How to Spot a Fake or Misleading COA
The patterns we see in COAs that don't survive scrutiny — and the questions that surface them.
Last updated: 21 April 2026
Six red-flag patterns
1) Generic 99%+ purity claims with no methodology shown. 2) PDFs without any lab name, accreditation number, or contact information. 3) The same COA appearing across multiple batches. 4) Edited PDFs (visible text-layer artefacts, mismatched fonts, dates that don't quite work). 5) HPLC traces with no axis labels or with suspiciously narrow integration windows that exclude side peaks. 6) Mass-spec data that doesn't match the labelled compound's theoretical mass.
Questions that surface the truth
Ask the supplier: which lab performed this analysis? Is the lab independent (different ownership, no commercial relationship)? What is the lab's accreditation? Can you provide raw chromatogram and mass-spec data? When was this batch manufactured, and when was it tested? Is there a separate COA for the most recent batch?
Reluctance to answer any of these is a stronger signal than the answer itself.
Independent verification
If a supplier names a specific accredited lab on the COA, that's verifiable. NATA-accredited Australian labs are listed on the NATA website. ISO 17025-accredited international labs are listed by the relevant national accreditation body.
Genuine labs will confirm — within the bounds of their client confidentiality — that they perform analyses for a given supplier, even if they won't share specific batch data.