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

Basetan
- Upheld
- Internet (social networking)
- 02 September 2020
A Facebook post promoting a tanning salon misleadingly implied sunbeds were the most efficient way to increase vitamin D levels and discouraged essential treatment for medical conditions.
Harvey Water Softeners Ltd
- Upheld
- Leaflet
- 05 August 2020
A leaflet for a water softener misleadingly claimed that the product produced glossier hair and softer skin.
STYLIDEAS Ltd
- Upheld
- Internet (social networking)
- 06 May 2020
A tweet by Lord Alan Sugar and Stylsmile UK did not make clear it was an ad.
Procter & Gamble (Health & Beauty Care) Ltd
- Not upheld
- Internet (on own site), Website (own site), Television
- 29 April 2020
A TV ad and website claims for an anti-ageing moisturiser did not mislead about the level of sun protection the product provided

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

Habits of impeccably groomed male beauty ads

CBD – A potted history and how not to hash up

Thinking outside the (subscription) box

Botox - Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Enforcement Update – Ads for Botox on social media

We're using new technology to enforce Botox ad ban

Latest rulings

Basetan

Harvey Water Softeners Ltd

STYLIDEAS Ltd

Procter & Gamble (Health & Beauty Care) Ltd

Help getting it right

Popular advice

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

Hand sanitisers and face masks

Social Responsibility: Body Image

Relevant codes