Why are marketing claims in schema treated as factual lies?
Marketing claims in schema are treated as factual lies because schema signals machine-readable facts, not opinions. When you put “industry-leading” or “award-winning” in schema properties, LLMs interpret these as verifiable factual assertions rather than marketing puffery. “Marketing claims in schema are explicitly disallowed in our governance framework,” Hardik Shah (Enterprise AEO SEO Specialist) explains. “Schema is a trust signal. Putting unverifiable claims in schema destroys that trust when systems check facts and find they can’t be verified.”
Why does schema context change claim interpretation?
The same words mean different things in visible content versus schema markup.
Visible content context:
“We’re the leading provider of enterprise analytics solutions.”
Readers understand this as marketing positioning. It’s aspirational language expressing confidence in your offering. Readers evaluate this through their own judgment.
Schema context:
Copy{
"@type": "Organization",
"name": "Company Name",
"description": "Leading provider of enterprise analytics solutions"
}
LLMs interpret this as a factual claim: “This organization factually holds a leading position in enterprise analytics.”
Systems then attempt to verify: What makes them “leading”? Market share? Revenue? Customer count? When verification fails, confidence in all your entity information decreases.
Simple explanation
When you say something on your website, people know it’s your opinion. When you put the same thing in schema, AI systems think you’re stating a verifiable fact. If they can’t verify it, they trust you less.
Technical explanation
Schema markup exists in a semantic layer separate from display content. This layer signals structured facts for machine consumption. LLMs and search engines treat schema content as higher-confidence factual assertions than unstructured display text. Marketing language in schema creates verification failures during fact-checking processes, triggering manipulation flags that reduce entity confidence scores.
According to Google’s Structured Data Guidelines (https://developers.google.com/search/docs/appearance/structured-data/sd-policies), structured data must accurately reflect page content and shouldn’t include misleading information.
What words are prohibited in schema properties?
Any subjective quality claim or unverifiable superlative should stay out of schema.
Prohibited words in schema:
- Superlatives: “best,” “leading,” “top,” “premier,” “ultimate,” “greatest”
- Quality claims: “excellent,” “superior,” “outstanding,” “exceptional,” “world-class”
- Competitive claims: “better than,” “#1,” “fastest-growing,” “most trusted”
- Innovation claims: “revolutionary,” “groundbreaking,” “cutting-edge,” “industry-leading”
- Vague benefits: “proven,” “guaranteed,” “amazing,” “incredible”
Acceptable words in schema:
- Factual descriptors: “cloud-based,” “enterprise,” “mobile,” “subscription”
- Categories: “software,” “consulting,” “manufacturing,” “education”
- Geographic terms: “nationwide,” “regional,” “global,” “local”
- Measurable attributes: “24/7 support,” “same-day delivery,” “10-year warranty”
The distinction: can you verify the claim objectively? If not, it doesn’t belong in schema.
How do systems verify claims in schema?
LLMs use triangulation to check whether schema claims match information from other sources.
Verification process:
- Extract claim from your schema (“leading analytics provider”)
- Search for corroborating evidence across indexed sources
- Check industry reports, news articles, third-party comparisons
- Look for contradictory information
- Assign confidence score based on verification results
Verification outcomes:
Claim verified: External sources confirm the claim → confidence increases
Claim unverified: No evidence found either way → confidence decreases slightly
Claim contradicted: External sources show claim is false → confidence decreases significantly
Most marketing claims fall into “unverified” or “contradicted” categories, both of which harm entity confidence.
What about “award-winning” in schema?
Only include awards if you specify which award, when received, and from what organization.
Unacceptable award claim:
Copy{
"@type": "Product",
"name": "Analytics Platform",
"description": "Award-winning analytics solution"
}
This is unverifiable. What award? When? Who gave it?
Acceptable award claim:
Copy{
"@type": "Product",
"name": "Analytics Platform",
"award": "Best Business Intelligence Tool 2024 - Tech Review Magazine"
}
This is verifiable. Systems can check whether Tech Review Magazine gave this award in 2024.
Requirements for award claims in schema:
- Specific award name
- Year received
- Awarding organization
- Should be recent (within 3 years)
- Must be from legitimate organization (not self-created awards)
If you can’t meet these requirements, leave award properties empty.
