Cosmetic Claims — What Can a Manufacturer Promise, and What Is Illegal?

Cosmetic packaging is a marketing battlefield. "Makes you look 10 years younger", "eliminates cellulite", "clinically proven efficacy" — promises pour out from every shelf. But the European Union does not leave manufacturers unsupervised. Commission Regulation (EU) No 655/2013 lays down common criteria for the justification of claims used in relation to cosmetic products — and it is worth knowing what those criteria are.

What is a cosmetic "claim"?

In regulatory language, a claim is any information — verbal, visual or graphic — suggesting that a product has certain characteristics or effects. It is not just the text on the packaging. It also includes:

• television and online advertising,
• social media posts (including those created by influencers on behalf of a brand),
• product descriptions in online stores,
• "before and after" photos of product use,
• product names (e.g. "Wrinkle Eraser" suggests the removal of wrinkles).

Regulation 655/2013 applies to all of these forms of communication and is directly applicable in every EU member state, including Poland. Check the details in our ingredient encyclopedia.

Six common criteria — the pillars of legal claims

Article 3 of Regulation 655/2013, expanded in the European Commission's "Technical Document" (published in July 2017), establishes six criteria that every claim must satisfy simultaneously:

1. Legal compliance

A claim may not suggest that a product has properties that would give it the status of a medicinal product. The key rule from Article 20 of Regulation 1223/2009: cosmetic products may not be credited with properties for the prevention, treatment or diagnosis of disease. A cream that "treats acne" is an illegal claim — acne is a medical condition. A cream that "reduces the appearance of blemishes" is a permissible claim.

2. Truthfulness

A claim must correspond to the product's actual properties. If a cream states that it "hydrates for 24 hours", the manufacturer must hold data confirming exactly that — not hydration for 8 hours, not the subjective impression of consumers, but an objective measurement of hydration (e.g. corneometry) over the full 24 hours.

3. Evidential support

The manufacturer must hold adequate and verifiable evidence supporting every claim. This may include:

• instrumental studies (measurements of hydration, elasticity, wrinkle depth),
• clinical studies under dermatological supervision,
• in vitro studies on a skin model,
• consumer surveys (but with limitations — see below).

Supervisory authorities (in Poland, the Trade Inspection Authority) may at any time require the manufacturer to produce this evidence. A lack of documentation is a breach of the law.

4. Honesty

Claims may not attribute unique properties to a product if those properties are shared by every product in the same category. The classic example: "paraben-free" on a product in which parabens have never been used (e.g. micellar water). This suggests an advantage that does not exist — because competitors do not contain them either.

Similarly, the claim "not tested on animals" on a cosmetic sold in the EU is potentially dishonest, because the law prohibits such testing for all manufacturers. Suggesting that this is a distinguishing feature of a particular brand is misleading.

5. Fairness

Claims may not denigrate legitimate competitors or ingredients. The statement "unlike silicone-based creams, our product does not clog pores" is unfair if there is no evidence that silicones are comedogenic at cosmetic concentrations and genuinely clog pores (and the scientific evidence does not confirm this).

6. Informed decision-making

Claims must be understandable to the average consumer. They may not use scientific jargon in a way that creates a false impression of efficacy. The phrase "activates the cellular mTOR pathway" on an anti-wrinkle cream is problematic — the average consumer is unable to verify this claim and may interpret it as a promise of pharmacological action.

Prohibited claims — concrete examples

Based on the criteria of Regulation 655/2013 and the guidance of national supervisory authorities, certain claims can be identified as clearly inadmissible:

• "100% eliminates wrinkles" — an absolute claim, impossible to prove for a cosmetic product (wrinkles are the result of biological processes that a cosmetic does not reverse).
• "Cures eczema/acne/psoriasis" — attributing medicinal properties = reclassification as a medicinal product.
• "Safe" / "Causes no allergies" — prohibited absolute claims. No cosmetic is safe for 100% of the population. Permissible: "dermatologically tested", "a formula that minimizes the risk of allergic reactions".
• "100% natural" — if the product contains any synthetic ingredient (e.g. a preservative), the claim is false. Even water that has undergone a purification process raises doubts about its "naturalness".

"Clinically tested" — the most frequently abused claim

This phrase deserves its own section, because it is widely used and widely misunderstood. "Clinically tested" means only that the product underwent some kind of study involving human subjects under clinical supervision. It does not mean that:

• the study demonstrated the product's efficacy,
• the study was randomized or placebo-controlled,
• the results were statistically significant,
• the study was independent (it may have been funded and designed by the manufacturer).

"Clinically tested" is not the same as "clinically proven efficacy". The latter phrase requires far more robust evidence. The difference is subtle but fundamental. Check our guide to INCI lists to assess products on the basis of their actual composition rather than marketing promises.

Who oversees claims in Poland?

In Poland, oversight of the accuracy of cosmetic claims rests primarily with:

• The Trade Inspection Authority (UOKiK) — monitors the integrity of advertising and product labeling.
• The Chief Sanitary Inspector — supervises product compliance with Regulation 1223/2009, including the cosmetic/medicine boundary.
• The Advertising Ethics Commission — a body of industry self-regulation that issues opinions (not legally binding) on the ethics of advertising.

In practice, inspections of cosmetic claims in Poland are rare compared with, for example, the United Kingdom (ASA) or Italy (AGCM). This means that consumers must largely verify manufacturers' promises for themselves. The PurScore search engine helps with this by analyzing the composition of products available in Polish drugstores.