

That is much safer than developing the product first and asking marketing afterward:

“What can we write on the bottle?”

The key principle

A strong claim should be:

TRUE

RELEVANT

SPECIFIC

SUPPORTABLE

APPROPRIATE FOR THE MARKET

The objective is not to make the product sound as impressive as possible.

It is to communicate what is genuinely impressive about the product.

Developing the positioning for a new product?

Tell us:

• what the product should do

• which claims matter commercially

• who will use it

• where it will be sold

We can consider those requirements during development rather than after the formulation has been completed.

Start a Project ↗

Continue reading:

Next: The Golden Sample ↗

Regulatory requirements depend on the product, market and date. This guide provides general information and does not replace product-specific regulatory assessment.

Practical Tool

Related Reading

Explore Custom Formulation ↗ · Explore Contract Manufacturing ↗