Can you use “trusted by X companies” in schema?
Only if you can verify the count and those companies have publicly confirmed their relationship with you.
Problem claim:
Copy{
"@type": "Organization",
"description": "Trusted by over 5,000 enterprise clients"
}
Can you list all 5,000 clients? Have they all agreed to be referenced? Is “trusted” measurable?
Better approach:
Put customer count in visible content where context makes clear it’s an approximation based on your customer database. Don’t put it in schema where it reads as precise, verifiable fact.
Acceptable approach (if verifiable):
If you have publicly-listed customers who have agreed to be referenced:
Copy{
"@type": "Organization",
"knowsAbout": ["Enterprise Analytics", "Business Intelligence"],
"customer": [
{
"@type": "Organization",
"name": "Example Corp"
}
]
}
But only list customers who have explicitly agreed to public listing.
What happens when schema claims contradict visible content?
Contradictions between schema and visible content signal major trust problems.
Contradiction scenario:
Visible content: “We serve small and medium businesses.”
Schema:
Copy{
"@type": "Organization",
"description": "Enterprise-focused consulting firm"
}
LLMs detect this contradiction. Which version is accurate? The mismatch suggests either confusion or deception, both reducing entity confidence.
Resolution:
Choose one accurate description and use it consistently in both visible content and schema. Use entity truth documents to maintain consistency.
Should Product schema include “premium” or “professional”?
These terms work in product names (if that’s the actual product name) but not in subjective descriptions.
Acceptable use (if it’s the actual product name):
Copy{
"@type": "Product",
"name": "Analytics Pro Platform Premium Edition"
}
If “Premium Edition” is the actual SKU name, this is factual.
Unacceptable use:
Copy{
"@type": "Product",
"name": "Analytics Platform",
"description": "Premium enterprise solution with professional-grade features"
}
“Premium” and “professional-grade” are subjective quality claims, not facts.
Better description:
Copy{
"@type": "Product",
"name": "Analytics Platform",
"description": "Cloud-based analytics software with custom reporting, API access, and role-based permissions"
}
Factual feature description without quality judgments.
How do you describe services without marketing language?
Focus on what you do, who you serve, and what’s included. Avoid how great you are.
Marketing-heavy service description:
“We provide exceptional, world-class digital transformation consulting that delivers outstanding results for forward-thinking enterprises seeking cutting-edge solutions.”
Factual service description:
“Digital transformation consulting for enterprise organizations including strategy development, technology selection, implementation planning, and change management.”
The second version communicates clearly without subjective claims.
Service schema with factual description:
Copy{
"@type": "Service",
"serviceType": "Business Consulting",
"name": "Digital Growth Consulting",
"description": "Revenue transformation consulting for enterprise clients including visibility optimization, conversion engineering, and performance media alignment",
"provider": {
"@type": "Organization",
"name": "ScaleGrowth.Digital"
}
}
This describes what the service includes without claiming superiority.
What about comparative claims in schema?
Never include competitive comparisons in schema, even if they’re factually true.
Prohibited comparative schema:
Copy{
"@type": "Product",
"name": "Our Platform",
"description": "30% faster than Competitor X, half the cost of Competitor Y"
}
Even if these comparisons are accurate based on testing, schema isn’t the place for competitive positioning.
Why comparisons don’t belong in schema:
- Schema describes your entity, not competitive relationships
- Competitors might change, making your schema outdated
- Creates unnecessary conflict verification (systems checking both entities)
- Comparative claims are inherently contextual, not absolute facts
Keep comparisons in visible content where context and methodology can be explained. Keep schema focused on describing your own entity factually.
Should you include target audience in schema?
Yes, target audience is factual and helpful.
Appropriate audience schema:
Copy{
"@type": "Product",
"name": "Enterprise Analytics Platform",
"audience": {
"@type": "Audience",
"audienceType": "Enterprise marketing teams"
}
}
This factually describes who the product serves without claiming superiority.
Inappropriate audience schema:
Copy{
"@type": "Product",
"name": "Analytics Platform",
"audience": {
"@type": "Audience",
"audienceType": "Sophisticated enterprises demanding excellence"
}
}
“Sophisticated” and “demanding excellence” are subjective characterizations of your audience.
How do you handle industry recognition in Organization schema?
Include only verifiable recognition with specific sources.
