Find us on...
On 13 May 2026, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) upheld a ruling on misleading claims against a skincare treatment which made claims of a visible lifting and tightening effect for ageing skin.
ASA considered that the claims made implied a cumulative lifting effect, which required robust evidence. Moreover, the use of a ‘clinically proven’ claim was deemed to give the expectation of robust, clinical evidence. Therefore, a high-level body of relevant evidence was expected to support the relevant claims.
From the clinical study submitted, ASA acknowledged the high level of agreement for questions relating to the product’s efficacy in the subjective element of the study. However, the study did not include a placebo or control group and only consisted of 30 subjects. ASA also considered the measurement of the ‘lifted’ aspect to be based on subjective clinical grading score rather than an objective measurement. Moreover, the ASA considered that the objective measures within the test did not demonstrate a lifting effect to the extent that was implied by the claim.
Consumer perception studies were also performed, which ASA noted the results showed there was a subjective visible lifting effect to the skin. However, the studies did not include placebo or control groups, and were self-assessment studies relying on subjective responses.
Therefore, ASA concluded that the claims had not been adequately substantiated and had exaggerated the effects of the product thus misleading the consumer. The ad must not appear again in its current form, and the brand must not misleadingly exaggerate the effects of cosmetic products on the signs of ageing.
Companies can access public resources on cosmetic claims, including the CTPA Guide to Advertising Claims for more information on Claim substantiation and Study Design.
