Note: This advice is given by the CAP Executive about non-broadcast advertising. It does not constitute legal advice. It does not bind CAP, CAP advisory panels or the Advertising Standards Authority.
Marketers of hair removal products and devices should ensure that they hold robust clinical evidence for the efficacy of their product.
Lasers, Epilight and IPL
The efficacy of laser treatments can vary according to skin type or colour and hair type and colour. Marketers should avoid giving the impression that laser hair reduction will be effective for all consumers. They should also avoid the implication that it can be used for skin types for which it will not be effective (Diane Matthews Clinic 21 June 2004).
The ASA did not uphold a complaint about an ad which stated, “Prevent hair growth with Philips Lumea...works to prevent the re-appearance of hair...applied every two to four weeks ...” because the evidence showed that when used at regular two-to four-week intervals, the product prevented the majority of hairs from growing back in the areas treated. The ASA considered that the ad was unlikely to mislead because the claim was supported and because the ad made clear that the product would only work when used regularly (Philips Electronics UK Ltd, 16 March 2011).
Conversely, in 2023, the ASA investigated a TV ad for Braun Silk-expert IPL and whether the product in question could offer “permanent visible hair removal”. The ASA reviewed a clinical studiy from the advertiser, but ultimately considered that while the study demonstrated that the device could achieve a reduction in the number of regrowing hairs over time with regular treatments, it did not show that use of the product, through a number of repeated applications, could achieve permanent hair removal by eventually stopping all hair regrowth in the treatment area (Procter & Gamble, 7 June 2023).
Similarly, in 2024, the ASA investigated an Amazon listing for a FOREO IPL device after receiving a complaint from a competitor. The claims under investigation included “a large 9 cm² treatment window”, “permanent hair reduction in just 12 weeks” and “pain-free IPL…”. Whilst FOREO could fully substantiate the former claim, the evidence received for the claims “permanent hair reduction” and “pain-free IPL” was considered insufficient by the ASA - they found the clinical studies and self-reported surveys submitted were not suitably robust to substantiate the two claims (Foreo AB t/a Foreo, 9 April 2025).
Historically, the ASA has upheld complaints against marketers for failing to prove claims that their laser treatments are "painless" (NL Epilation Clinic, 9 June 2004; Depilex Health and Beauty Studios, 14 February 2001; Aculight (UK) Ltd, 21 November 2001; Skin Sense, October 2000, and Dr Mark Hudson-Peacock, February 1999), (Foreo AB t/a Foreo, 9 April 2025).
Marketers should make clear in their advertising copy whether the treatment they are offering is laser hair removal or intense pulsed light (IPL) (Sisa Beauty Clinic, 10 October 2012).
See also Beauty and Cosmetics: Procedures Using Lasers and Lasers: General.
Depilatory/ Hair Removal Creams
Hair removal creams are unlikely to remove hair down to the root; they can remove hair down to the skin only. Marketers should not state or imply (by, for example, using illustrations) that surface regrowth will be slower unless they hold convincing evidence that it will.
Electrolysis
Conventional needle electrolysis can remove hair permanently but not painlessly (Conair Group Ltd, 28 May 2003). CAP understands that tweezer electrolysis can, after a reasonable number of treatments, remove around 40% of hairs permanently. Again, the treatment is not painless. Neither the ASA nor CAP has accepted that ‘patch’ electrolysis has been proven to remove hair permanently (Babyliss, 6 November 2002).
See also Lasers: general, Hair loss, Hair care, Before and after photos and Beauty and Cosmetics: General.