A Guide to Avoiding Suss Brands. And for Brands: to Not be Suss :). Claims Edition.
Want to avoid suss beauty brands & products? Or for brands, do you want to avoid being suss? Then pay attention to claims! They’re the most visible indication of short-cuts, scruples and integrity… IF you know what to look for. After this blog post, I hope you’ll be armed with the key pieces of info that will be a big help so you can you find (or develop) better (IMO) beauty products.
Here’s what you should know
Why focus on claims?
Unlike things like quality control, claims are easily visible to end-users. When brands make obvious claims compliance mistakes, that’s an indication of cutting corners. E.g. not hiring appropriate regulatory folks to help them get it right.
Brands who cut corners generally don’t do it in isolation... they’re probably cutting corners elsewhere &/or Are fine bending the rules to get a one-up on their competitors to mislead you.
This blog will dig into rules brands need to follow, by law, which are pretty easy to spot when they don’t.
DISCLAIMER, this entry is very USA rules centric, which is the region I’m most familiar with given my work experience. Each region has slightly different rules - brands are responsible for complying to the rules in the places they sell. Much of this info will be readily available if you search local regulator websites.
Part 1: Is it a cosmetic or a drug?
We’ll begin with what you need to know to be able to spot illegal drug claims on cosmetic regulated products. They are rampant, with a boat load of misunderstandings out there about them. Here’s a quick 101 to understand what’s going on here. They’re pretty easy to spot when you know just a bit about the rules, and definitions.
As per the FDA, personal care products can be either a cosmetic or a drug. Which class it falls into depends on the claims (among other things).
Note how there’s not an extra category for “medical grade” 😊. Meaning? This claim on a cosmetic-regulated product is a red flag for a suss brand.
According to the FDA, if drug claims are made on a non-drug regulated product, then the product is illegal. This is the case EVEN IF the product has proof to back up the claims. Here are the definitions of cosmetics VS drugs according to the FDA, and how that translates to claims that fit within the definitions:
Drug Definition: A product that treats, prevents, or affects the structure or function of the body (including the skin).
Key Rule: If a product claims to treat a medical condition or change skin structure, it is considered a drug.
Examples of Drug Claims:
"Stimulates collagen production" (structure/function)
"Treats acne" (medical)
“Reduces hyperpigmentation over time” (structure/function)
“Impacts your epigenetics“ (structure/function)
“Needle alternative” (medical)
Cosmetic Definition: A product intended to cleanse, beautify, promote attractiveness, or alter appearance without affecting biological function.
Key Rule: Cosmetic claims must be about “appearance,” not biological changes.
Examples of Cosmetic Claims:
"Hydrates skin for 24 hours."
"Improves the appearance of fine lines."
"Visibly brightens skin tone."
"Softens and smooths rough texture."
Drug claims on cosmetic products are an easily visible indication of short cuts &/or poor ethics. They are, in the grand scheme of what brands need to do, pretty easy to get right. When they get this fairly easy thing wrong, it gives you a glimpse behind the scenes. They’ve either a) not saught out appropriate regulatory expertise for claims - what other corners are they cutting? OR b) they’ve actively CHOSEN to take the risk and skirt the rules to, at the end of the day, mislead you or IMO cheat. Both aren’t a great look...
If a company would like to make a drug claim, they need to go the drug route. What does that entail?
They’ve got 2 options:
(1) Monograph Route: Monographs are like recipe instructions. They include ingredients the FDA thinks have sufficient proof for a specific drug claim. By including x% of x ingredient(s), you can make x claim. Some require specific efficacy testing (e.g., sunscreen), while many don’t. After this, brands need to comply with other OTC requirements (including registration-related costs).
(2) New Drug Approval Route: If you want to use an ingredient that doesn’t have an associated monograph already, then you have to submit data to the FDA... This is EXTREMELY expensive.
Why may companies not go these routes? Because it’s costly... and if they can get away with the illegal claim, why not?... This attitude is rampant in the industry, and is creating an unfair marketplace and more misinformation. More to come on this.
Annoyingly, this attitude is common among even among companies/founders framed as “trying to combat misinformation.” ICYMI, this has quickly become another iteration of science washing. It pays to appear that you care, even when you clearly don’t… because otherwise you would do your due diligence :)
Part 2: By law, claims must be truthful. And to be that, there needs to be valid proof.
