Beauty products, grooming and hygiene

Helpful information on the advertising rules for beauty, grooming and hygiene products, and examples of previous Advertising Standards Authority rulings in this area.

Over the years, demand for glitzy products and procedures designed to help us look younger, healthier and more beautiful, has created a multi-million pound industry. But this industry is competitive and it is one that plays heavily on aesthetic appeal to promote its products. While there’s nothing wrong with painting a positive picture, there is a line to be drawn to ensure that ads don’t over-exaggerate the benefits that a beauty, grooming or hygiene product can have. That’s why we have strict rules in place to protect consumers from potentially misleading or socially irresponsible ads for beauty products.

The main areas of complaint we see for ads for beauty, grooming and hygiene products are around the use of post-production techniques and whether advertisers can prove the claims they are making.

Like all ads, advertisers marketing beauty, grooming and hygiene products must be able to provide evidence for any claims they are making in their ads about the efficacy of their product. This includes claims like “65% reduction in the appearance of wrinkles”, “8/10 women agreed their skin looked smoother” and “The UK’s number one shampoo for coloured hair.”

Whilst our rules do allow for the use of airbrushing and other post-production techniques, advertisers should make clear that these techniques have been used through the use of superimposed qualifications or disclaimers, and they should not be used to such an extent that they exaggerate the capabilities of the product. Similarly, the use of “before” and “after” pictures are allowed but not if post-production techniques were only used on the “after” picture.

+ Read more - Show less

Latest rulings

Unilever UK Ltd
- Upheld
- Social media (paid ad)
- 13 January 2021
A paid-for Facebook post by Boots was banned for implying that a lotion product could protect babies’ skin microbiome without holding sufficient evidence to demonstrate that this was the case.
L(A)B Life and Beauty
- Upheld
- Internet (on own site)
- 16 December 2020
A website post and three Facebook posts by a skin and healthcare company were banned for claiming its belt product could help consumers lose weight without substantial evidence to support the claim.
Easylife Group Ltd t/a Easylife Group, Positive Health
- Upheld
- 02 December 2020
A brochure ad for a skin product was banned for implying that it was effective at removing the appearance of wrinkles and removing skin tags, without adequate evidence.
Jemella Ltd t/a GHD
- Upheld
- Internet (social networking)
- 04 November 2020
A TikTok post by Emily Canham about a GHD branded hairdryer was banned for not being obviously identifiable as an ad.

View all rulings

Beauty products, grooming and hygiene

Helpful information on the advertising rules for beauty, grooming and hygiene products, and examples of previous Advertising Standards Authority rulings in this area.

Latest news

Bringing body image into sharp focus

Taking care with ads for self-care

Making sure your Instagram advertising doesn’t raise any eyebrows

Habits of impeccably groomed male beauty ads

CBD – A potted history and how not to hash up

Thinking outside the (subscription) box

Latest rulings

Unilever UK Ltd

L(A)B Life and Beauty

Easylife Group Ltd t/a Easylife Group, Positive Health

Jemella Ltd t/a GHD

Help getting it right

Popular advice

Enforcement Notice: Advertising Botox and other botulinum toxin injections on social media

Hand sanitisers and face masks

Before and after photos

Relevant codes