Your Moisturiser Lied To You

**Ishita Sharma

India’s cosmetics market is one of the fastest-growing in the world. Consumers are buying more skincare, haircare, and grooming products than ever, driven by advertising across social media. But beneath this growth lies a challenge that the industry, regulators, and consumers are all still learning to address: a significant portion of that advertising stretches the truth, and the systems designed to catch it have yet to fully catch up.

Research shows that only about 18 percent of cosmetic advertising claims are broadly trustworthy, terms like “clinically proven,” “dermatologist tested,” and “instant results” appear across beauty ads not because rigorous science backs them, but because they borrow the authority of clinical language without submitting to its discipline. ASCI’s 2023-24 Annual Complaints Report found that 98 percent of all scrutinised beauty ads required modification,  If near-universal non-compliance is any measure, it raises the question: is the regulatory architecture meeting consumers where they are?

India’s Regulatory Architecture: Substantive But Uneven

The framework governing cosmetic advertising in India has real substance, but it has developed unevenly and its various components do not always work together as effectively as they could.

The Drugs and Cosmetics Act (DCA), 1940, governs cosmetic products, but its advertising provisions are remarkably thin. The Drugs Rules, 1945, contain an extensive Schedule J listing ailments for which advertising claims are prohibited, covering conditions like premature ageing, skin fairness, and rejuvenation, however, Schedule J applies only to drugs; cosmetics are defined as a separate product category under the DCA and fall outside its scope. The Cosmetic Rules, 2020, do state that no cosmetic may bear a false or misleading claim (Rule 36, flowing from s.17C read with s.18 of the DCA), but they offer no definition of “misleading,” no evidentiary threshold, and no test of consumer perception, so it is a prohibition that would benefit from sharper teeth.

The more developed framework sits within the Consumer Protection Act (COPRA), 2019. COPRA defines “misleading advertisement” in s.2(28) as one that falsely describes a product, gives unsubstantiated guarantees, or deliberately conceals important information. The definition of “unfair trade practice” in s.2(47) extends this further, capturing false representations about quality, grade, or performance; unsubstantiated efficacy guarantees where the person relying on such tests bears the burden of proof; and comparative advertising based on false or misleading facts. Penalties under s.89 allow the CCPA to impose fines of up to 10 lakh rupees for a first contravention and up to 50 lakh rupees for subsequent violations, and to prohibit endorsers from making endorsements for up to one year (extendable to three years for repeat offences).

The CCPA’s 2022 Guidelines for Prevention of Misleading Advertisements add important specificity. They require that all claims which relate to objectively verifiable facts must be capable of substantiation, and stipulate that disclaimers cannot contradict the material claim in an advertisement, cannot be used to correct a misleading claim already made, and must use the same language and font as the claim itself. Crucially, the Guidelines include a concrete illustration: an advertisement for a skin cream claiming “dermatologists recommend this product for all skin types” cannot be saved by a disclaimer in smaller font stating “individual results may vary” if the original claim was not based on an actual recommendation by dermatologists. The 2024 Guidelines for Prevention of Greenwashing further require that environmental claims such as “100% natural” or “cruelty-free” be truthfully verifiable and adequately disclosed.

A significant recent development is the self-declaration mechanism. In May 2024, the Supreme Court, in Indian Medical Association v Union of India (arising from the Patanjali proceedings), directed all advertisers and advertising agencies to submit a self-declaration certificate before any advertisement is broadcast, published, or displayed. The certificate must confirm that the advertisement does not contain misleading claims and complies with all relevant regulatory guidelines. The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting operationalised this through the Broadcast Seva Portal (for TV and radio) and the Press Council of India Portal (for print and digital), with the requirement taking effect from 18 June 2024. This marked the first time India introduced a pre-publication compliance requirement for advertising, moving the framework, at least partially, from reactive to preventive.

However, the self-declaration mechanism has drawn criticism for practical difficulties, as Industry bodies have pointed out that digital performance marketing campaigns often test hundreds of creatives simultaneously, making per-advertisement declarations impractical. Some have suggested yearly declarations as an alternative. The mechanism also remains a self-certification rather than a pre-approval system: the advertiser attests to compliance, but no authority verifies the claim before publication.

ASCI’s self-regulatory system adds a parallel layer. Its 2024-25 report documents 9,599 complaints processed, an average resolution time of 16 days (a 46 percent improvement year-on-year), and 83 percent overall compliance, with TV and print achieving near-perfect adherence at 98 percent. ASCI’s practice of publicly naming non-compliant brands and influencers adds a transparency layer the statutory framework currently lacks, but its rulings remain advisory, not legally binding, and digital compliance at 75 percent lags considerably behind traditional media.

The Supreme Court’s broader intervention in the Patanjali case extended beyond the self-declaration mechanism. The Court suspended manufacturing licences for 14 Patanjali products, directed the government to establish accessible complaint forums, and required the CCPA to disclose enforcement actions in health and beauty. This signalled that the judiciary sees the enforcement gap and is actively pushing for structural reform.