There is a pretty big misconception out there that brands are allowed to claim whatever they want, and that their claims don’t need proof. This is incorrect. In the USA, the FTC has rules to govern truth-in-advertisement, and as part of their rules: claims MUST be truthful, and a prerequisite of truthfulness is valid proof. Translation: claims that aren’t truthful, and claims that don’t have reputable scientific evidence to back them up are illegal.
But what is “valid” when it comes to proof? This is where things can get kinda confusing because it all really depends on the claims being made. Some claims, like “ethos” claims don’t need a lot of proof - now, they do need to be specific about what they mean, and these claims could still get them into hot water if there’s a disconnect with consumer perception of their claim (quick example is the recent Sephora class action lawsuit. The fact that they were specific with what they meant by “clean” was in their favor). But the proof needed for “ethos” claims can be as simple as writting out a good argument in a document, doesn’t really cost brands much to do this. Once you get into meaningful performance claims - even if it’s just something like “improves appearance of fine lines” - this is where brands need to test their formulas to see if the performance matches the claim. And depending on how strong of a claim they want to make: that can come with a price tag of 10s to even 100s of thousands of dollars and a lot of time investment.
Here’s a very quick rundown of weaker vs stronger claims, and the relative investment needed from brands to make the claims in a way that is compliant with the law.
Important tangential info that’s IMO good to know:
Stronger claims + big investment will generally translate to a higher cost for the final product.
Doesn’t really make sense to have this kind of proof/cost for every product. E.g. a general moisturizer or nice smelling bubble bath. Especially if the end consumer doesn’t want to pay the premium.
UNLESS brands want to make specific claims.
If you’re looking for specific performance benefits, stronger proof specific to the final product will give you more confidence in what you’re buying.
Less proof/weaker claims doesn’t necessarily mean worse performance. You just wont have good info to base your decision on.
Stronger claims are much harder for smaller brands due to resource limitations. Hats off to small brands who make the investments to do this all right!
CAUTION: INGREDIENT DATA IS NOT ENOUGH
How an ingredient performs depends on the formula. E.g. are the right ingredients in there to support delivery? Are there ingredients that compromise efficacy? Is the ingredient stable? To have sufficient proof for many claims (e.g. impacting appearance fine lines), you have to test the final formula to verify the formula is doing what you think it will based on the inclusion of the ingredients that had proof.
Until a FINISHED formula is tested, brands WILL NOT know whether it works. Until that testing, this all remains a hypothesis. Even if they tell you otherwise. e.g. “x% of Zinc Oxide will → good SPF.” “It’s scientifically impossible for it to not!” Not how that works. The formula greatly determines the impacts of that %.
DISCLAIMER: The testing also has to be reputable (which is a big part of the reputable scientific evidence requirement for truthful claims). The CHOICE sunscreen/SPF drama highlights why. Getting this right requires a lot of dilligence and investment. If a brand can’t get their claims right (comparatively easy), it’s hard to imagine they’d have the capacity to get the harder stuff right, like vetting their partners. Which is their responsibility.
TRUTHFULNESS RULES ALSO APPLY TO SUSTAINABILITY/GREEN CLAIMS
Generalized “green” claims are virtually impossible to have sufficient proof for - there are way too many variables that would make them untruthful in they eyes of regulators. E.g. “we’re eco-friendly” - just takes pointing out how environmentally destructive overconsumption is to poke holes into that claim. As per the FTC act (and FTC Green Guides), these claims need to be specific and they need valid proof. Translation: Generalized claims like “sustainable” and “eco-friendly” are deceptive and therefore illegal. And easy claims to watch out for to assess compliance issues/short cuts/suss brands (and suppliers).
TRUTHFULNESS RULES ALSO APPLY TO SAFETY CLAIMS
If a safety claim is made w/o proper proof, that = illegal... E.g. a “pregnancy safe” claim when the finished product wasn’t tested on pregnancy women (which would be unethical... which is why companies should probably not claim this)
AND ANY OTHER CLAIM A BRAND MAKES. WHEREVER THEY MAKE IT
These rules also apply to what’s said on social media - by brands or even their influencer partners, who's content also counts as advertisement if there are material connections involved, which means they also have to follow ad laws.
