In an age of misinformation, it is crucial to consider how to present the outcome of fact checks for headlines and social media posts. Brashier et al. (2021) found that participants were better at discriminating between true and false headlines when the result of a fact check had appeared after, rather than during or before the respective headline in a prior study phase. However, it remains unclear which cognitive processes underlie this effect. In a conceptual replication study, we addressed this question by displaying fact-check information (“true” vs. “false” vs. “not checked”) to product statements either before or after each statement (“before group” vs. “after group”). Data from a subsequent memory test were analyzed with a multinomial source memory model, which allows disentangling memory for statements, memory for fact-check information, and different guessing processes. A comparison of parameter estimates revealed better memory for both statements and fact-check information in the “after group” compared to the “before group”. This data pattern aligns with a levels-of-processing explanation as well as an impaired-binding explanation. In other words, it seems plausible that providing veracity information prior to a statement leads to less elaborative processing of the statement and at the same time impairs the binding of the veracity information to the statement.