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

BPerfect Ltd
- Upheld
- Social media (influencer or affiliate ad)
- 21 July 2021
A series of Instagram story posts on Charlotte Dawson’s account were banned for failing to disclose they were ads, as well as using filters to exaggerate a product’s efficacy
Boux Avenue Ltd
- Not upheld
- Social media (paid ad)
- 02 June 2021
A paid-for Facebook ad featuring a woman wearing lingerie did not break the CAP Code as the model did not appear to be unhealthily thin.
We Are Luxe Ltd t/a TANOLOGIST TAN, in association with Cinzia Baylis-Zullo
- Upheld
- Social media (influencer or affiliate ad)
- 03 February 2021
An Instagram story by an influencer promoting a beauty product was banned for applying a filter which misleadingly exaggerated the effect the product was capable of achieving.
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.

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

How to #boss multi-level-marketing ads with these top tips

Brush up on your dental ads

Sunbed advertising – How to avoid a regulatory burn

The (mis)use of social media beauty filters when advertising cosmetic products

Thinking outside the (subscription) box

Skin in the game – an update on microbiome claims for cosmetics

Latest rulings

BPerfect Ltd

Boux Avenue Ltd

We Are Luxe Ltd t/a TANOLOGIST TAN, in association with Cinzia Baylis-Zullo

Unilever UK Ltd

Help getting it right

Popular advice

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

Multi-Level Marketing

Beauty and Cosmetics: The use of production techniques

Relevant codes