The Same Claim, Five Different Answers: How EU Cosmetic Claims Diverge Across Member States

EU Regulatory Updates · Cláritas Regulatory

Imagine this scenario. A cosmetic brand has a single product. One Responsible Person. One Product Information File. One set of claims, carefully reviewed against the Cosmetics Regulation. The product launches simultaneously in Spain, France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands.

Within weeks: no issues in Spain. A retailer in France requests claim modifications before stocking. A competitor in Germany sends a formal cease-and-desist letter. In the Netherlands, a consumer authority questions the environmental language on the pack.

Same product. Same regulation. Four different outcomes.

This is not a hypothetical. It is the structural reality of marketing cosmetics across the EU — and understanding why it happens is the first step toward building a multi-market strategy that does not collapse at the border.

Why the EU Framework Does Not Solve the Problem

The regulatory framework appears watertight on paper. Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 prohibits any text, name, trademark, image or sign that implies characteristics a cosmetic product does not have. Regulation (EU) No 655/2013 operationalises this with six legally binding common criteria:

Criterion	What It Requires
Legal Compliance	No claim can imply a product merely meets minimum legal requirements
Truthfulness	If an ingredient is claimed, it must genuinely be present
Evidential Support	Claims must be backed by verifiable, scientifically sound data in the PIF
Honesty	Efficacy cannot be extrapolated beyond what the evidence demonstrates
Fairness	Claims must not denigrate competitors or legally approved ingredients
Informed Decision-Making	Language must be clear and understandable to the average consumer

These six criteria are binding across all EU Member States. The Technical Document on Cosmetic Claims — agreed by the Commission's Sub-Working Group on Claims and applied since 2019, including Annex III on 'free from' claims and Annex IV on 'hypoallergenic' — further refines how they apply.

So where does the divergence come from?

It comes from a deliberate legislative decision. Recital 7 of Regulation 655/2013 states explicitly that the common criteria are not intended to define the specific words that may be used in claims. The European legislator chose not to harmonise terminology. What the regulation harmonises is the standard of acceptability. What it leaves open is everything that determines whether a specific claim meets that standard in a specific market.

Under Article 22 of the Cosmetics Regulation, enforcement is delegated to the competent authorities of each Member State. In practice, the regulatory landscape each brand faces is shaped by two parallel systems: public enforcement bodies and national advertising self-regulatory organisations (SROs).

• France (DGCCRF + ARPP): The ARPP's Recommandation Cosmétiques operates as a de facto market standard. The DGCCRF runs active inspection campaigns with a specific focus on 'free from' claims and environmental marketing.

  
  

• Germany (BfArM + Wettbewerbszentrale): Much of German enforcement is competitor-driven under the Unfair Competition Act (UWG). A formal warning letter (Abmahnung) from a competitor or industry association can arrive before any public authority has acted.

  
  

• UK (ASA + MHRA): The ASA evaluates claims based on what a reasonable consumer would actually understand. The MHRA is one of the most aggressive authorities in Europe on the cosmetic-medicinal boundary.

  
  

• Netherlands (ACM): The Authority for Consumers and Markets has set the highest bar in Europe for environmental claims, requiring specificity and verifiable evidence rather than generic sustainability language.

  
  

• Spain and Italy: Both adopt more pragmatic positions, but the trend is toward stricter scrutiny — particularly on quasi-medical language and environmental claims.

The result: the letter of EU law is common, but the practical reality of compliance is not.

Where the Problems Actually Occur

For independent brands, the risk rarely comes from claims that are clearly prohibited. It comes from the grey areas — terms that are unregulated at EU level, permitted in principle but conditional in practice, or sitting on the border between cosmetic and medicinal classification.

"Natural" and "100% Natural"

No EU regulation defines what 'natural' means for a cosmetic product. The reference standard is ISO 16128, but — a point that is frequently missed — ISO 16128 explicitly states that it does not address product communication, claims or labelling. Passing the natural content calcularon does not give clearance for the claim.

France applies the strictest market standard: a product can only be marketed as 'natural' if at least 95% of the finished product meets the natural content definition. Below that threshold, the percentage must be disclosed. Germany goes further: courts have found that 'Naturkosmetik' is misleading if the product contains synthetic preservatives, even nature-identical ones, unless the product carries a recognised certification such as NATRUE or BDIH.

A brand whose website uses 'natural skincare' across all markets may face a formal competitor warning in Germany without having breached the EU Regulation in any technical sense.

"Probiotic" and "Microbiome-Friendly"

These terms sit in one of the highest-risk categories in current EU cosmetic marketing. The core problem with 'probiotic' is that live viable microorganisms are practically impossible to include in a cosmetic product without exceeding the microbiological limits required by ISO 17516. What most brands actually contain are postbiotics — dead bacteria or ferment lysates — and calling those 'probiotic' has been successfully challenged in Germany under the UWG as misleading.

France is applying increasing scrutiny. The evidentiary burden is inconsistent across markets, and the interpretive framework is still evolving. That combination is the definition of high regulatory risk.