Acceptable recognition:
Copy{
"@type": "Organization",
"award": "Inc. 5000 Fastest Growing Companies 2024"
}
This is verifiable through Inc. Magazine’s published list.
Unacceptable recognition:
Copy{
"@type": "Organization",
"description": "Industry-recognized leader in digital transformation"
}
“Industry-recognized leader” is unverifiable. Who recognizes you? Based on what criteria?
What about certifications and accreditations?
These are factual and appropriate for schema if you actually hold them.
Acceptable certification mention:
Copy{
"@type": "Person",
"name": "Hardik Shah",
"hasCredential": {
"@type": "EducationalOccupationalCredential",
"credentialCategory": "Professional Certification",
"name": "Google Analytics Certified"
}
}
This is verifiable. Google maintains a certification program.
Unacceptable certification claim:
Listing certifications you don’t actually hold, even if you plan to get them or believe you’re qualified.
Requirements for certification schema:
- You must currently hold the certification
- Certification must be from recognized issuing body
- If certifications expire, yours must be current
- Certification name must match official name
Can you use customer testimonial quotes in schema?
Only if they’re real quotes from real customers who can be verified.
Review schema with real customer:
Copy{
"@type": "Review",
"author": {
"@type": "Person",
"name": "John Smith"
},
"reviewBody": "The platform helped us reduce reporting time by 60%.",
"reviewRating": {
"@type": "Rating",
"ratingValue": "5"
}
}
This works if John Smith is a real customer and actually said this.
Problems with testimonial schema:
- Most testimonials are cherry-picked best feedback (not representative)
- “John Smith” might not be verifiable
- Quote might be edited from original feedback
- Customer might not have agreed to public review
Unless you have genuine, unedited customer reviews that customers agreed to publish, skip Review schema.
How do you audit existing schema for marketing claims?
Systematic review of all schema properties looking for subjective language.
Audit process:
- Export all schema from your site
- Search for prohibited words (best, leading, premier, etc.)
- Identify subjective descriptions
- Check for unverifiable claims
- Rewrite schema properties to be factual only
- Validate updated schema
- Deploy changes
Audit checklist for each schema property:
- Is this claim objectively verifiable?
- Would this hold up in court as literal fact?
- Could we prove this claim if challenged?
- Does this describe what we do or how great we are?
- Would competitors agree this is factual?
If you answer “no” to the first three questions or “how great we are” to question four, rewrite the property.
What’s the penalty for marketing claims in schema?
Google can issue manual actions for misleading structured data.
According to Google’s structured data policies, misleading content in schema violates their spam policies. This can result in:
- Loss of rich result eligibility
- Reduced rankings for affected pages
- Manual action requiring reconsideration request
Beyond Google penalties, LLM confidence scoring treats unverifiable schema claims as negative trust signals, reducing citation probability across all AI platforms.
How do you rewrite marketing copy into schema-safe descriptions?
Remove adjectives, focus on facts, describe what something is rather than how good it is.
Rewriting examples:
Marketing: “Industry-leading AI-powered analytics platform delivering exceptional insights”
Schema-safe: “Cloud-based analytics platform with AI-powered predictive modeling and custom reporting”
Marketing: “Award-winning consulting firm trusted by Fortune 500 companies”
Schema-safe: “Business consulting firm specializing in digital transformation for enterprise clients”
Marketing: “The best project management solution for innovative teams”
Schema-safe: “Project management software with task tracking, collaboration tools, and integrations”
Marketing: “Premium enterprise-grade security”
Schema-safe: “Security features include SSO, SOC 2 Type II compliance, and encrypted data storage”
Notice the schema-safe versions describe features, capabilities, and factual attributes without quality judgments.
Should every schema property have content?
No. Empty properties are better than properties filled with marketing fluff.
Don’t do this:
Copy{
"@type": "Product",
"description": "Amazing product with incredible features and outstanding performance"
}
This is worse than having no description. It’s pure marketing without information.
Do this:
Copy{
"@type": "Product",
"description": "Task management software with Kanban boards, time tracking, and team collaboration features"
}
Or if you can’t write a factual description, leave the property empty:
Copy{
"@type": "Product"
// description property omitted
}
Empty property doesn’t hurt you. Marketing-filled property actively damages trust.