On March 6th, the Shanghai Administration for Market Regulation and the Shanghai Medical Products Administration jointly issued the Shanghai Cosmetics Industry Advertising Compliance Guidelines (referred to as the Guidelines). The Guidelines provide regulatory guidance and opinions on various aspects of cosmetic advertising, including claims of product efficacy, advertising content and format, live-streaming marketing and endorsement activities, and advertising for products targeting specific population groups. The Guidelines came into effect from the date of publication.
It is noteworthy that the Guidelines represent the first set of cosmetic advertising guidelines jointly issued by local regulatory authorities after the implementation of the new regulations in the cosmetics industry. They hold significant guiding significance for the industry.
Advertising for six categories of cosmetics is not allowed
The Guidelines were developed based on eight laws, regulations, and normative documents, including the Advertising Law, the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, the Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests, and the Cosmetic Supervision and Administration Regulation. It comprises seven chapters and forty-one articles. The Shanghai Administration for Market Regulation and the Shanghai Food and Drug Administration stated that the purpose of the Guidelines is to guide the cosmetics industry in Shanghai to enhance compliance management in advertising and promotion and promote the healthy development of the industry.
Firstly, the Guidelines clearly define the responsible party for cosmetic claims, stating that cosmetic manufacturers and operators, as advertisers, are responsible for the truthfulness and legality of advertising content. They are required to treat advertising and promotional activities as an important part of corporate compliance management, strengthen the management of the entire advertising process, establish work systems, and maintain advertising records while ensuring proper handling before, during, and after advertising activities.
The Guidelines further require cosmetic manufacturers and operators to strengthen pre-release risk assessment of public opinion, post-release monitoring of public sentiment, and emergency response management. They should promptly respond to social concerns, enhance public education on cosmetics, and fulfill corporate social responsibilities. The Guidelines also list the responsible parties for cosmetic advertising and the qualifications and supporting documents they should possess.
Of particular note, the Guidelines state that cosmetic operators are prohibited from advertising six categories of cosmetics, including “unregistered or unrecorded cosmetics,” “cosmetics whose registrations have been revoked, suspended, or records canceled,” “cosmetics formulated by operators without authorization,” “cosmetics produced using prohibited raw materials, new raw materials that should be registered but are not, or new raw materials that should be recorded but are not,” “cosmetics that have been announced by the drug regulatory authorities to cease or suspend operations,” and “other cosmetics prohibited from production and operation by law.”
In other words, the prerequisite for the publication of cosmetic advertisements is that the products are legal and compliant. Otherwise, advertising cannot be released.
“Wrinkle-fighting” does not equal “wrinkle removal,” and hair care products should refrain from claiming to “repair”
As is well known, since the release of the Standards for Cosmetic Efficacy Claim Evaluation by the Chinese government, the era of efficacy evaluation for Chinese cosmetics has officially begun. Cosmetic companies are now required to provide “evidence-based” claims when promoting the efficacy of their products. Therefore, the Guidelines stipulate that “cosmetic advertisements related to efficacy, safety, and other related claims should be consistent with the product’s registration or filing information, as well as the summarization of supporting evidence for efficacy claims.”
According to the “Guidelines,” cosmetic manufacturers and operators can provide explanations and explanations of the above-mentioned efficacy claims in advertisements based on the interpretations and guidelines provided in the Classification Catalogue of Efficacy Claim issued by the National Medical Products Administration. However, this should be done while ensuring scientific, rational, and sufficient evidence support. The Guidelines specifically point out that in advertisements for “anti-hair loss” products, claims should not be made regarding the regulation of hormone effects, hair growth promotion, or similar expressions. In advertisements for “repairing” products, claims should not be made regarding their use on scarred, burned, damaged areas, or similar expressions. In advertisements for “anti-wrinkle” products, claims of wrinkle removal or similar expressions should be avoided. In advertisements for hair care products, claims of repairing damaged hair quality, repairing split ends, or similar expressions should be avoided.
It is worth noting that several companies have previously been penalized for claiming “repairing” effects. For example, in April 2021, a cosmetic company in Shanghai was fined 5,000 yuan for promoting cosmetics on their WeChat public account with claims such as “promoting the repair of damaged cuticles and resisting external disturbances.”
Furthermore, the Guidelines state that if cosmetic advertisements make efficacy claims based on the effects of ingredients, the claims regarding the effects of the ingredients should be closely related to the efficacy claims of the cosmetics. Additionally, cosmetic advertisers “must not imply or claim effects that the product does not possess or that are not allowed to be claimed based on the functions of the advertised ingredients” and “must not imply or claim therapeutic effects on diseases based on the functions of the advertised ingredients.”
The Guidelines particularly emphasize that if companies promote efficacy claims beyond the 26 categories specified in the Cosmetic Classification Rules and Catalogs as well as claims of suitability for “pregnant and lactating women,” these claims would be considered as claims for new cosmetic efficacy and require special cosmetics registration certification.
“Stem cells,” “heavy metal-free,” and “alcohol-free” should be avoided
It is worth noting that the Guidelines also state that cosmetic advertisements must not contain false, exaggerated, or unverifiable content. It should avoid using exaggerated language such as “all-in-one,” “miracle,” “skin-changing,” etc. It should also avoid using terms, mechanisms, concepts, and language such as decoding, digital, intelligent, infrared, stem cells, quantum, etc., which are not related to the product characteristics or may not be easily understood by consumers and are not widely accepted by the scientific community or fabricated. Furthermore, it should not fabricate false information, denigrate other legitimate products, or invent, forge, or present unverifiable scientific research findings, statistical data, survey results, excerpts, quotes, etc.
However, when searching for keywords such as “stem cell cosmetics” on social media platforms, it can still be found that there are many cosmetic products. Industry professionals have expressed that “such promotion carries risks, especially for companies in Shanghai. If discovered, there may be a risk of punishment. It is best not to cross the red line.”
Additionally, the Guidelines require that if cosmetic advertisements involve claims such as “zero additives” or “additive-free,” they should clearly state the specific ingredients or raw material names that have not been added. Claims involving “zero,” “without,” or “does not contain” certain ingredients or components should be by the actual situation.
Importantly, it specifically points out that claims such as “the product does not contain prohibited ingredients used in cosmetics production, such as ‘heavy metal-free’,” or “does not contain allergens or sensitizing substances” should be avoided. It should also not claim that “silicone oil clogs pores, while the product is ‘silicone-free’,” or “alcohol causes skin allergies, while the product is ‘alcohol-free’,” as these situations may mislead consumers or denigrate others and should be avoided.
As we all know, live streaming and endorsement activities are common promotional methods used by cosmetic companies. Therefore, the Guidelines also regulate live marketing and endorsement activities. It requires that “illegal and immoral celebrities, artists, internet celebrities, etc., should not be used as advertising endorsers.” If the advertising endorser personally proves the efficacy of the cosmetics in the advertisement, it should be based on their use of the product, and not the effects or results of others’ usage.
Additionally, the Guidelines specify special requirements for advertising and promotion of cosmetics for children, pregnant women, and lactating women. Cosmetics applicable to pregnant and lactating women should be registered, and advertisements for children’s cosmetics should not promote adult effects. The use of phrases such as “edible” or food-related patterns should be avoided to prevent the risk of ingestion. The misuse of the “Little Golden Shield” logo for children’s cosmetics is also prohibited.
Although some senior industry regulatory experts believe that the Guidelines do not have legal enforceability, the fact that they were jointly issued by the Shanghai Municipal Administration for Market Regulation and the Drug Administration indicates that the advertising and promotion of cosmetics are highly valued from a regulatory perspective. Therefore, these experts recommend that “cosmetic companies, especially operators, should not underestimate the requirements in these guidelines. They should study them carefully and strengthen their management of advertising and promotion to avoid risks to business operations.”
There is no doubt that non-compliant advertising has been a persistent problem in the cosmetics industry, affecting well-known international and domestic brands as well as private-label products, all of which have faced penalties for violations in their advertising. As Shanghai is the first region undoubtedly, non-compliant cosmetic advertising has been a persistent issue in the industry, affecting well-known international and domestic brands, as well as smaller brands. The release of the Guidelines by Shanghai, as the first region to introduce cosmetic advertising guidelines after the new regulations, signifies its leadership in this area.
Perhaps, with the publication of these Guidelines in Shanghai, the entire country will gradually unify its approach and eventually enter a new era of cosmetic advertising where there are laws to follow, laws are strictly enforced, and violations are held accountable.