"Non-Toxic" and "Clean Beauty"

 "Non-toxic" is not merely a grey area — it is structurally problematic under the Fairness criterion. A product that presents itself as non-toxic implies that competing products, which comply with the same EU Regulation, are toxic. France's ARPP has effectively blocked this claim from advertising on exactly this basis.

"Clean beauty" has no legal definition anywhere in the EU. Without a brand-published, specific and verifiable definition of what 'clean' means for that product, the claim is indefensible in markets that apply the Evidential Support and Honesty criteria strictly.

"Repairing" and "Regenerating"

This is where a marketing decision can stop being an advertising problem and become a classification problem. Under Article 1(2) of Directive 2001/83/EC, a medicinal product is defined by two alternative tests: by presentation and by function. Article 2(2) of the same Directive contains the rule of doubt: where a product falls under both the cosmetic and the medicinal definition simultaneously, the medicinal legislation applies.

High Risk — Medicinal Reclassification	Safer Cosmetic Alternative
Treats acne	For blemish-prone skin
Anti-inflammatory	Soothes / Calms
Regenerates skin tissue	Helps improve the appearance of dry skin
Stops hair loss	Fortifies hair / Reduces breakage
Relieves muscle pain	Cooling gel for after sport

The key variable is not the active ingredient — it is the verb. "Regenerates," "heals," "treats," "repairs damaged tissue" and "stimulates cell renewal" are the categories of language that trigger reclassification review in France (ANSM), Germany (BfArM) and the UK (MHRA).

"Dermatologically Tested" vs "Tested Under Dermatological Control"

These are not synonyms, and using them interchangeably is one of the most common compliance errors in cosmetic marketing. "Dermatologically tested" means a dermatologist reviewed the data. "Tested under dermatological control" implies that a dermatologist was physically present and responsible for the clinical trial protocol. France and Germany distinguish between the two.

Both claims require the PIF to contain the actual study protocol, the tested population, the endpoints and the statistical results — not just a certificate. German jurisprudence has established that a claim without that transparency can be challenged as misleading regardless of whether any testing occurred.

Green Claims: The Correction the Industry Needs

Most regulatory commentary on environmental claims in cosmetics references the EU Green Claims Directive as the forthcoming framework brands need to prepare for. This framing is now incorrect.

The Green Claims Directive was withdrawn by the European Commission in June 2025. The legislative process is dormant with no confirmed timeline for resumption. The withdrawal does not reduce the risk of greenwashing enforcement — it increases it, because the operative framework is now less predictable.

The directive that is binding and proceeding on schedule is the Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive (EmpCo, Directive (EU) 2024/825). It entered into force in March 2024. Enforcement begins on 27 September 2026. EmpCo adds to the UCPD blacklist generic environmental claims such as "eco-friendly," "green" and "sustainable" unless backed by recognised certification or verifiable evidence.

France has prohibited "carbon neutral" product claims since January 2023 under the Loi Climat et Résilience. Failure carries a fine of up to €100,000 per legal entity. The Netherlands (ACM) requires absolute specificity — "sustainable packaging" is insufficient; the required standard is a defined, verifiable metric.

If a brand sells in France or the Netherlands today, September 2026 is irrelevant. The enforcement environment is already active.

The Case That Explains Everything

No single case illustrates the mechanics of EU regulatory divergence in cosmetics more clearly than the eyelash growth serum saga. A brand marketed a serum containing methylamido-dihydro-noralfaprostal (MND), a prostaglandin analogue structurally related to bimatoprost — a pharmaceutical used in glaucoma treatment.

In 2014, the German Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (BfArM) classified the product as a medicinal product by function. The case was referred to the Court of Justice of the EU. Running in parallel, the SCCS evaluated the same prostaglandin analogues and in a final opinion adopted in February 2026 concluded that MND cannot be considered safe for use in cosmetic products intended to promote eyelash or eyebrow growth.

The result: the same product was simultaneously a cosmetic in the view of its manufacturer, a medicinal product in the view of a German authority, and an unsafe ingredient in the opinion of the EU's own scientific committee.

This is not an exceptional case. It is the standard mechanism of the cosmetic-medicinal boundary in practice.

What This Means in Practice

The relevant compliance question for a multi-market cosmetic brand is not "Is this claim legal under EU law?" It is: "How will this claim be interpreted by France, Germany, the Netherlands and the UK — and do we have the documentation to defend it in each?"

The claims that require country-specific legal review before use are those involving:

• Any reference to a medical condition or pathology (acne, eczema, rosacea, hair loss)

  
  

• Verbs implying physiological action (regenerates, heals, stimulates, repairs)

  
  

• Absolute language ('100%', 'non-toxic', 'chemical-free')

  
  

• Unqualified environmental claims ("eco", "green", "sustainable", "carbon neutral")

  
  

• "Natural" or 'organic' without certification or a disclosed percentage

  
  

• "Probiotic" where no live organisms are present

  
  

• 'Hypoallergenic' without a documented allergen exclusion rationale and post-market surveillance data

A claim audit before a multi-market launch is among the least expensive regulatory interventions available to an independent brand.

By the time an Abmahnung arrives or a retailer requests packaging changes, the cost — in time, reprinting, legal fees and delayed revenue — is substantially higher than the audit would have been.

Cláritas Regulatory · claritasregulatory.eu