Substantiating Skincare and Beauty Claims: What EU Cosmetics Law Requires From an Influencer's Post

Short answer: yes — and the requirement applies to the post exactly as it applies to the packaging

When an influencer writes that a skincare line "reduces wrinkles," is "hypoallergenic," or is "free from" a specific ingredient, exactly the same requirements apply as if the sentence appeared on the product's own packaging. The EU Cosmetics Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009), Article 20, prohibits claims that attribute characteristics or functions to a cosmetic product that it doesn't have — and Commission Regulation 655/2013 turns that into six common criteria, which must be documented in the product information file (PIF), regardless of the medium the claim appears in. In Denmark, the Danish Environmental Protection Agency's (Miljøstyrelsen) Chemical Inspection enforces these health claims — separately from the Consumer Ombudsman's oversight of environmental claims about the same product.

This is practical guidance from Make Influence, not legal advice. Use it to get an overview — get the specific assessment of a particular wording from a cosmetics-regulatory consultant or lawyer if there's any doubt.

Why an influencer's post is covered on exactly the same footing as the packaging

Commission Regulation 655/2013 defines its scope broadly: the rules apply to claims "in the form of texts, names, trade marks, pictures and figurative or other signs," and they apply to any claim "irrespective of the medium or type of marketing tool used." There's no carve-out for social media, and certainly none for a paid or gifted influencer's own wording. That's the same principle already established for health claims about dietary supplements and for environmental claims: a commercial benefit — payment, free product, or simply a collaboration — triggers the same documentation duty, whichever medium the words end up in.

The six common criteria — and what they require in practice

The Annex to Regulation 655/2013 sets out six criteria every cosmetic claim has to satisfy at once:

Criterion	What it requires	Example of a problem
Legal compliance	A claim can't imply an authorisation from a competent authority that the product doesn't actually have, and can't present a legal minimum requirement as a special benefit	"EU-approved" — the product is simply compliant, not specially approved
Truthfulness	An ingredient mentioned must actually be present for a purpose; a property of an ingredient can't be attributed to the whole finished product without evidence	Calling a cream "collagen-boosting" because it contains a raw material that showed one isolated effect in a lab study
Evidential support	Every claim — explicit or implied — must be supported by adequate and verifiable evidence, using up-to-date practice	"Reduces wrinkles after 4 weeks" with no underlying clinical or consumer test behind it
Honesty	Product characteristics can't be emphasised beyond what the evidence actually supports, and a conditional effect (only when combined with another product) must be stated clearly	Promising an effect that in reality is only achieved when used alongside another product from the same line
Fairness	A claim must stay objective, can't denigrate competitors or legally used ingredients, and can't create confusion with a competitor's product	Implying a competitor's product is unsafe because it contains a legal ingredient
Allowing informed decisions	A claim must be clear and understandable to an average consumer, giving enough information for an informed choice	A vaguely worded claim that "can be understood in 100 different ways"

The Commission's 2017 technical document expands on all six criteria and separately guides two claim types that go wrong especially often in practice: "free from" claims and "hypoallergenic" — both covered concretely below.

Who enforces this in Denmark — and who's liable

Miljøstyrelsen's Chemical Inspection enforces cosmetic products' health claims in Denmark. Breaching the Cosmetics Regulation can carry a fine or up to two years' imprisonment. As a starting point, it's the "responsible person" — typically the manufacturer or importer named on the label — who is liable for ensuring the claims used aren't misleading and are backed by documentation.

One practical wrinkle worth knowing: if a distributor (for example, a Danish agency or influencer-marketing partner) itself changes or adds a claim — for instance, through a brief that asks an influencer to say something the packaging itself doesn't say — that's treated under the rules as creating a new product, and the distributor becomes the responsible person for that added claim specifically. A brand that asks an influencer to voice an effect the packaging doesn't itself document is, in other words, taking on independent liability for the new claim.

Health claim or environmental claim? Two different regulators

There's a division of labour worth knowing: health claims about a cosmetic product (e.g. "reduces wrinkles," "strengthens the skin barrier," "hypoallergenic") fall under Miljøstyrelsen and the Cosmetics Regulation — that's what this article covers. Environmental claims about the same product (e.g. "sustainable packaging," "climate-friendly production") instead fall under the Consumer Ombudsman, as covered in the article on environmental and sustainability claims. A skincare post that claims both a skincare effect and an environmental benefit ("reduces wrinkles and is produced 100% climate-neutral") has to satisfy both rulebooks at once — clearing one doesn't excuse the other.

Claims that commonly go wrong

Claim	Why it's often a problem
"Free from [ingredient]"	Considered misleading if the ingredient wasn't already legal to use in cosmetics in the first place — omitting something already banned isn't a special benefit
"Hypoallergenic"	Only permitted when the product is genuinely developed with special consideration for minimising its allergenic potential — and that requires supporting scientific data, not just an assertion
"Prevents allergic reactions" or similar guarantees	Can never be fully substantiated — no one can guarantee a cosmetic product is incapable of triggering an allergic reaction in anyone
"Chemical-free"	Doesn't make sense as a claim — every cosmetic product is composed of chemical substances
"Not tested on animals"	Can be misleading to highlight as a special benefit, because animal testing of cosmetics has been banned EU-wide since 2013 — every legal product already meets that bar

The product information file (PIF): the documentation has to exist before the post goes live

Article 11 of the Cosmetics Regulation requires the responsible person to keep a product information file (PIF) for each product — electronic or otherwise, readily accessible at the address stated on the label. The PIF must include, among other things, proof of the claimed effect where justified by the nature or function of the product, and must be kept for ten years after the last batch of the product was placed on the market. The authorities in the country where the file is kept must be able to access it in a language they can easily understand.

