60 CLAIMS
become a gold standard in marketing, but what does it even mean? In an age where the ‘clean beauty’ movement is in full swing, one would think that consumers are buying products that are genuinely free of harmful chemicals. Yet, in reality, the definition of ‘natural’ is
often vague and poorly regulated. The result is a vast grey area in which brands can use terminology that sounds appealing but offers little substance. Moreover, the contradiction does not
end with the ingredients; it extends to the overarching promises that cosmetics make. While a beauty product might claim to ‘transform your skin overnight’, a consumer may find that the results are far from the dramatic before-and-after images they were promised. Many skin care products are subjected
to a complex set of variables - genetics, environment, and diet - that are entirely out of the brand’s control. So, when a consumer does not see instant or permanent results, they may feel cheated or disillusioned. This is where the industry finds itself in
a dangerous cycle. On one hand, cosmetic companies face intense pressure to differentiate their products in an oversaturated market. On the other hand, they are simultaneously battling growing consumer distrust, often stemming from these very same inflated claims!
The ethical implications: misleading marketing and consumer trust Misleading claims are not just a marketing flaw; they can have profound ethical implications. Consumers, particularly those new to skin care or beauty routines, may not always distinguish between exaggerated promises and scientifically proven facts. This creates a power imbalance: the
industry has the financial resources to promote narratives that may be far from the truth, while consumers must navigate a landscape of conflicting information. The erosion of consumer trust due to misleading claims is a significant issue that the industry must address. It is no surprise that there is an increasing
demand for transparency, accountability, and ethical marketing practices. Brands that have gained traction in the market are those that openly disclose their ingredients, offer evidence-backed results, and engage in honest conversations with their consumers. People do not want just to buy a product,
they want to trust the brand behind it. In a world where authenticity is king, the cosmetic industry is being forced to reckon with its false narratives and, in some cases, outright deception.
The role of regulation and consumer advocacy Given the growing calls for transparency, it is clear that the responsibility isn’t solely on the consumer to be more discerning - it is also on the industry to elevate its standards. In countries like the United States, despite MoCRA
PERSONAL CARE August 2025
(Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act), the regulation of cosmetic products is less stringent than one might assume. The absence of clear oversight allows brands
significant leeway to make sweeping claims without substantial evidence to support them. In Europe and the UK today, cosmetic claims are governed by robust regulatory systems such as the EU’s Cosmetic Regulation and ISO international standards. The EU’s six criteria - legal compliance, truthfulness, evidential support, honesty, fairness, and informed decision-making - provide a gold standard. Substantiation typically involves a combination of in vitro testing, clinical studies, and consumer perception trials. However, harmonising global regulations continues to pose a challenge. The current cosmetic claims landscape sits
at the intersection of science, policy, and public expectation. Increasingly, marketing statements in the beauty sector must be supported by credible scientific validation, encompassing dermatological testing, clinical trials, and in vitro assessments. Regulators have led efforts to ensure that claims related to efficacy, safety, and performance are not only truthful but also demonstrably supported by evidence. Statements now require data-driven justification, underscoring the critical role regulators play in shaping industry standards and protecting consumers. International frameworks differ in scope
and stringency, but the trend is toward more harmonised, enforceable standards. The European Union, for example, enforces six core criteria for claim substantiation - legal compliance, truthfulness, evidential support,
honesty, fairness, and enabling informed decision-making - providing a benchmark for global best practices. Meanwhile, the proliferation of independent
certification schemes, such as ‘cruelty-free’ or ‘environmentally certified’, highlights a growing need for regulators to monitor both official and third-party claims, particularly as these endorsements influence purchasing behaviour and brand credibility. The increasing use of beauty apps and
ingredient apps will demand regulation sooner rather than later under the same principles as cosmetic products, since the degree of misinformation on this theme is growing exponentially. For regulators, the evolving role of
consumer trust presents both opportunities and complexities. Today’s consumers are highly attuned to the authenticity of brand messaging and are quick to challenge ambiguous or exaggerated claims, especially on social media platforms. As the increasing number of claims remains
loosely defined in many jurisdictions, regulators face rising pressure to clarify definitions, tighten enforcement, and ensure that the cosmetic claims ecosystem remains both credible and consumer-centric. The challenge ahead is to support innovation while maintaining scientific rigour and public confidence. Consumer advocacy groups are calling for
stricter regulations regarding product labelling, ingredient transparency, and the evidence required for marketing claims. The hope is that stronger regulation will
hold the cosmetics industry accountable for its promises and force it to confront the real consequences of misleading consumers.
www.personalcaremagazine.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114