Taken together, India’s framework has the substantive building blocks: COPRA provides a coherent definition of misleading advertisements, the CCPA Guidelines add specificity on claims and disclaimers, and the self-declaration mechanism introduces a preventive element. What remains less developed is the connective tissue: clear evidentiary standards for what constitutes a “misleading” cosmetic claim specifically, proactive verification before publication, and systematic transparency in enforcement outcomes.

How Other Jurisdictions Approach It

A comparative glance is instructive, not to suggest India should transplant another system, but to identify design principles that might strengthen its own.

The European Union operates a layered claims regime. Article 20 of EU Cosmetics Regulation No 1223/2009 prohibits the use of any text, names, trademarks, or images that attribute to cosmetic products characteristics they do not possess. This is supplemented by Commission Regulation (EU) No 655/2013, which establishes six common criteria for the justification of cosmetic claims: legal compliance, truthfulness, evidential support, honesty, fairness, and enabling informed decision-making. The European Commission’s 2017 Technical Document provides detailed guidance on specific claim types. For instance, a “paraben-free” claim is not permitted because it disparages an entire class of ingredients allowed under EU regulation; a “not tested on animals” claim is prohibited because it merely restates a legal obligation; and “hypoallergenic” claims must not imply a complete absence of allergic risk. The EU’s “average consumer” test, developed through CJEU jurisprudence in Estée Lauder v Lancaster and Gut Springenheide, assesses whether the overall presentation of a product would mislead a reasonably informed consumer, and endorses consumer surveys as evidentiary tools. The result is a system where claims are scrutinised against defined criteria before disputes arise.

Japan takes a distinctive preventive approach. Under the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Act, the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW) maintains a list of exactly 56 permitted efficacy claims for cosmetics. Advertisers may only make claims that fall within this defined scope; anything beyond it, including terms like “clinically proven” or “recommended by doctors,” is prohibited unless the product is reclassified as a quasi-drug and undergoes a separate approval process. Combined claims (such as “reducing fine lines caused by dryness”) cannot be broken apart and used individually; advertisers cannot isolate “reducing fine lines” as a standalone claim. Japan’s Act on Prohibition of Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Advertising further prohibits descriptions that present products as significantly better than reality, with fines of up to 4.5 percent of sales revenue for violations since 2021.

South Korea’s Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS) actively monitors cosmetic advertising, finding that labelling and advertising violations accounted for 75 percent of administrative actions against cosmetics companies, with 37 percent involving advertisements that could cause consumers to misperceive products as medicines. In January 2025, MFDS expanded its list of prohibited expressions, banning claims about reducing skin age, misleading references to human-derived ingredients like exosomes, and language implying hospital-grade endorsement. South Korea distinguishes between general cosmetics and “functional cosmetics” (whitening, anti-wrinkle), requiring the latter to undergo pre-market efficacy review before any functional claim can be advertised. In a further move, MFDS proposed abolishing “natural” and “organic” as legally distinct cosmetic categories entirely from August 2025.

In the United States, courts apply a “reasonable consumer” standard and routinely allow cosmetics cases past the pleading stage into discovery, forcing brands to disclose their science. In Lopez v L’Oréal, a court denied dismissal where collagen-cream ads plausibly implied benefits that topical collagen cannot deliver. The private class-action pipeline creates its own deterrence.

What these systems share is a willingness to define the boundaries of permissible advertising before products reach consumers, whether through positive lists (Japan, South Korea), common criteria with detailed technical guidance (the EU), or litigation pressure (the US). India’s framework is converging in substance, but the intervention tends to come later, varies more by forum, and lacks the cosmetics-specific guidance that the EU’s Technical Document or Japan’s 56-claim list provides.

What Could Strengthen The System

The path forward need not involve wholesale overhaul; targeted reforms could make a meaningful difference. Drawing on the Japanese and South Korean models, India could develop a positive list of permitted cosmetic claims with clear substantiation criteria for terms like “anti-ageing,” “natural,” or “clinically tested.” Drawing on the EU, it could adopt common criteria for claims along the lines of Regulation 655/2013, supplemented by a technical document offering cosmetics-specific guidance on descriptors, disclaimers, and “free from” claims. 

Claim substantiation could be made accessible to consumers through mandatory QR codes on packaging, linking to the data behind marketing claims The self-declaration mechanism, while a meaningful step, currently asks advertisers to self-certify compliance without any authority reviewing the evidence before publication. For high-risk claims like efficacy and health, advertisers should be required to deposit substantiating evidence (clinical data, test reports) with a designated authority before the advertisement runs, creating a verifiable trail that shifts the burden from “prove it was misleading after the fact” to “show your evidence before you claim it”.

India’s cosmetics market will only keep growing. The regulatory architecture has the substantive building blocks; the challenge now is to assemble them into a system that is proactive rather than reactive, cosmetics-specific rather than generic, and accessible rather than forbidding. The direction of travel, from ASCI’s improving compliance mechanisms to the Supreme Court’s Patanjali directions to the CCPA’s expanding guidelines and the new self-declaration requirement, suggests the conversation is already moving, the question is whether it will move enough.

**Ishita Sharma is a fourth-year law student at Jindal Global Law School, India. She is passionate about gender justice and social equity. Her interests span across law, social work, and public policy, with a commitment to advocating for systemic change and helping those in need.

**Disclaimer: The views expressed in this blog do not necessarily align with the views of the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy.