Recently, a penalty notice was issued by the National Enterprise Credit Information Publicity System, revealing that a cosmetic company in Shanghai has been fined 10,000 yuan by the Market Supervision Administration of Qingpu District, Shanghai. The reason for the fine was the company’s claim on its flagship store on JD.com that a certain product had “antioxidant” properties. The justification for the penalty was that “antioxidant” is a new function for cosmetics, and the aforementioned cosmetic product is a special type of cosmetic that has not undergone special registration.
This may be the first publicly penalized case this year due to the claim of “antioxidant” properties in a product. This case once again serves as a reminder to the industry that any brand must exercise extreme caution when promoting the efficacy of their products. It is not only necessary to strictly comply with the regulatory requirements for cosmetic efficacy claims but also ensure the scientific validity, accuracy, and reliability of such claims.
The Company Fined for Claiming Products Have “Antioxidant” Effects
According to the administrative penalty decision issued by the Qingpu District Market Supervision Administration in Shanghai, the aforementioned cosmetic company in Shanghai is primarily engaged in the business of cosmetics and has a store on the JD.com platform. Starting from June 1, 2023, the company sold the “Revitalizing Essence” (net content 30ml) of a certain brand in their JD.com store and claimed that the product had effects such as “antioxidant repair,” “enhanced antioxidant power,” and “advanced formula for higher-level antioxidant.”
The Qingpu District Market Supervision Administration in Shanghai determined that “antioxidant” is a new function for cosmetics and the aforementioned cosmetic product is a special type of cosmetic, but the company did not register it according to the regulations for special cosmetics. As a result, on November 27, 2023, the company actively rectified the improper promotional content and during that period, a total of four units of the implicated cosmetic product were sold, amounting to a total sales value of 1,718.28 yuan.
In the end, based on the relevant provisions of Article 59, Item 2 of the “Regulations on the Supervision and Administration of Cosmetics” and Article 32, Item 1 of the “Administrative Penalty Law of the People’s Republic of China,” the Qingpu District Market Supervision Administration in Shanghai ordered the company to correct its illegal behavior and imposed a fine of 10,000 yuan.
CHAILEEDO investigation found that the implicated product is registered under the name “Yeast Essence Skin Essence Water,” which was registered in June 2018 and successfully passed efficacy evaluation in July 2022. The efficacy listed in the registration system includes soothing, repairing, moisturizing, and firming effects, and the evaluation was conducted using skin physiological parameter measurement and assessment tests. Therefore, although the product claimed “antioxidant” externally, it did not upload relevant efficacy evaluation evidence.
Today, when searching for the implicated store on the JD.com app, CHAILEEDO found that the advertising wording of “antioxidant” has been removed for the implicated product. Additionally, no claims related to “antioxidant” were found in the descriptions of other products in the store.
CHAILEEDO noticed that this is not the first time a company has been penalized for claiming “antioxidant” effects in cosmetic products. According to an administrative penalty decision disclosed by the Jinshan District Market Supervision Administration in Shanghai, starting from May 2020, a Shanghai-based company sold cosmetics in an online store on Xiaohongshu (Little Red Book). The product description page for their product “Brand X Xiaolu Pearl Dual Extract Essence Water” claimed “antioxidant” effects, but they failed to provide relevant supporting materials for the claim. They were ultimately fined 2,000 yuan.
Official Response: “Antioxidant” Claims Not Allowed
As is well known in the industry, as of January 1, 2022, the cosmetics industry officially entered the era of efficacy evaluation. According to the provisions of Appendix 1 “Classification Catalog of Efficacy Claims” in the “Cosmetics Classification Rules and Classification Catalog,” the efficacy of cosmetics is divided into 26 categories, including hair dyeing, perming, spot whitening, sun protection, anti-hair loss, acne treatment, nourishing, repairing, cleansing, makeup removal, moisturizing, beauty enhancement, fragrance, deodorizing, anti-wrinkle, firming, soothing, etc. Any efficacy claim not falling into these 26 categories is considered a new efficacy.
Therefore, it is evident that “antioxidant” is not included in these 26 categories and is considered a new efficacy. According to the “Regulations on the Supervision and Administration of Cosmetics,” for products with new efficacy claims, which fall under the category of special cosmetics, the brand must submit a registration application to the National Medical Products Administration. Only after undergoing strict scrutiny and evaluation can they be marketed.
Li Jincong, the founder of the Cosmetics Forbidden Words Network, told CHAILEEDO that generally speaking, “antioxidant” does not fall within the scope of cosmetics efficacy claims. In the cosmetics industry, “antioxidant” usually refers to a certain ingredient in the product formula that has antioxidant properties, aiming to enhance the stability of the product and prevent quality deterioration caused by oxidation. If it has an effect on the human skin, it falls into the category of “efficacy claim,” and therefore, it is considered a “new efficacy.”
