Note: This advice is given by the CAP Executive about non-broadcast advertising. It does not constitute legal advice. It does not bind CAP, CAP advisory panels or the Advertising Standards Authority.
Sunscreen, also known as sun cream and sun block, is a topical product that provides photoprotection by either reflecting or absorbing UV rays from the sun. Sunscreen generally protects against sunburn which can reduce the risk of some skin cancers.
Whilst sunscreen is a product in and of itself, some other beauty products, such as face cream or lip balm, can also contain SPF (sun protection factor).
CAP understands sunscreen is generally considered a cosmetic, rather than a medicine or medical device.
Rule 12.22.1 states: “Some cosmetics have an effect on the type of skin changes that are caused by environmental factors. Marketing communications for them may therefore refer to temporarily preventing, delaying or masking premature ageing.” Marketers must therefore be careful not to make absolute claims (implied or otherwise) about sunscreen preventing ageing.
Efficacy
Marketers must hold evidence for any and all objective claims they make about their sunscreen products, and should avoid exaggerating the capabilities of their products.
In 2020, the ASA investigated an ad for sun cream which stated, “THE TRUTH ABOUT SPF50+…SPF50 only filters 1% more UVB light than SPF30” and “an SPF30 lotion offers 97% protection against UVB rays, while SPF50 offers 98% protection – just 1% difference”. The advertiser defended the claim, stating that it was factually correct, which the ASA accepted was factually accurate. However, the ASA also considered that SPF50 and SPF50+ also provided protection for a longer period of time than SPF30. Moreover, the ASA understood that generally most consumers did not apply sunscreen as instructed in terms of the quantity and application frequency that was recommended, which meant that many consumers would not be afforded the level of protection advertised. Because the ad suggested that SPF30 sun cream provided the same level of protection as an SPF50 product, which wasn’t the case in practical terms, the complaint was upheld (The Green People Company Ltd, 20 February 2020).
Marketers should also be aware of any implied claims in their ads. In 2020, the ASA investigated a TV ad and website for Olay, considering whether Olay presented two cosmetic face creams containing SPF as akin to regular sunscreen. The TV ad featured several claims, including “…indulge your skin with our moisturising Total Effects 7 in 1, with SPF 30. Be out and about enjoying the sun. Olay SPF 30 has you covered” and “powerful SUN CARE SKIN CARE…with SPF30”, whereas the website featured the products under the product category “PRODUCTS FOR SUN PROTECTION”. The ASA considered that those seeing the ad would understand the products were daily moisturisers and, though they delivered the same level of protection as some sunscreens, they concluded that those seeing the ad would be unlikely to confuse the products for regular sunscreens. As a result, they were unlikely to be misled into thinking that the products were a substitute for dedicated sunscreen when undertaking activities such as exercising, swimming or similar. The complaint was therefore not upheld (Procter & Gamble (Health & Beauty Care), 29 April 2020).
Social Responsibility
Marketers must not discourage safe practices in their ads. In 2024, the ASA investigated a TV ad for Boots. The ad, for No7 Future Renew Serum, featured two women reminiscing about the past and saying, “Remember this? Can’t believe we didn’t always use sunscreen!” and “I know right? We were too busy having fun”. The ad also featured the claims “Clinically proven to reverse visible signs of sun damage” and “Don’t regret, just reverse”. Though the ASA acknowledged the tone of the ad was light-hearted, the flippant discussion on sun safety suggested it was a subject that could be taken lightly. Furthermore, the ad suggested any damage could be undone by the product. The ASA therefore found the ad breached the Code by condoning exposure to sun without protection and was therefore irresponsible and harmful (The Boots Company plc, 30 October 2024).
In the past, the ASA has also ruled against ads that encourage tanning one’s skin without regard for sun safety, such as a Virgin Holiday ‘Tanuary’ ad, which encouraged people to use a temporary tattoo that would show up on their skin once bronzed (Virgin Holidays Ltd, 7 May 2014).
Marketers for all health and beauty products should also be aware of our guidance on body image and social responsibility.
See also Beauty and Cosmetics: General, Cosmetic Interventions: Social Responsibility and Beauty and Cosmetics: Creams