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

The Cheeky Panda Ltd
- Upheld
- Website (own site)
- 04 February 2026
A website for a baby product company failed to make the basis of environmental and comparative claims clear and didn’t have suitable evidence to support the claims made.  
Byrokko
- Upheld
- Social media (paid ad)
- 21 January 2026
A paid for Facebook ad for a tanning accelerator misleadingly and irresponsibly implied that the use of sunbeds was safe, and that using their product during sunbed use could help people achieve a tan quickly and safely.
JD Tanning UK Ltd
- Upheld
- Social media (paid ad)
- 21 January 2026
Two paid-for Meta ads for a sunbed hire company misleadingly and irresponsibly claimed that sunbed use offered health benefits and that the use of sunbeds was safe. The ads also discouraged essential treatment for conditions for which medical supervision should be sought, including psoriasis.
SFJ Group Ltd t/a SunShine Co
- Upheld
- Social media (paid ad)
- 21 January 2026
A paid-for Google search ad for a tanning studio was socially irresponsible and misleading by suggesting that tanning could be obtained safely.

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

VAT’s the Way to Do It: Get your pricing ads right

Face facts: Are your cosmetic device ads making medicinal claims?

The great outdoors: keeping posters in line with the Code - come rain or shine

Calorie-controlled compliance: food supplements and weight loss

Tread carefully: Baby steps towards compliance

Black Friday social responsibility: from loans and credit cards to Brazilian Butt Lifts!

Latest rulings

The Cheeky Panda Ltd

Byrokko

JD Tanning UK Ltd

SFJ Group Ltd t/a SunShine Co

Help getting it right

Popular advice

Multi-Level Marketing

Social responsibility: Body image

Enforcement Notice: Advertising of prescription-only medicines used for weight management

Relevant codes

History of self-regulation