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

Guang Zhou Shi Chen Ming Ke Ji You Xian Gong Si t/a MENGCOOL
- Upheld
- Social media (influencer or affiliate ad)
- 25 September 2024
Two Instagram stories on Jess Sheppard’s account featuring affiliate links weren't obviously identifiable as ads.
THG Beauty Ltd t/a Look Fantastic
- Upheld
- Social media (influencer or affiliate ad)
- 25 September 2024
An Instagram story highlight on Erim Kaur’s account wasn’t obviously identifiable as an ad.
Nasty Gal Ltd
- Upheld
- Social media (own site)
- 11 September 2024
A promotion on the Nasty Gal Instagram page failed to clearly publish the winner of a competition.
Valterous Ltd t/a Therapie Clinic
- Upheld
- Internet
- 21 August 2024
A website and Instagram ad made misleading and unsubstantiated saving claims.

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

International Men’s Day 2024

Don’t feel rattled about your baby-related ads

Become a compliance visionary for National Eye Health Week!

Take your social responsibilities seriously!

Evidently, evidence is everything! Six tips on sound substantiation

Top tips for responsible influencer marketing

Latest rulings

Guang Zhou Shi Chen Ming Ke Ji You Xian Gong Si t/a MENGCOOL

THG Beauty Ltd t/a Look Fantastic

Nasty Gal Ltd

Valterous Ltd t/a Therapie Clinic

Help getting it right

Popular advice

Before and after photos

Multi-Level Marketing

Social responsibility: Body image

Relevant codes

History of self-regulation