In practice, that means: the documentation for a claim like "reduces visible wrinkles after 4 weeks" has to already sit in the PIF before an influencer ever writes the sentence in a brief or a post — not be sourced afterward if someone asks.

Decision framework: is a specific skincare or beauty claim safe to use?

IF the claim describes a concrete, measurable effect (e.g. "reduces wrinkles," "increases skin moisture by X%") → require the supporting documentation from the PIF before the wording goes into the influencer's brief.

IF the claim is a "free from" statement → first check that the ingredient in question was actually legal to use in the product at all — otherwise the claim is misleading by definition, however good it sounds.

IF the claim is "hypoallergenic" → require the underlying scientific documentation for reduced allergenic potential, not just a general promise of gentleness.

IF the claim states an SPF number or another measured value → require the specific test documentation behind that exact number, not a general "high protection" phrasing.

IF you're unsure whether a piece of wording is a health claim or an environmental claim → resolve that before the brief is written; each has its own regulator, documentation requirement, and risk.

Hypothetical example (illustrative — not a real Make Influence customer)

The example below is invented and purely for illustration. A skincare brand briefs ten micro-influencers to describe a new serum with the phrase "reduces visible wrinkles after 4 weeks." The brand has a 40-participant consumer test supporting exactly that wording, and files the result in the product's PIF before the brief goes out. All ten posts use the agreed phrasing. The claim meets the six common criteria: it's documented, not stretched beyond the test result, and phrased clearly enough for an average consumer to understand what's being promised.

A second skincare brand sends the same product to ten micro-influencers with no written list of approved wording — just a request to "share your honest experience." Three of the ten write that the product is "hypoallergenic" and "chemical-free," with the brand holding no documentation supporting either claim. Miljøstyrelsen doesn't assess just those three problematic posts in isolation — the responsible person carries the underlying liability for the product's entire marketing, even though the wording came from the influencers themselves, not the brand.

Make Influence's perspective

In our experience, the risk rarely comes from a brand deliberately wanting to overstate a skincare effect — it comes from no one having translated the documented, often dryly worded clinical finding into something an influencer can naturally say in a story or write in a caption. Left to formulate "something about how well it works" on their own, the result often lands closer to an unsubstantiated claim than either party intended. Our clear recommendation is to treat the documented, written wording as a standing part of the brief — on the same footing as ad disclosure and the rest of what an influencer contract should cover — rather than leaving the phrasing to the influencer's own judgment along the way.

FAQ

Do the rules apply even if the influencer only got the product for free, with no formal agreement?

Yes, if the influencer actually posts about the product. The Cosmetics Regulation's claims rules are tied to the content of the claim itself, not to whether there's a formal agreement or payment.

Does the post also need to be marked as an ad, on top of the claim needing documentation?

Yes — these are two entirely separate duties. This article covers which claims may be made about the product's effect. Ad disclosure covers whether the audience can even tell the post is paid content. See influencer marketing disclosure rules in Denmark and the EU for the full disclosure duty.

Are a skincare claim and an environmental claim about the same product covered by the same rules?

No — they're covered by two different rulebooks and two different regulators. Health claims (this article) fall under Miljøstyrelsen and the Cosmetics Regulation; environmental and sustainability claims fall under the Consumer Ombudsman. See environmental and sustainability claims in influencer marketing for that rulebook.

Do the same principles apply to a dietary supplement marketed as good for the skin (e.g. a collagen supplement)?

No — an ingested product like a collagen supplement is legally a food, not a cosmetic product, and falls under an entirely different EU regulation with its own list of approved claims. See dietary supplements and influencer marketing: what Danish food-advertising law requires for that rulebook.

Can an influencer be held liable themselves, or only the brand?

Both can, in principle, be relevant, but the rules place the underlying liability on the "responsible person" — typically the manufacturer, the importer, or a distributor that itself changed or added a claim. That's one reason the documented wording should come from the brand itself, not be left to the influencer's own research.

Should brand-safety vetting of an influencer also look at past skincare/beauty posts?

Yes, that's worth checking as part of ordinary brand-safety vetting, particularly if the influencer has previously promoted other skincare products — a pattern of loose or undocumented claims is a signal worth catching before the contract is signed. See brand safety checklist for influencer partnerships for the full checklist.

What if the brand reuses an influencer's post carrying a skincare claim as a testimonial in its own advertising?

The same documentation requirement applies to the claim in the reused ad as applied when it first appeared in the original post — reuse doesn't change whether the claim has to be substantiated. See using influencer content as a testimonial for the full picture of what reuse requires.

Is cosmetics one of the three "regulated industries" (alcohol, finance, pharma) the Academy otherwise covers?

No — the Cosmetics Regulation is its own, separate rulebook, applying alongside, not instead of, the three classically regulated industries. See influencer marketing in regulated industries: alcohol, finance and pharma in Denmark for that overview — and note that a skincare line with an active, medicine-like ingredient can, in rare cases, slide into that boundary.