Offer eligibility
Confirm the product can be advertised on Meta in the markets you intend to reach, under current Meta Advertising Policies as they apply to your category and positioning. If it cannot, new ad accounts, agency infrastructure, or creative rotation will not fix the problem. Eligibility review belongs at the start — before pixel installs and media budgets.
Document what you sell, how it is classified where you sell it, who may purchase it, and what fulfillment looks like. Jurisdiction and product framing can change risk even when the brand name stays the same. Your regulatory obligations and Meta’s ad rules are related but not identical; you need both in view.
If eligibility is uncertain, treat Meta as paused for that SKU until counsel and a compliance-aware media review agree on a viable positioning — or decide the channel is not appropriate. Ambiguity resolved after a restriction is more expensive than ambiguity resolved before launch.
Claim and creative review
Inventory every claim in primary text, headlines, image overlays, video scripts, testimonials, and on-page sections the ad can reach. Align them. Unsupported medical outcomes, disease implications, and exaggerated results language commonly create review pressure in health-adjacent categories. Your claims remain your responsibility even when a media partner helps structure accounts.
Avoid personal-attribute targeting language and copy that implies knowledge of a person’s health condition. Focus on the offer you can substantiate and the audience definitions Meta’s current tools allow for your objective. Creative testing should vary angles within a compliant claim set — not hunt for a loophole.
Keep a change log. When a creative is rejected, record the reason and the fix. Relaunching the same claim package under a new ad account is not a compliance strategy; it is usually a way to transfer risk into infrastructure.
Landing-page and business transparency
Landing pages should match the ad in product, promise, and tone. Reviewers and automated systems may evaluate the destination, including linked pages, popups, chat widgets, and FAQ blocks. If the ad is restrained and the site escalates into aggressive medical outcomes, you still own the mismatch risk.
Business and Page information should be clear: who you are, how to contact you, and what is being sold. Domain verification and Page ownership should be intentional and documented. Opaque ownership, mismatched brand names across ad and site, or thin destinations typically weaken trust signals even when a single line of ad copy looks fine.
Do not maintain a “review version” of the site that differs materially from what users see after click as a way to pass policy checks. That is cloaking-style evasion and is not a legitimate compliance practice. One honest destination is the standard to aim for.
Tracking and account health
Separate durable tracking assets from replaceable spend nodes where architecture allows. Prefer Pixel/Dataset ownership and domain verification under Business Manager assets your team can still access if a single ad account is limited. Conversions API destinations should be documented the same way.
Review permissions before launch: who is admin, which partners can see what, and whether personal profiles are incorrectly mixed into business assets. Check Business Manager health, Page status, and payment methods. High reject rates, unpaid balances, and unresolved Page issues are operational warnings — address them before scaling tests.
Account health does not create eligibility for a non-viable offer. It does reduce self-inflicted failures when you are advertising something that can run under current Meta policies. Treat infrastructure as hygiene, not as a policy shield.
Transparency and operational discipline
Compliance-aware media buying is mostly discipline: written claim sets, staged launches, controlled partner access, and willingness to stop when review feedback indicates a structural problem. Scale after signals stabilize — not after one accidental approval.
Assign owners inside your company for product eligibility, creative claims, landing-page truthfulness, and ad account access. Agencies can support process; they should not be the only party who understands where the Pixel lives or what the site claims.
Staged launch typically means small budget, limited creative variants inside an approved claim set, and a pause rule when rejects cluster. That is operational control — not a guarantee of delivery. If rejects continue after you fixed the documented issues, revisit eligibility rather than accelerating spend.
Pre-launch checklist
Use this as a gate. If an item fails, fix it or do not launch that offer on Meta yet. The checklist is for teams that already believe the product may be eligible; it is not a workaround for prohibited categories.
- Eligibility confirmed for product and target markets under current Meta policies — or explicitly deferred
- Claims reviewed on ads and landing page; medical/outcome language vetted; personal-attribute issues removed
- Landing page matches ad; no cloaking or material “review-only” variants
- Page, domain, and Pixel/Dataset ownership documented with named internal owners
- Permissions granted via Business Manager roles — no personal Facebook passwords shared
- Payment methods healthy; Business Manager and Page issues cleared or accepted as known risks
- Fallback plan if a spend account is limited: who appeals, what gets paused, how tracking stays intact
- Reject/reason log ready so tests improve the claim set instead of repeating it
- Internal owners named for product, creative, site, and access — not only the media buyer