Face Serum Advert Banned Over ‘Five Years Younger’ Claim

Face serum advert banned over five – A promotional advertisement for a £49 facial serum was recently withdrawn after being found to make deceptive assertions about its ability to make users appear up to five years younger. The billboard poster, which appeared at London’s Balham tube station in November 2025, claimed the Eucerin Hyaluron-Filler Epigenetic Serum was “clinically proven” following a trial involving 160 participants who used the product for four weeks before rating their perceived age reduction. This claim sparked a complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), which investigated the study’s methodology and found it lacking in critical scientific rigor.

The ASA raised concerns about the study’s design, noting that it lacked a control group and provided insufficient details on participant recruitment. Without a comparison to a placebo or untreated group, the results of the self-reported data were deemed subjective, leaving room for interpretation. The agency also pointed out that the serum was tested in a climate different from the UK, which could affect its efficacy in real-world conditions. These factors contributed to the decision to ban the advertisement, which was considered misleading to the public.

Beiersdorf, the company behind the serum, argued that the claim was presented as “up to” five years younger to reflect a potential maximum effect rather than an average outcome. They emphasized that their products are “supported by scientific research” and defended the methodology used in the study. However, the ASA found the evidence insufficient, as three of the supporting documents were unpublished research, and the final peer-reviewed study focused on the active ingredient without including the serum itself. This discrepancy raised questions about the validity of the claims made in the advertisement.

The ASA report highlighted several methodological issues, including the absence of a control group and the lack of information regarding how participants were selected. The study relied heavily on self-reporting, which can introduce bias and make it difficult to quantify results. Additionally, the test environment was not aligned with the UK’s typical weather conditions, potentially affecting the serum’s performance. These shortcomings were cited as the primary reasons for the ban, as they undermined the credibility of the “five years younger” assertion.

Beiersdorf confirmed that the billboard is no longer active in the UK, stating that all studies cited meet industry standards. They defended their approach by explaining that the “up to” phrasing was intended to convey the most optimistic outcome of the trial, not an average or guaranteed result. Despite this, the ASA concluded that the advertisement’s claims were not sufficiently substantiated, leading to its prohibition. The company’s response to the investigation underscored their confidence in the scientific backing of their products, though the regulatory body remained unconvinced.

Expert Critique of Cosmetic Advertising Practices

Lianne Sykes, an aesthetics marketing expert who advises firms on ethical advertising, commented on the broader implications of the case. She noted that the cosmetics industry is frequently accused of making exaggerated claims, often relying on limited studies or selective data to support their assertions. “Firms should conduct thorough skin analysis over an extended period to validate any claims made by volunteer participants or in promotional materials,” Sykes said. She stressed the importance of rigorous testing and transparency in advertising, emphasizing that consumers should not be swayed by branding alone.

According to Sykes, the use of “nice branding and big names” can create a false sense of trust, especially when the supporting evidence is unclear. She questioned the methods used to assess skin quality, suggesting that without standardized metrics, the results of such studies can be misleading. “How are they evaluating skin quality? Is the testing inclusive of all age groups? What criteria define success?” she asked, highlighting the need for more comprehensive research. Sykes also pointed out that individual skin biology varies significantly, and effective skin health often results from a combination of habits rather than a single product.

The ASA’s decision serves as a reminder of the importance of methodological soundness in advertising. While the serum in question was tested on a sample of 160 people, the lack of a control group meant that the observed changes could have been due to other factors, such as the placebo effect or natural variations in skin condition. Sykes echoed this sentiment, stating that consumer testimonials, while valuable, must be complemented by objective data to ensure accuracy. She warned that without proper scrutiny, advertisers might exploit the public’s trust in scientific-sounding claims.

Beiersdorf’s defense of their methodology aligns with industry standards, but Sykes argued that these standards may not always ensure transparency. “Companies often cite studies that meet minimum requirements but fail to address all potential variables,” she said. For instance, the absence of a control group in the trial meant that the serum’s effects could not be definitively linked to the observed results. Sykes also emphasized the importance of contextualizing the findings, noting that the study was conducted in a different climate and might not translate to the same results in the UK.

Consumers, Sykes suggested, should be more vigilant when encountering bold claims in advertising. “Before believing a product’s effectiveness, ask for the data and understand the testing conditions,” she advised. She recommended looking for peer-reviewed studies and checking whether the claims are based on long-term results rather than short-term observations. “A single four-week trial may not capture the full impact of a product on skin aging,” she said, adding that sustained use is often necessary to see significant changes.

The ban on the advertisement underscores the growing scrutiny of cosmetic claims in the UK. As the market becomes more competitive, companies are increasingly relying on marketing strategies that may stretch the boundaries of scientific evidence. Sykes believes that this trend highlights a need for stricter regulation and more informed consumer engagement. “The public deserves to see clear, reliable evidence before making purchasing decisions,” she said. She also encouraged consumers to focus on holistic skincare routines rather than relying on a single product to achieve dramatic results.

While Beiersdorf maintains that their studies are compliant with industry guidelines, the ASA’s intervention highlights the importance of methodological clarity. The case serves as a cautionary example for other advertisers, reminding them that even well-intentioned claims can be misleading if the supporting data is not robust. Sykes hopes this will lead to a shift in the industry toward more transparent and evidence-based marketing practices, ensuring that consumers are not misled by vague or exaggerated assertions. “Ultimately, the goal of advertising should be to inform, not to mislead,” she concluded.