I know there was a fair bit of info in this part, but as soon as you start to understand the evidence requirements for certain claims, including what is feasible and what just isn’t, you might end up seeing the market with a completely different POV. For me, some of this stuff is hard to unsee because shady unproveable claims are all over the place. I will say, it does make me extra appreciative of the brands who take the time to do things right, and respect their consumers and competitors enough to speak carefully and truthfully. Having this awareness of truthfulness rules makes it much easier to support brands who are genuinely trying to do the right thing, and taking the appropriate investments to do so.
Part 3: They lean in hard to exploit your insecurities and fear
This blog wouldn’t be complete without touching on the predatory claims that dominate the cosmetics industry. IMO, these claims are dominating the industry this way because they work. Fear is a very compelling marketing strategy… if we let it be.
E.g. Telling you ingredients are harmful without explanation of the exposure needed for that outcome to be true. Unpopular truth, this is what many “free-from” claims end up doing. When consumers see “paraben free” on a label, they often will make the natural leap that there must be something wrong with parabens, and that it’s something to be avoided.
Red flag: the brand’s identity is focused on what’s not in their products, rather than what is, and the work they’ve put in to bring the best possible product to market. They’re obviously not very confident in their products if they feel obliged to angle their marketing to denigrating ingredients and their competition…
E.g. Making you feel that you SHOULD fix something (and they’ve got your solution - often with poor proof for their claims)
Common confusion: “I keep seeing all these claims you’re saying are illegal - therefore they must be fine!”
To quote Meredith Petillo (VP regulatory at IBA) with her analogy that aptly unpacks this: “It’s illegal to not follow road speed limits. Just because you didn’t get caught does not change that. It also doesn’t mean you didn’t present a risk to yourself and the people around you.”
Examples of risks related to illegal claims:
They create an unfair environment where truthful claims are put at a disadvantage (when the brands get away with it as they often do).
They spread misinformation/confusion. E.g. consumers are misled about what cosmetics will realistically do.
(whether with intent or not. Intention realllllyyy doesn’t matter as much as people think it does when it comes to misinformation outcomes)
Reality: there’s only so many folks who regulate this stuff in contrast to the boat load of products out there...
Also good to know:
Claims are everything that is expressed AND implied. This includes all communication on social media, via influencers, what brand founders say publicly, what’s shown in study data, etc. W/ implied claims, if a reasonable consumer walks away from brand communication that the product will have a drug effect, that = drug claim.
A super common misconception is that adding an “improves appearance” makes it okay: NOT NECESSARILY!!! E.g. if the implied claim still is a drug claim, then it’s a drug claim. I don’t know who started saying this is an easy blanket rule (no such thing in regulatory for the most part)
This is just the tip of the iceberg but a good place to start! Understanding a bit of the info in this post should be empowering to you the next time your shopping beauty! (also if you’re a small brand trying to navigate this stuff!) I think if more people knew even 50% of what’s in this post it would help a lot to help address the fact that suss behaviour & actors currently rules the market IMO.
Some helpful resources from reputable people if you want more:
In 2025, I hosted the claims e-summit - a free full day professional virtual conference. 8 hours of into the weeds content about claims rules, and the back-end about how claims are developed, whatever kind of claim that may be. This event was intented for an industry crowd, but if you’re a consumer looking for this kind of level of content, definitely tune in. Each presentation was geared to be helpful for industry viewers, especially start-up brands, but accessible to anyone who might be in the audience. Find the replay of the conference here: https://www.theecowell.com/blog/the-beauty-claims-e-summit-replay
In 2026, I also hosted an e-summit on beauty product development. While claims were just a minor part of the day, it gave a deep dive into the parts that need to line up to safely and effectively bring a beauty product to market. Throughout this entry, I kept saying that “if brands can’t get their claims right, which is comparatively easy, they’re probably not equipped to get the harder stuff right, such as quality control.” If you watch this stream from end to end, you’ll get a clear picture of what I mean! Find the replay here: https://www.theecowell.com/blog/pdsummitreplay
Both the Claims & PD E-Summits were also converted to eBook summaries, which you can find here: https://www.theecowell.com/ebooks
Finally, for a good 101 on cosmetic regulations, I would consider my podcast episode with Meredith Petillo, VP of Technical-Regulatory Affairs at the Independent Beauty Association, a must listen. It’s just over an hour long but jam-packed with important insights that I truly believe the cosmetics world would be a better place if more people know. Find that podcast episode here: https://www.theecowell.com/podcast/meredithpetillo