In recent weeks, the UK's Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has upheld three complaints around misleading cosmetic claims made across on-demand video content, public poster advertising, and online product listings. Two beauty conglomerates, Beiersdorf and L'Oréal, and one smaller luxury brand, 111SKIN, are implicated, found to have made misleading cosmetic claims and are in breach of the UK Code of Non-broadcast Advertising and Direct & Promotional Marketing (CAP Code). The authority highlighted flawed study designs, problems with trial relevance for a UK audience, and reliance on ingredient versus end product data. All three companies have been told that their adverts should no longer appear in their current form.
Beiersdorf: The investigation ruled that “clinically-proven” and “look up to five years younger” claims in a Eucerin Skincare poster advert were misleading and unsubstantiated. The ASA said the main study submitted by Beiersdorf as evidence–a four-week, unpublished study amongst 160 volunteers–did not provide adequate substantiation of the claims because results were “self-reported and subjective.” Concerns were also raised around the study's methodology, given its lack of a control group and details on participant recruitment and in-trial product use. The relevance of trial conditions was also questioned, given that the study took place in a hotter, sunnier country amongst users with different skin types to those typically representative of the UK. One peer-reviewed paper on an active ingredient within the formula was also considered insufficient to substantiate the claims, given it was conducted on the ingredient versus the final product.
L'Oréal: ASA found its on-demand video claiming a Garnier Vitamin Cg serum to be “clinically-proven to reduce hyperpigmentation in two weeks” to be misleading and could not be substantiated. The clinical trial submitted by L'Oréal as evidence–a 10-week study with 44 participants–was considered too small to be clinically robust, and its methodology was questioned, given the lack of detail on its randomized method. As with Beiersdorf, the relevance of trial conditions was also questioned, noting the distribution of skin types used in the study was different from those expected in the UK.
111SKIN: The authority ruled that the brand’s online product listing for the brand's Exosome Face Lift with “clinically-proven” claims around lifting and tightening the skin was misleading. The study provided by 111SKIN as evidence–a four-week clinical study amongst 30 participants–was questioned due to its lack of a placebo or control group and its small size. Additional consumer perception studies and permeability/penetration research were also unable to substantiate claims, the ASA ruled.
So, why in 2026 are beauty brands–large and small–getting cosmetic marketing claims so wrong? And why are study designs and protocols being questioned?
Speaking to BeautyMatter, Dr. Theresa Callaghan, cosmetics claims expert, author of two books about cosmetic claim laws, and owner of Callaghan Consulting International, said it is a case of very “basic errors.”
“Evidence is not robust enough, brands interpret claims differently from consumers, and, very importantly, there are implied claims that go further than advertisers are meant to,” Callaghan said.
“... The industry needs to get better at restraint, because cosmetic brands most likely to avoid the ASA are not necessarily those with the biggest testing budgets; they are those that can demonstrate greater discipline when translating their evidence into claims.”
Cosmetic claims made in the UK are governed by the UK Cosmetic Products Regulation (UKCR) under Article 20, which covers product claims; the regulation largely mirrors the EU Cosmetic Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009. Under Article 20, product claims must be justified by a set of common criteria: legal compliance, truthfulness, evidence support, honesty, fairness, and informed decisions. Product and marketing claims made on the UK market are also subject to ASA's CAP Code.
Lucy Brown, Senior Scientist for Regulatory Affairs & Product Safety at global consulting firm J.S. Held, said that when it comes to soft versus hard claims–those based on subject user trial data versus those backed up by robust clinical trial data–language and evidence are key. “As soon as you put 'clinically-proven' on the label, or wherever it is, it goes from a soft user-trial claim to needing to have instrumental, objective evidence.
Callaghan added that implied claims–how a product claim can be interpreted by a consumer–is another area where language and evidence are key. “The gap between what the advertiser intends or implies and how the consumer interprets that lies at the heart of many cosmetic rulings,” she said, “and so, implication matters just as much as the explicit sciency wording or beauty-type wording; the soft wording.”
Admittedly, there is only a certain amount of space brands have to make claims, but everything needs to be “structured correctly,” she said, because one misplaced sentence–as was the case with Garnier–misplaces the claim completely. “Industry has to get better at being able to translate and understand the body of evidence that's sitting on the table in front of them into consumer-meaningful language. And if that means they have to get closer to the consumer, then they need to do this.”
So, what exactly is fueling these mistakes?
“Well, modern cosmetic advertising thrives on suggestions,” Callaghan explained. “We find, almost carefully created implications, if I can say that.” Companies are spotlighting science without any clear scientific meaning and making medical references without direct medical claims, for example. There is also a lot of transformative imagery used in beauty advertising, without any explicit promise behind the product. Efficacy language is also central to many marketing and advertising plans, oftentimes being “softened enough to be defensible,” she explained.
And these issues are being fueled by an ongoing, internal disconnect between teams across R&D, sciences, marketing, and regulatory affairs, she said. “You still find that regulatory affairs are out-gunned by the commercial pressures of what's being sold, and that's life in the fast-moving consumer goods industry. Whether you're selling a washing machine or a lipstick, that's the way it is.”
In addition, companies are often moving too fast, Callaghan said. Success centers around being able to “slow down,” extending the entire product beauty development cycle to lengthen lead times for longer claims development and verification processes. Teams in-house also need to be re-educated on claims substantiation, she said. “You have to challenge your claims yourself before you put them out. You have to challenge your claims from the point of view of a competitor, some lone cosmetic chemist, and also from the point of view of the consumer. And so you need the time to do that; you need to make time.”
Brown agreed: “Pre-launch diligence is so important; it's something that brands really need to take into account when they're planning new launches.” She said brands often rush a launch to stand-out in the increasingly saturated beauty market, sometimes aligning with competitor claims without the necessary evidence, but there must be “more focus and funding on these regulatory checks.”
It is also key to have “robust and planned” studies when making cosmetic claims, Brown said, particularly as the industry steers towards more science-backed claims and positioning. “One thing we saw in these rulings is that the data doesn't reflect typical use in the UK. The tests were done in hotter climates, the skin types didn't represent typical UK skin types, and a lot of them were relying on user trial data, which is subjective (…) If you're making a clinically-proven claim, you need to have objective evidence, otherwise it doesn't stand up.”
Nico Shaw Núñez, Director of Regulation and Sustainability at the UK's Cosmetic, Toiletry and Perfumery Association (CTPA), said scrutiny around claims by the ASA is not unusual, and rulings play “an important role in shaping how industry continues to interpret and apply claim substantiation standards.”
“CTPA works closely with members to ensure that companies understand the legal requirements and expectations from the UK authorities, and to provide guidance and promote best practice,” Núñez said. The association and its members will be “reflecting on the recent rulings,” he said, to consider how best to inform future approaches “with the aim of ensuring that best practice continues to evolve in a proportionate and meaningful way.”