Background
This ruling forms part of a wider piece of work on LED facemasks for skincare that make medicinal claims. The ad was identified for investigation following intelligence gathered by our Active Ad Monitoring system, which uses AI to proactively search for online ads that might break the rules. See also related rulings published on 5 November 2025.
Ad description
A paid-for Meta ad and a website for Beautaholics, a retailer of hair and skincare tools, seen on 16 May 2025:
a. The paid-for Meta ad featured an image of an LED face mask with the caption: “You’ve seen the hype around LED face masks — but RejuvaLux goes further. With 7 LED colours, Near-Infrared technology, and 3 intensity levels, it delivers a fully customisable treatment using clinically proven light therapy. Whether you’re targeting […] acne — this is advanced skincare made easy”.
b. The website www.beautaholics.com, included a web page with an image of a RejuvaLux LED face mask. Under a tab labelled “Description” text stated, “With seven LED colours plus Near-Infrared technology, this mask provides targeted solutions for […] acne, […] rosacea […].” Further text stated, “Clinical studies have shown that specific wavelengths of LED light can […] reduce acne-causing bacteria”.
Issue
The ASA challenged whether the ads made medicinal claims for an unauthorised product.
Response
Beautaholics Ltd acknowledged that certain wording in the ads may have implied medicinal claims, particularly with reference to acne and rosacea. The mask was a cosmetic device and, while it was UKCA certified, it was not registered with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
They said ad (a) was no longer appearing. They had reviewed and updated ad (b), the website, to remove or re-word any references that could be interpreted as medicinal. They said they would not make claims regarding the treatment or prevention of medical conditions in future.
Assessment
Upheld
The CAP Code stated that medicinal or medical claims and indications could only be made for a medicinal product that was licensed by the MHRA, the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD) or under the auspices of the European Medicines Agency (EMA), or for a medical device with the applicable conformity marking. In addition, the Medical Devices Regulations 2002 required that a medical device should be registered with the MHRA before it was placed on the market in Great Britain.
Ad (a) included the claim “clinically proven light therapy […] targeting […] acne”. Ad (b) included the claims “targeted solutions for […] acne, […] rosacea […]” and “Clinical studies have shown that specific wavelengths of LED light can […] reduce acne-causing bacteria”. The ASA considered those were claims that the product could treat or prevent acne and rosacea, both of which were medical conditions.
We considered that the ads made medicinal claims and therefore required that the product met the requirements for medical devices, including registering the product with the MHRA.
We understood that the product was UKCA certified and therefore had the applicable conformity marking. However, the product was not registered with the MHRA. Therefore, no medicinal claims could be made for the product. We acknowledged that ad (a) was no longer appearing and Beautaholics had amended ad (b), however, because at the time the ads appeared they made such claims, we concluded that the ads breached the Code.
The ads breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 12.1 (Medicines, medical devices, health-related products and beauty products).
Action
The ads must not appear again in the form investigated. We told Beautaholics Ltd not to make medicinal claims for products that were not registered with the MHRA as well as having the applicable conformity marking.
