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

Procter & Gamble UK t/a Always
- Upheld
- Television
- 29 November 2023
A TV ad for Always Discreet incontinence pads did not compare the product to the most appropriate version from the leading brand, and contained on-screen text whose placement misleading implied that 95% of women surveyed preferred the Always Discreet pad to the maxi pad from the leading brand.
D&A Cosmetics Ltd
- Upheld
- Social media (influencer or affiliate ad)
- 22 November 2023
A TikTok post on Aimee Crowder’s account exaggerated the efficacy of a lip plumper.
TJC & BLC Aesthetics Clinic & Training Academy
- Upheld
- Social media (own site)
- 08 November 2023
A Facebook post misleadingly did not make clear the nature, requirements, qualifications and possible registration details of a course, and contained the claims that the course was “Fully Accredited”, which could not be substantiated.
The Feel Good Group Ltd t/a The Tanning Shop
- Not upheld
- Television
- 13 September 2023
A TV ad for The Tanning Shop did not encourage the irresponsible use of UV tanning equipment.

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

Fake Endorsements In Ads Makes Everyone Sad: A Look At Influencer Reviews

Don’t pay the price for your “Free Trials” advertising

Generative AI & Advertising: Decoding AI Regulation

A picture says a thousand words. Avoiding misleading imagery in ads

Affiliate yourself with the CAP Code this month

Sun, Sea and…Surgery? – Advice for cosmetic surgery tourism ads

Latest rulings

Procter & Gamble UK t/a Always

D&A Cosmetics Ltd

TJC & BLC Aesthetics Clinic & Training Academy

The Feel Good Group Ltd t/a The Tanning Shop

Help getting it right

Popular advice

Multi-Level Marketing

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

Before and after photos

Relevant codes

History of self-regulation