A large share of ad rejections that seem to come out of nowhere — copy with no obviously banned words, no restricted product — trace back to one policy: personal attributes. It prohibits ads that assert or imply something about the person viewing them, and it's one of the more counterintuitive rules for advertisers to internalize because it's about implication, not just literal claims.
What 'asserting or implying' actually means
The policy doesn't require an ad to directly say 'you have diabetes' to violate it. Copy like 'struggling with high blood sugar?' aimed at the reader implies the platform (or the algorithm) knows something about the viewer's health, which is exactly what the policy prohibits — regardless of whether the underlying product claim is otherwise compliant.
This extends well beyond health: financial status ('are you drowning in debt?'), relationship status ('still single at 30?'), sexual orientation, religion, and other personal characteristics are all covered. The common thread is second-person language that presumes something about the specific viewer, rather than describing the product or service in general terms.
Why this trips up experienced advertisers
Direct-response copywriting techniques that work well outside Meta — calling out the reader's specific pain point to grab attention — are precisely the pattern this policy restricts. An advertiser importing proven direct-mail or search-ad copy formulas into Meta creative without adjusting for this policy will see a disproportionate rejection rate compared to other platforms.
The policy also applies to imagery and targeting context together, not just headline copy. An image implying a medical condition paired with even neutral copy can still be read as asserting a personal attribute, because the message doesn't need to be explicit to communicate the same thing.
Rewriting copy to stay compliant
The reliable fix is to shift from second-person presumption to general, third-person framing: instead of 'tired of your joint pain?', describe what the product does for people who experience joint discomfort, without addressing the viewer as though the platform knows their condition. Testimonial and social-proof framing ('here's how this helped me') sidesteps the issue more naturally than direct address.
It also helps to separate the hook from the sensitive topic entirely — leading with a benefit, a story, or a demonstration rather than a diagnostic question aimed at the reader removes the ambiguity that gets ads flagged.
How this interacts with other policies
Personal attributes overlaps heavily with special ad categories and with body image/before-and-after rules — the same underlying principle (don't presume things about the viewer) shows up across all three. Advertisers who build a copywriting checklist around this one principle tend to see fewer rejections across multiple policy areas simultaneously, rather than needing a separate mental model for each.
For agencies managing creative across many verticals and clients, building this check into the pre-launch review process — before spend starts, not after a rejection — saves review cycles and protects account standing. Power Ads' compliance-first approach to account management includes flagging this pattern for clients before campaigns go live.
Key takeaways
- The personal attributes policy is violated by implication, not just by direct or explicit claims.
- Second-person 'you' copy calling out a sensitive condition or status is the most common trigger.
- The policy covers health, financial status, relationships, and other personal characteristics broadly.
- Third-person, benefit-led, or testimonial framing avoids the issue more reliably than tweaking specific words.
- This principle underlies many rejections that also touch special ad category and body image rules.
FAQ
Is any 'you' language automatically a violation?
No — general benefit statements ('you'll love how this fits') are fine. The issue is specifically implying knowledge of a sensitive personal attribute or condition.
Does this apply to video ads and voiceover, not just text?
Yes, spoken dialogue and on-screen text in video are reviewed the same way as static ad copy for this policy.
Can we ever ask a diagnostic-style question in an ad?
It's safer to avoid directly addressing the viewer's presumed condition; framing the same question generally ('many people experience...') is a lower-risk alternative.
