Spectra Cosmetic Compliance
Claims sit alongside labelling as a core compliance area. Here we focus on the rules governing what a product can claim.
Why claims are regulated
Cosmetic claims are regulated to protect consumers from being misled. A claim influences a purchase so the rules ensure that what a brand says about a product is accurate and can be backed up. The regulation requires that claims not attribute to a product characteristics or functions it does not have and a set of common criteria governs acceptable claims. These rules apply to cosmetic product claims across the board, whatever form the claim takes.
This matters commercially as well as legally claims are central to how cosmetics are marketed and the line between compelling and non compliant marketing is exactly where brands need to be careful. Understanding the rules lets a brand market effectively while staying compliant.
The common criteria for claims
Cosmetic claims are assessed against a set of common criteria which require in essence that claims are legally compliant truthful supported by evidence honest fair and enable informed decision making. Together these mean a claim must be accurate, substantiable, not denigrate competitors unfairly, and give consumers the basis to make an informed choice. Cosmetic claims must satisfy every one of these criteria at once, not just the ones that happen to be easiest to meet.
These criteria are the framework against which any claim can be judged. A claim that fails any of them for example one that cannot be substantiated or that misleads is non compliant. Applying these criteria to your claims before you publish them is the practical test to use.
Claims must be substantiated
A central rule is that claims must be supported by adequate evidence. If you claim a product does something moisturizes for 24 hours reduces the appearance of fine lines is suitable for sensitive skin you must hold evidence proportionate to the claim. Significant performance claims require appropriate substantiation which forms part of the Product Information File. A claim to reduce the appearance of fine lines is a good example of an objective claim since it describes a measurable effect rather than a vague impression.
The level of evidence needed is proportionate to the claim: a strong, specific performance claim needs stronger support than a general one. Holding the substantiation for your claims is both a regulatory requirement and a protection if a claim is ever challenged.
The line with medicinal claims
A critical boundary is that a cosmetic must not make medicinal claims claims to treat cure or prevent disease or to affect the body's structure or functions in a way that goes beyond a cosmetic purpose. A product making such claims may be treated as a medicine, which falls under a completely different and much stricter regime.
This is one of the most important lines for a brand to respect. Describing a product as treating a medical condition for example can take it out of the cosmetic category entirely and into medicines regulation. Keeping claims within the cosmetic sphere cleaning perfuming protecting keeping in good condition changing appearance is essential to staying a cosmetic and it's a distinction that matters for cosmetic products of every type.
Free from and similar claims
Free from claims ''free from parabens'' ''free from sulphates'' and so on are subject to particular scrutiny. Such claims can be problematic where they denigrate an ingredient that is actually safe and permitted or mislead consumers into thinking a product is safer than a comparable one. The common criteria constrain when 'free from' claims are acceptable.
This does not mean ''free from'' claims are never allowed but they must meet the criteria notably fairness and not misleading. A ''free from'' claim that implies a permitted safe ingredient is dangerous is the kind of claim that falls foul of the rules. Brands should approach these claims with care.
Natural organic and other descriptors
Descriptors like ''natural'' and ''organic'' are not tightly defined in the cosmetics regulation itself but they are still subject to the general rules against misleading claims and there are standards and schemes (and advertising rules) that govern their use. A ''natural'' claim must not mislead about the actual composition of the product.
Brands using these descriptors should ensure they can justify them and are not misleading consumers. Certification to a recognised natural or organic standard is one way to support such claims. As with all claims the test is truthfulness and not misleading the consumer.
Advertising rules apply too
Beyond the cosmetics objective claims in advertising are subject to advertising rules in the UK the Advertising Standards Authority and the CAP Code in EU countries national advertising rules. These can be enforced through complaints and they apply the same underlying principles advertising must be truthful substantiated and not misleading.
So a claim has to satisfy both the cosmetics rules and the advertising rules. A claim that would not stand up to an advertising complaint is one to reconsider. Brands should think of claims compliance as spanning both the product and its marketing.
Getting claims right
The practical approach is to treat every claim as something that must be true substantiated and not misleading held up against the common criteria kept within the cosmetic (non medicinal) sphere and supported by evidence in the file. Strong specific claims need strong evidence vaguer claims need less but must still be honest. An objective claim in particular should always be traceable back to a specific piece of evidence in the file.
Reviewing claims before they go on a label or into marketing and holding the substantiation for each is what keeps a brand on the right side of the rules while still marketing effectively. It is easier to get claims right at the outset than to defend a problematic one later. A claims review is a sensible step before launch.
Common claim pitfalls
Certain claim pitfalls come up again and again. Over claiming making a stronger performance claim than the evidence supports is the most common and the hardest to defend if challenged. Borderline medicinal claims are another where marketing language drifts toward suggesting the product treats a condition risking the product being treated as a medicine. Both are easy to fall into when writing enthusiastic marketing copy.
Unsubstantiated ''free from'' claims and misleading ''natural'' or ''clean'' positioning also recur particularly where they imply that permitted safe ingredients are harmful. And implied claims where an image name or overall impression suggests something the words do not literally say can be just as much a problem as explicit ones because the test is the overall impression given to the consumer.
The way to avoid these pitfalls is to scrutinise not just the literal words of a claim but the overall impression it creates, and to make sure every claim is honest and backed by proportionate evidence. Reviewing marketing copy and packaging through a compliance lens, before it is published catches most problem claims before they become an issue.
Not sure whether your cosmetic claims are compliant? Spectra can review your product claims, packaging and marketing language to identify unsupported, misleading or potentially medicinal claims before they create a compliance problem.
➜ Get a claims review
References: Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 Article 20 (EUR-Lex) Commission Regulation (EU) No 655/2013 (common criteria) UK Cosmetics Regulation as retained ASA/CAP Code. General information only not legal advice.
