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.
Like other categories of products, the ASA does not allow marketers of moisturisers to make claims in product names that they would otherwise be unable to make (see ‘Claims in Names’). Product names that imply a level of performance that cannot be justified should not be used or should be disclaimed. Although it would be difficult to prove that a face cream had an “anti-wrinkle” or “anti-ageing” effect (that it could remove wrinkles or reverse ageing), referring to a cream as an “anti-ageing” cream in a context that explained the effect was only temporary or worked only on the appearance of wrinkles might be acceptable.
CAP understands that anti-ageing creams work by moisturising the skin. The skin absorbs water and is plumped-up, temporarily masking the appearance of wrinkles. Creams also provide a barrier on the surface of the skin, reducing moisture loss. Moisturisers have a superficial effect on the surface of the skin and marketers that go beyond making merely cosmetic claims should be wary of implying physiological changes such as “promotes skin regeneration” (The Body Shop International plc, 26 September 2007) or “skin thickness increased by over 8% in four months” (Age Technology, 5 March 2008). See ‘Anti-ageing: Physiological Effects’.
CAP has accepted that, when used on dry skin, moisturisers have the potential to demonstrate a cumulative or persistent effect but CAP has yet to see any product specific convincing evidence that any moisturiser does have a cumulative or persistent effect. Marketers wanting to make those claims should hold product-specific evidence. See ‘Anti-ageing: Creams and Cumulative and Persistent Effects’.
Marketers and their agencies are, however, unlikely to be asked for evidence for well-established claims. Referring to “temporary effects” or the “appearance of lines and wrinkles” are generally accepted claims for which neither CAP nor the ASA would normally seek evidence. Sensory or impressionistic claims, such as “your skin feels smoother” are also extremely unlikely to attract complaints or action. Moving along the continuum of evidence, claims such as “80% of women said it reduced the appearance of their wrinkles“ will require some proof, for example consumer use or perception tests. Claims that convey a physiological or cumulative effect will require a much higher level of evidence and marketers are urged to consider carefully whether their data are robust enough or tone down the claims.
Rule 12.22.1 explicitly allows marcoms for cosmetics that protect against the damage caused by environmental factors to make claims. For example, creams that include UV protection of sufficient strength (SPF 15 or above) may claim that they can help protect the skin and temporarily delay premature ageing. In 2007, the ASA upheld complaints about ads that claimed a skin cream could protect against damaging electromagnetic waves emitted from mobile phones, microwave ovens and laptops (Clarins (UK) Ltd, 15 August 2007). Again, marketers whose claims go beyond those that are generally accepted should ensure their evidence is convincing or should tone down the claims.
Claims that creams containing anti-oxidants can protect the skin and delay or temporarily prevent premature ageing as a result of their antioxidant ingredients have not, to date, been proven. The Copy Advice team is unaware of any acceptable cosmetic claims for antioxidants. (See ‘Antioxidants’).
In 2006, the ASA accepted that a product that contained glycolic acid, which increases natural exfoliation could legitimately be described as “helping the skin’s natural self-peeling process” and that it could help “reveal a new skin effect” (L’Oreal (UK) Ltd, 28 June 2006). Marketers of exfoliating creams may make some claims about skin renewal but should be careful not to over-claim.
Marcoms that either state or imply that skin creams have an effect similar or equivalent to surgery or the like are likely to be unacceptable. In 2005, the ASA ruled that the claim “let surgery wait” was acceptable because it believed viewers would not interpret the phrase as claiming anything more than a temporary effect (L’Oreal Golden Ltd, 17 August 2005). But, in January 2007, Avon was found to have exaggerated the benefits of its face cream by claims such as "TAKE ACTION WITH THE AT HOME ALTERNATIVE TO SURGERY. THE NEW WAVE IN FACE LIFTS an exclusive technological skincare breakthrough tighter, firmer, more lifted skin in just 3 days …”. The ASA concluded that the marketer had not shown that the product had an effect over and above that delivered by other moisturising products and, in reaching its decision, the ASA rejected consumer tests and in-vitro tests (Avon Cosmetics Ltd, 17 January 2007).
Last modified : 26 July 2010