Loading…
Not on the strength of the phrase. All four markets flag it, each under a different instrument, and none of them accepts the words as a substitute for the study. The fix is not a softer claim — it is describing the evidence you actually have.
“Clinically proven to reduce the appearance of fine lines.”
The same sentence, four answers. Each row names the provision that decides it, so you can go and read the one that applies to you.
MoCRA brought cosmetics under a federal substantiation regime, and the FTC has long required competent and reliable scientific evidence for an efficacy claim. “Clinically proven” asserts a specific evidentiary standard, so the check flags it until the study behind it exists.
Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 governs cosmetic claims, and the common criteria in Commission Regulation (EU) No 655/2013 require evidential support that is verifiable and proportionate to what is claimed. A claim of proof is the highest bar in that framework, not a phrase you may adopt for tone.
Section 3 of the CAP Code puts the burden on the advertiser to hold documentary evidence before the ad runs, and the ASA has repeatedly ruled against efficacy imagery the advertiser could not substantiate.
Germany reaches the same result through UWG §5 and adds a private enforcement route: a competitor can act on an unsubstantiated efficacy claim by Abmahnung, which typically arrives faster than a regulator would.
Not softer wordings — authorised ones. Each is permitted for a stated reason, which is what makes it survive a review rather than merely go unnoticed.
The wordings below are checked in English. If you advertise in French, Spanish, Italian or Dutch, our rule vocabulary for those languages is still being built — the verdicts here hold for the English text shown, and your own translated copy needs its own check.
“Instrumental testing on 32 subjects measured an increase in skin hydration after 28 days of use.”
The answer to the question actually being asked: describe the study instead of asserting the proof. Naming the method, the sample size and the measured endpoint is what Article 20 and the common criteria mean by verifiable evidential support.
“In a consumer study, 82 of 100 participants reported smoother-looking skin after four weeks.”
A consumer-perception claim, attributed and confined to appearance. It is permitted because it reports what participants said rather than what the product does, and Article 20 treats those as different claims needing different evidence.
“Moisturises and helps improve the appearance of skin texture.”
Moisturising is a cosmetic function inside the Article 2(1)(a) definition of a cosmetic product, and the second limb is an appearance claim. This stays within what a cosmetic is defined to do, which is why it needs no proof of efficacy.
These three are ours. Your product, your nutrient levels and your markets are not — paste your actual copy and see what it says.
Check your wording