In the UK, what a creator is allowed to say about a supplement, a serum or a sleep spray depends on which legal regime the product falls under, and the sentence itself can move the product from one regime to another. A moisturiser is a cosmetic until a creator says it treats eczema; at that moment, in the eyes of the medicines regulator, it is being presented as a medicine, and a medicine is what it will be judged as.
This guide covers products a brand can lawfully advertise to the public: foods and food supplements, cosmetics, and the over-the-counter edge where the two meet medicine. It does not cover cosmetic procedures, which have their own rules, nor prescription-only medicines and prescription-only treatments, which cannot be advertised to the public at all; the guide to creator video for private clinics deals with both on their own terms. Here the question is the sentence: which regime it belongs to, who has already decided whether it is allowed, and what a brief has to hand a creator so that improvisation does not reclassify the product.
Three regimes, three vocabularies
Three sets of rules decide what may be said, each in its own way. For foods and food supplements, a register decides: only authorised nutrition and health claims may be used, and the list is public. For cosmetics, six criteria decide, and the burden is on the person making the claim. For medicines, a licence decides: a medicinal claim may be made for a product that has one, and only for that product.
The advertising code stacks a further layer on all three. Rule 12.1 of the CAP Code requires objective claims about health and beauty products to be backed by evidence, consisting where relevant of trials conducted on people. Rule 12.2 forbids discouraging essential treatment for conditions that need medical supervision. A creator video sits under the product's regime plus section 12, and the brief has to be written for both.
Food and supplements: only the register speaks
Rule 15.1.1 of the CAP Code is the strictest sentence in the whole set. Only nutrition claims listed in the applicable register may be used, and only health claims listed as authorised in that register, or claims that would have the same meaning to the consumer. The register in question is the Great Britain nutrition and health claims register, which carries over the claims authorised under Regulation (EC) 1924/2006 as retained in UK law and adds the decisions taken since. For a creator, "this supports your immune system" is available only because a specific nutrient, at a specific dose, has an authorised claim that says so, and the product in the video contains that nutrient at that dose. The sentence "this boosts your immunity" is not on the register, and whether it has the same meaning as "contributes to the normal function of the immune system" is judged by what the viewer understands, not by how close the words look: one describes maintaining a function, the other promises an enhancement.
Rule 15.2 adds that a reference to general benefits for overall good health is acceptable only alongside a specific authorised claim, which is why "it's just good for you" needs the authorised sentence next to it. Rule 15.7 applies the same regime to food supplements and requires documentary evidence. And rule 15.6 lists what is never acceptable for a food, however it is worded: claims that health could be affected by not consuming it, claims that it prevents, treats or cures human disease, claims that refer to the recommendation of an individual health professional, references to bodily changes that could exploit fear, and claims about the rate or amount of weight loss.
The sentence that is true and still banned
A creator can have taken a vitamin C supplement every winter and had fewer colds. The sentence "I get fewer colds since I started taking this" is, as a paid claim for a food supplement, a claim that the food prevents disease, which rule 15.6.2 does not allow, and it is a personal testimonial for a health effect, which the register does not carry. The authorised claim for vitamin C is about the normal function of the immune system, and that is the sentence the brief has to supply. The experience can be filmed; the causal sentence cannot be spoken.
Cosmetics: six criteria and one article
A cosmetic is governed by the retained Cosmetics Regulation, Regulation (EC) 1223/2009, whose article 20 says that in the labelling, making available and advertising of cosmetic products, no text, name, trade mark, picture or other sign may be used to imply that the product has characteristics or functions which it does not have. Article 20 then hands the detail to the common criteria in Regulation (EU) 655/2013, which the UK also retained, and those criteria are what a cosmetic claim has to satisfy: legal compliance, truthfulness, evidential support, honesty, fairness and informed decision-making.
Read as a brief, the criteria give a creator more freedom than the register, and more responsibility. Truthfulness means a claimed ingredient must be deliberately present. Evidential support means every claim, explicit or implicit, must be supported by adequate and verifiable evidence, which is where "clinically proven" and "dermatologically tested" live: the first needs the clinical study, the second needs the dermatologist's assessment, and neither is a phrase a creator may add. Honesty means the presentation of performance must not go beyond the evidence, so "reduces wrinkles by 30% in 28 days" is available only if the study showed that figure over that period, on that skin type. Fairness means no denigration of competitors or of lawful ingredients, which catches "unlike the chemical stuff". Informed decision-making means the claim must be clear to an average user: a rule about wording, not about science.
