Three of the advertising prohibitions in Germany's Medicinal Products Advertising Act hit exactly what a UGC video is: the reproduction of case histories, certain pictorial representations of changes to the human body, and statements by third parties, in particular letters of thanks, appreciation or recommendation. All three apply to advertising outside professional circles, meaning everything an audience sees.
First: does the product fall under it at all
This question comes before all others, and it is regularly skipped, because "health product" is a broad term in marketing and no term at all in the statute.
Medicinal products and medical devices fall under the Act, regardless of what the advertising says.
Other means, procedures, treatments and objects fall under it insofar as the advertising relates to detecting, removing or alleviating illnesses, ailments, bodily injury or pathological complaints. Among "other means" the Act expressly counts cosmetic products; among objects, also those for personal care.
Ordinary foods and food supplements do not fall under this Act. Food law applies to them, with its own rules for illness-related statements and its own regime for health claims.
In summary, without losing the conditions:
| Product | Covered by the act | Condition |
|---|---|---|
| Medicinal products | yes | regardless of the claim |
| Medical devices | yes | regardless of the claim |
| Cosmetic products | conditionally | insofar as the advertising is illness-related |
| Procedures and treatments | conditionally | insofar as the advertising is illness-related |
| Personal care articles | conditionally | insofar as the advertising is illness-related |
| Foods and food supplements | no | food law applies instead |
Why this classification determines the whole campaign
Because the same cream can land in two different sets of rules depending on what the video says about it. Advertised as caring for the skin, it is a cosmetic product within a cosmetics framework. Advertised, by contrast, to alleviate a skin condition, the reference is illness-related and the rules above apply.
So the classification does not hang on the product alone but on the interplay of product and statement. That is uncomfortable, and it is also the point at which a brand can actually steer.
What the three prohibitions actually mean
Case histories. Advertising with the reproduction of case histories, and with references to them, is prohibited. That is precisely the narrative form that makes UGC strong: "I had this problem for years, then I tried this."
Statements by third parties. Advertising with statements by third parties, in particular with letters of thanks, appreciation or recommendation, is prohibited. A customer's account of their experience is the prototype of that form, and it is at the same time what brands most like to buy.
Pictorial representations of changes to the body. Here the wording is narrower and therefore important: what is prohibited is the pictorial representation showing changes to the human body in an abusive, repellent or misleading manner. That is not a blanket ban on every before and after, but a rule with elements to be assessed case by case.
Why the third point must not be shortened
Because the shortcut harms in both directions. Anyone reading "before and after is banned" gives up formats that may be permissible. Anyone turning that into "so anything goes" overlooks the elements on which it fails. The assessment happens on the specific image, not on the format's label.
What remains possible
An article that only lists prohibitions makes a whole category stop producing. That is neither necessary nor right.
The factual product description. What it is, how it is applied, how it feels, what is on the packaging.
The application, shown. The gesture, the texture, the dosage, the routine in daily life. That is information and not an account of experience.
The surrounding facts. Where to get it, what it costs, how it is stored, what to look for when buying.
The reference to the official product information. Instead of asserting an effect, pointing to what may be communicated as authorised.
The rule behind all of it
Show rather than promise. What the product is and how it is used is almost always sayable. What it did for one particular person is, in this field, mostly not.
Who approves, and when
Here lies the organisational core, and it is why this category is produced differently from any other.
Approval happens before the shoot, on the basis of the script, not after the edit on the basis of the finished video. Anyone checking only at the end chooses between an expensive reshoot and a publication nobody wants to stand behind.
What gets approved. The wording of the statements, not the idea. "She talks about her experience" is not an approvable description; the sentence she will say is.
Who approves. Somebody who knows the product's regulatory classification. In larger companies that is a function of its own; in smaller ones it is the person who also answers for the package leaflet.
What goes in the brief. That improvised statements about effects cannot be used, and that a second take with the approved wording is part of the commission.
The sequence that works
- Settle the classification. Medicinal product, medical device, cosmetic product, food: that decides which set of rules applies, and it decides it before anything else.
- Write statements, not topics. The wording of every statement about the product is drafted before anybody touches a camera.
- Get it approved. By the person who answers for the regulatory classification, dated and in writing.
- Then shoot. And, in case of doubt, film a safety variant of the critical sentence so that an alternative exists in the edit.
Four steps, and the first is the one almost everybody skips, because it looks like a formality and actually sets the points.
The objection that always comes
"She is only telling the truth about her experience." Her sincerity is not in question, and it is not the standard. The rules address the form of the advertising, not the honesty of the person: a truthful account of experience remains an account of experience.
Which is exactly why the answer is not a protestation but a different construction of the video. What is shown and described carries further in this category than what is narrated.
Sources
- Section 1 HWG, scope
- Section 11 HWG, advertising outside professional circles
- Medicinal Products Advertising Act, table of contents
- Section 11 LFGB, protection against deception
Checked on 8 September 2026. This guide is not legal advice and does not replace an assessment of the individual case by qualified people. Where this guide and the official source disagree, the source prevails.
