Checkable vs. non-checkable claims
A claim is checkable when someone other than the seller can confirm it: a licensing record, a document you can read, an itemized quote, warranty terms attached to the offer. It is non-checkable when only the clinic can confirm it, such as a badge with no issuer, a success figure with no source, or a price that exists only in a phone call. Tone is not the test: a calm page can carry unverifiable claims, and a blunt one can carry checkable ones. The audit question stays fixed: who else can confirm this, and where would I look?
Pattern 1: the list that doesn't exist
"See a list of top implant dentists near you" promises something specific and has one specific failure mode: no list is ever produced. Google's enforcement guidance for search ads names this near-exact case as a policy-violating promise: a list of top doctors near you, with no real list made available. A genuine recognition has two parts: the issuing organization and a list you can open. Ask for both. A missing list is a reason to slow down, not proof of wrongdoing.
Pattern 2: concrete promises nobody can keep
"Free implant." "Consultation free, plus cash back." A headline figure well below every other quote you hold. Google's enforcement guidance treats concrete promises that cannot be fulfilled, such as free or cash offers and unreasonably cheap offers, as its most serious tier; traffic-source rules add that the page must contain what was promised. The useful question is not whether the offer sounds generous but where it dissolves. Ask for the offer in writing with its exclusion list, ask what the headline figure leaves out, and ask whether that number survives a plan change. Lifetime guarantees belong here too: request the warranty and read what voids it.
Pattern 3: borrowed authority and health claims
"Board-certified implant specialist." A crest, a ribbon, a "member" line with no lookup path. Misrepresentative-content policy bars falsely implying association with, or endorsement by, another person or organization; deceptive-practices policy bars promoting services through deceptive information. These rules do not settle whether a credential is real. Ask which body granted it, then check that body's own records for the exact name. Health claims raise a second issue: "permanent," "pain-free," a success percentage. Policy bars harmful health claims and content contradicting authoritative scientific consensus, but it does not set the correct clinical figure. That is a question for the treating dentist, answered against your exam findings.
Pattern 4: the page that sells before it informs
You click an implant ad and land on a page about clear aligners, or a search-results-looking wall of sponsored tiles. Traffic-source policy requires the source to describe accurately what the destination page shows and bars promising offers absent or hard to find there; search-ad rules require ads to be clearly identified and distinct from organic results. Misleading click wording ("click here for the best offer") is flagged too. If the page cannot keep the ad's promise, treat its remaining claims as unconfirmed.
The four patterns side by side
| Claim pattern seen on a page or ad | Google policy basis | Named third party can confirm? | What to ask for instead |
|---|
| "Top dentists near you," no list | Google search-ads guidance bars a top-doctor list promise with no real list; misrepresentative-content rules bar implied endorsement | No: no issuer, no list | The organization's name and the actual list |
| "Free implant," cash offer, or a headline price far below other quotes | Google treats free or cash offers and unreasonably cheap offers as egregious; traffic-source rules bar missing offers | Only in a written quote with exclusions | The offer in writing, the exclusion list, and whether the price holds |
| Credential or "member" badge with no lookup path | Google rules bar falsely implying association or endorsement and false promotion | Yes, against the issuing body's registry | Which body granted it, and the exact name on record |
| "Permanent," "pain-free," or a success percentage | Google bars harmful health claims contradicting authoritative scientific consensus | No: needs clinical evidence and your own exam | What the claim rests on, explained against your exam |
The five questions to ask before paying anything
- Who will perform the examination, and is it the same person who would do the treatment?
- What exactly does the quoted figure include, line by line?
- What is excluded, and what would add cost later?
- Which body issued the credential you mention, and how do I look it up?
- If the plan changes mid-treatment, what happens to the price and the warranty?
Write the answers down; a verbal range is not a quote.
What to keep, and what to walk away with
Leave with an itemized written quote, the name of the treating provider, and a copy of any warranty terms. No single red flag proves a bad clinic, and a clean website proves nothing about care quality.
Limits of this guide
This audits communication and documentation, not clinical quality. The cited policies govern eligibility to display Google-served ads on publisher pages; they are not US dental regulations, legal advice, or evidence that any clinic is qualified. No clinical literature, US price data, credential registry, or state dental board source was reviewed, so no success rates, prices, timelines, or credential checks are asserted here. Advertising habits, quote formats, and warranty terms vary by practice and state. Diagnosis and treatment suitability require an examination by a licensed dentist.
研究の知恵