Decisions no. 2\/2025 and no. 10\/2025 of the Jury concern commercial communication relating to anti-hair loss products, and offer relevant ideas for a reflection on misleading advertising in the cosmetics sector.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In particular, with decision no. 2\/2025, the Jury expressed its opinion on the advertising messages \u201chair loss reduction -81% in 45 days<\/em>" And "acts in a targeted manner on the hair root, stimulating its growth<\/em>\u201d distributed through a magazine. Although the Control Committee had initially ordered the cessation of the message, the subsequent documentation provided by the advertiser allowed the Jury to recognize the lawfulness of the part of the message relating to the anti-hair loss efficacy, considering the clinical study presented in support sufficient. However, the claim relating to the stimulation of growth and the action on the hair root was considered misleading: this statement, in fact, was not demonstrated by the scientific evidence produced, resulting, therefore, in conflict with articles 2 and 23 of the Self-Regulatory Code.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Pronouncement no. 10\/2025, instead, concerns a communication broadcast on TikTok to promote the \u201cHair Army\u201d line, composed of cosmetics and food supplements. The promotional video indicated that the advertised products were \u201cspecially designed<\/em>\u201d to counteract the miniaturization of hair. The latter, in the same message, was indicated as the cause of androgenetic alopecia, an irreversible pathology that involves hormonal processes and leads to progressive hair loss. The Jury considered that the message, as a whole, unduly attributed to the product a preventive or resolving efficacy against the pathology which, as such, cannot be prevented or cured through the use of a cosmetic product or a food supplement. The Jury, in fact, underlined that the efficacy of cosmetics and food supplements can be expressed only in terms of prevention or reduction of hair loss due to physiological or temporary causes. Therefore, even if the message was expressed merely in terms of \u201ccontrast\u201d, it was considered by the Jury to be in violation of art. 23 and 23bis<\/em> of the Self-Discipline Code.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Both decisions therefore reiterate some basic principles<\/strong> in the field of advertising of cosmetic products, in particular, that the claims<\/strong>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n The rulings in question can be placed in a series of precedents concerning cosmetic products and constitute a further warning to the entire sector: in commercial communication, Transparency and correct information are essential requirements<\/strong>, even more so when dealing with issues related to the health, well-being or physical appearance of the consumer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Content by Attorney Elisa Maria Babbini.<\/a><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"\n