Expert endorsements and AI presenters: what supports the claim?
Check whether the ad needs real expert judgment, whether the qualifications fit, and what the review actually supports.
Use an expert when the customer’s question needs judgment grounded in relevant practice. Use a general presenter to explain established facts. An AI voice or face cannot supply qualifications, product experience, or an assessment that never took place.
Match the person to the exact claim
Start with the line the ad will use. Ask what the viewer would think the person knows, what they actually know, what product review they completed, and what evidence supports the claim.
For US ads that represent a person as an expert, expressly or by implication, FTC rules say their qualifications must fit the message. The expert’s examination or testing must be at least as extensive as someone with the same represented expertise would normally need to support the conclusion. 16 CFR §255.3, eCFR.
In Canada, a public performance, efficacy, or lifespan claim must be based on an adequate and proper test completed before the claim. Section 74.02 also covers statements that a product test was made and published testimonials. The person who made the test or gave the testimonial must either have made or published it before, or have approved it before publication and given written permission to publish it. The public version must match the earlier or approved version. These provisions address the claims named in the Act; they do not settle separate identity, copyright, or privacy permissions. Competition Act, section 74.01 · section 74.02.
Worked claim review
Hypothetical request: “Experts recommend this drill for daily cabinet installation.” A cabinetmaker tests one sample by fitting a single hinge. That record describes one task; it does not establish daily use or broad expert support. Keep the claim out until the brand has evidence that supports its full meaning, or narrow the statement to what the person actually assessed. This example does not decide whether a particular test meets a legal standard.
Record the review before writing the script:
| Review field | Record |
|---|---|
| Exact claim and likely viewer impression | |
| Person’s relevant training or practice | |
| Product version and review completed | |
| Evidence and test method | |
| Limits or questions the review did not answer | |
| Approved wording and file version | |
| Jurisdiction and final reviewer |
The expert’s work may include an assessment before filming. Budget for that time and allow the answer to narrow the claim. Keep assessment, recording, and synthetic delivery as separate work items in the quote.
Decide what the presenter can do
A synthetic presenter can deliver an approved explanation or a reviewed language version. It cannot create an examination, a qualification, or a personal product experience. If wording changes the meaning or removes a limit, send it back to the person who made the assessment.
For claims that imply first-hand experience, see AI testimonials without product experience. If viewers need to see an action or result, check whether the ad needs real creator footage.
Connect this decision to the campaign
Use the production comparison to choose presentation, then the testimonial guide to check whose judgment or experience the ad implies. An expert-looking avatar supplies neither qualification nor evidence.