However, several industry experts do not consider antioxidant as a new efficacy but rather a mechanism that can lead to effects such as anti-wrinkle, nourishing, or even whitening.
A cosmetic R&D engineer from Guangzhou stated, “Although the ‘Cosmetics Classification Rules and Classification Catalog’ emphasizes that new efficacy claims fall outside the 26 categories, this regulation is not reasonable, and the classification of efficacy should not adopt a closed model.”
In his view, the core of “antioxidant” is capturing free radicals and preventing chain reactions. It is a routine ingredient used in the process and can be easily achieved as a routine efficacy as long as it meets the requirements of safety technical specifications. “As long as the brand can provide evidence of efficacy, there is no need to include it in the management scope of new efficacy. The punishment in question seems too harsh.”
Chen Laicheng, the founder of Guangzhou Mashanghui Biotechnology Co., Ltd., also stated that “antioxidant” is a very routine efficacy in skincare products. When regulatory authorities inspect products, they generally assume that a product that has undergone an “antioxidant” efficacy evaluation actually has antioxidant effects, and they do not consider “antioxidant” as a new efficacy claim. “If the requirement for antioxidant claims is to apply for a special certificate as a new efficacy, then it seems that the regulations have become stricter,” he said.
A cosmetic brand representative from Shanghai informed CHAILEEDO that a product from her previous company was once complained about for claiming “antioxidant” efficacy. However, after providing an antioxidant efficacy report to the regulatory authorities, the company did not receive any administrative penalties. “But now, testing institutions also do not encourage claiming ‘antioxidant’,” she further added.
Regarding whether “antioxidant” should be managed as a new efficacy, CHAILEEDO made multiple attempts to contact relevant regulatory authorities in Shanghai, Guangzhou, and other places for confirmation, but as of the time of writing, no response has been received. However, the Cosmetic Filing Center of the Jiangsu Provincial Drug Administration replied, “Since the implementation of the new regulations, ‘antioxidant’ is not allowed to be claimed. It belongs to new efficacy for cosmetics. Additionally, when products are filed, products with ‘antioxidant’ in their names will not be approved.”
“Many products have been deregistered or had their filings canceled.
It is worth mentioning that the market for antioxidant cosmetics is currently booming. On Xiaohongshu alone, there are over 150,000 posts recommending antioxidant skincare products, with over 10,000 antioxidant products. At the same time, antioxidant products can also be frequently found on major mainstream e-commerce platforms. A search for ‘antioxidant’ on the CHAILEEDO cosmetics regulation app shows a total of 492 product filing records, including masks, eye creams, and face creams. However, many products have already been deregistered or had their filings canceled.
In terms of timing, currently registered products were generally filed between 2023 and 2024, with the majority of filings coming from companies in Guangzhou and Shanghai. Looking at the summary of efficacy claims submitted by the filers, most of the products claiming ‘antioxidant’ in their names are actually filed based on moisturizing, firming, and other effects.
Regarding the issue of antioxidant claims in cosmetics, a senior industry engineer stated that based on the punishment cases announced by the Qingpu District Market Supervision Bureau in Shanghai, it means that all cosmetics currently claiming antioxidant effects on the market are in violation of regulations.
He further stated that based on the publicized special cosmetics, there are currently no new products with new efficacy claims in the market. Moreover, the national regulatory authorities have not yet released the testing standards and methods for new efficacy claims. If the new efficacy has not been officially determined and standardized, there is no basis for verifying the new efficacy of the products.
“Although cosmetics efficacy claims include 26 categories, excluding five categories of special cosmetics such as hair dyeing, perming, spot whitening, sun protection, and anti-hair loss, as well as common basic effects like fragrance and cleansing, there are only a dozen or so actual efficacy claims, which obviously cannot meet the requirements for cosmetics efficacy claims and limit the innovation and technological progress of the cosmetics industry,” said the senior industry engineer.
“It is relatively easy to register and file cosmetics for market entry, but it is not easy to fully comply with regulatory requirements and sell products with specific efficacy claims.” According to Li Jincong, brand owners should balance the relationship between profits and risks. At the same time, regulatory authorities should continue to strengthen supervision to ensure market fairness and consumer safety.
Overall, in the current environment of stricter regulations, cosmetics efficacy claims need to be particularly cautious and must not cross the regulatory red line. This punishment case serves as a reminder to businesses that they should not harbor a sense of luck; compliance is the cornerstone of long-term development for companies.”