Before and after, and what it asserts
A before-and-after shot is an efficacy claim in pictures, subject to the same criteria as the words. It asserts that the product produced the visible change in the time shown, on that skin, under comparable conditions. Rule 12.1 applies with full force: the brand needs the evidence, on people, that the product does what the two frames imply. A creator's own comparison, taken on two different days with a phone, is not that evidence.
The sentence that changes the regime
The medicines regulator classifies a product as a medicine in two ways, and the first is by presentation: any substance presented as having properties of preventing or treating disease in human beings. Disease, in the relevant regulations, includes any injury, ailment or adverse condition of body or mind. The MHRA's own guidance on borderline products lists what it looks at when it decides whether a product is a medicine, and the first item is the claims about what the product does, explicit and implicit, followed by how it is presented to the public through labelling, packaging, advertisements, websites, social media and customer reviews.
That is the mechanism unique to this category: a sentence changes the product's legal status. "Clears acne", "heals eczema", "cures insomnia" and "treats anxiety" each present the product as a medicine, and rule 12.1 allows medicinal claims only for licensed products. Rule 12.2 catches the softer version: a creator who says "I stopped using my prescribed cream since I found this" is discouraging essential treatment. Rule 12.1 allows a cosmetic a secondary medicinal claim only for a preventative action, backed by evidence, and never a claim to treat disease.
The words that stay on the cosmetic side describe appearance and feel: reduces the appearance of, soothes, moisturises, calms the look of redness. The words that cross the line describe a condition and its outcome, and a brief that does not draw that line leaves the product's classification to whoever improvises first.
What each regime lets a creator say
| Regime | Governing text | Who decides the sentence | What a creator can say | What crosses the line |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Food or food supplement | Regulation (EC) 1924/2006 as retained; CAP Code section 15 | The GB nutrition and health claims register | An authorised claim, worded as authorised or with the same meaning, tied to the nutrient and dose in the product | Prevents, treats or cures; a personal health outcome; weight loss rate; a doctor's recommendation |
| Cosmetic | Regulation (EC) 1223/2009 article 20; Regulation (EU) 655/2013; CAP Code section 12 | The brand, against the six common criteria, with evidence on file | Appearance, feel and ingredient sentences the brand's evidence supports, with any "proven" or "tested" wording supplied by the brand | Treats or heals a condition; "clinically proven" without the study; denigrating competitors' ingredients |
| Medicine or medical device | Human Medicines Regulations 2012, as the MHRA's borderline guidance applies them; CAP Code section 12 | The licence or conformity marking | What the licence allows, for a licensed product only | Any medicinal claim for an unlicensed product; advertising a prescription-only medicine to the public |
Compared with the food column, the cosmetic column looks permissive, but the difference is where the proof sits: the register has done the substantiation in advance, whereas the cosmetic brand holds its own.
The brief for a health or beauty product
The general method for briefing claims, a list of sentences the creator may say with the proof against each, is the one described in the guide to what a creator's sentence commits a brand to. A brief for this category adds three things to it. It names the regime, so that the creator knows whether the register or the brand is the source of the permitted sentences. It says what the proof is for that regime: the register entry for a supplement, the study or test for a cosmetic. And it says what happens to sentences the creator adds, which in this category is that they are cut, not softened, because a softened medicinal claim is still one, and because the sentence can reclassify the product.
The brief should also anticipate the two scenes creators reach for: the morning routine is fine, the voice-over saying the supplement replaced the creator's antihistamine is not; the skin close-up is fine, the caption "bye bye acne" is a medicinal claim in three words.
Personal experience is a claim once it is ordered
The objection creators raise is that opinions are not claims. In this category, a personal health outcome spoken in paid content is read as a claim about the product, because the viewer hears it as one. "It cleared my skin" is not an opinion about the creator; it is a statement that the product cleared skin. The brand needs the evidence, on people, that it does, and if the product is a cosmetic the sentence has just presented it as treating a condition. The experience the creator can describe is the one the regime allows: how the product felt, how the skin looked, what the routine was.
Sources
- CAP Code, section 12, medicines, medical devices, health-related products and beauty products
- CAP Code, section 15, food, food supplements and associated health or nutrition claims
- Great Britain nutrition and health claims (NHC) register
- Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods, as retained in UK law
- Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 on cosmetic products, article 20, product claims, as retained in UK law
- Commission Regulation (EU) No 655/2013, common criteria for the justification of claims used in relation to cosmetic products, as retained in UK law
- MHRA, Borderline products: how to tell if your product is a medicine
Checked on 19 September 2026. This guide is not legal advice. Where this guide and the official source disagree, the official source prevails.
