Loading
Where the marketing claim ends and the regulatory problem begins.
SEO Mighty · 18 February 2026
The trouble in CBD content is almost never the link. It is the sentence three paragraphs above the link that says a product treats, cures, prevents or diagnoses something.
Health and medical claims are the category that gets pages pulled, ad accounts closed and regulators involved. It does not take much. "Helps with anxiety" and "reduces inflammation" read as marketing copy to the person writing them and as medical claims to the person regulating them. The distinction that matters is not how confident you are — it is whether the claim describes a therapeutic effect on a condition.
Dosage guidance is the second category. Telling a reader how many milligrams to take, how often, or how to titrate up is guidance about the use of a substance in the body. Even when it is framed as "what worked for me", it lands in the same place.
The third is audience. Content that references children, pregnancy or breastfeeding raises the stakes sharply, and content aimed at minors is a different problem again. Anything that reads as encouraging use by people who should not be using the product is not something we will host, regardless of how the surrounding article is framed.
None of this is about whether CBD works. It is about which sentences a regulator treats as a claim and which they treat as description.
This is not legal advice, and we are not qualified to give it. What follows is a description of why CBD content is harder to place than most verticals — not a compliance opinion you should rely on.
The core difficulty is that the same page can be entirely unremarkable in one market and a regulatory problem in another. The rules diverge on nearly every axis that matters: the THC threshold at which a product stops being hemp and starts being a controlled substance, whether CBD is treated as a novel food requiring authorisation before sale, whether it may be sold as a supplement at all, and what may be said about it in advertising.
That means jurisdiction is not a footnote to your content strategy. It is an input. A page written for one market, ranking in another, is not a neutral outcome — it is exposure you did not plan for, on a site you do not control.
We run our sites from Cape Town and we place links on domains we own. We are not in a position to assess whether your product, your claims or your target markets are compliant. You are responsible for your own compliance in the markets you target. If you are not certain where a claim sits, the person to ask is a lawyer in that market, not us and not your SEO.
The practical version: bring us content you would be comfortable defending to a regulator in every market where it might rank. If there is a market where you would not want the page to appear, say so in the brief and we will talk about which of our sites make sense.
We will not tell you a paid link is editorial. Where a placement is paid, we support rel="sponsored", and the link type for every site is stated on the listing before you request anything.
That matters more in CBD than in most verticals, because this is a space where undisclosed paid placement is common and where the surrounding regulatory attention makes it a worse bet than usual. A link that is quietly sold as editorial is a claim about the page's independence. In a regulated category, that is a claim you may end up having to defend.
You set the target URL and the anchor text in the brief. Anchor text is validated — length limits, no URLs, no spam patterns — and the rel attribute we publish is never stronger than what was sold. After publication we check that the page is on the site's own domain, returns HTTP 200, is not noindexed, has an absent or self-referential canonical, and contains an <a href> matching your target with the anchor text you specified. We re-check at one day and at seven days, then monitor through the guarantee window.
We will not publish medical claims. A product that treats, cures, prevents or diagnoses a condition is a claim we are not willing to host, and rewriting it as a question or a testimonial does not change our answer.
We will not publish dosage instructions, content aimed at minors, or content that implies a cure through insinuation rather than statement. If the sentence works only because the reader fills in the medical claim themselves, it is the same claim.
We will not publish anything you cannot stand behind. If a claim is one you would not put on your own product page, in your own name, it does not belong in a placement either.
Everything else is workable. Product explainers, extraction and testing methods, sourcing, the regulatory landscape written as description rather than advice, comparison content that stays on the commercial side of the line — that is all publishable, and it is where most of the useful CBD content sits anyway. Write to what the product is rather than what it does to a body, and the compliance line stops being something you are constantly standing on.