Beauty claim
or
Health claim?
Beauty claim
or
Health claim?
from
When does a beauty promise turn into a health promise? In a ruling on the advertising of drinking collagen, the Federal Court of Justice has decided where the boundary between aesthetic “beauty claims” and health claims under the Health Claims Regulation lies.
Between beauty and science
Collagen drinks are considered a lifestyle trend. Manufacturers advertise online with smooth, elastic skin, scientifically proven effects and “visible results”. But at what point does a beauty promise become a health claim – and therefore a prohibited statement under European law?
A manufacturer advertised drinking ampoules with collagen peptides online. Among other things, the texts referred to skin structure, transport of peptides “into the skin layers” and “significant improvements” in skin parameters in placebo-controlled studies. A qualified trade association sued for injunctive relief due to inadmissible health claims under the Health Claims Regulation. The case ended up before the Federal Court of Justice.
Background: The legal framework
The European Health Claims Regulation stipulates that any statement about a link between a food and health is a health claim – and is only permitted if it has been approved by the EU and included in a corresponding list.
On the other hand, so-called beauty claims are permitted, i.e. advertising claims that only refer to the external appearance, such as “for beautiful skin” or “for a fresh appearance”. The decisive factor is the context: if a bodily function or a biological mechanism is addressed, a beauty claim becomes a health claim – with far-reaching consequences for advertising practice.
Federal Court of Justice prohibits some statements
The Federal Court of Justice (Judgment of 09.10.2025 – Ref. I ZR 135/24 ) partially overturned an OLG ruling and made a new decision. The Federal Court of Justice banned three statements as health claims; three others, however, remain permissible. The Senate emphasized that whether a statement is understood to be health-related must be assessed in the context of the specific advertising from the perspective of the average consumer.
Text passages that went beyond pure beauty effects were banned – especially if they referred to biological processes in the skin or a demonstrable improvement in skin functions. For example, the statement that the peptides were “transported into the skin layers and made available to the collagen metabolism” was assessed as a health claim.
Statements on collagen peptides are not excluded from the scope […] of the Health Claims Regulation from the outset; rather, they must be examined on a case-by-case basis insofar as they may give the average consumer the impression that they influence bodily functions.
The court thus made it clear that it is sufficient if a statement is suitable for arousing a functional health reference in the consumer – an actual scientific effect or verifiability is initially irrelevant for the advertising ban.
Why some statements remained allowed
However, passages that could be understood purely aesthetically in their advertising context remained permitted. Phrases such as “for beautiful skin from the inside” or “beauty effects with a scientific background” did not violate the regulation as long as they did not address any functional mechanisms of the body.
The Federal Court of Justice emphasized that the assessment always depends on the overall context – i.e. headlines, imagery, product environment and the direction of the text. Individual words must not be assessed in isolation, but rather in conjunction with the overall design.
With this “context formula”, the Senate also corrected the previous practice of some courts, which classified any mention of “skin elasticity” or “moisture” as a health claim.
Key message: No mechanism, no problems
The decisive factor is therefore how deeply an advertising claim “affects” the body. As soon as the text suggests that the substance changes something in the body – be it the “collagen metabolism”, the “transport into deeper skin layers” or “significant improvements” in skin parameters – it is a health claim.
Such claims are currently not permitted for collagen, even if there are corresponding permitted claims for other substances such as vitamin C, biotin or zinc (“contributes to the maintenance of normal skin”). Anyone using similar formulations for collagen is therefore running a legal risk.
What manufacturers need to consider now
For manufacturers of dietary supplements, beauty drinks and functional foods, the Federal Court of Justice’s decision means one thing above all: text, context and tone of voice count.
- Do not mention mechanisms: Avoid terms such as “transportation”, “metabolism” or “cell assembly”. These terms are triggers for health claims assessments.
- Check the context: Even an admissible sentence can become inadmissible in the wrong context – for example, if medical-looking graphics or “scientific studies” appear next to it.
- Keep beauty claims clean: Formulations such as “for smooth skin” or “supports natural beauty” are permissible as long as no functional promise is included.
- Studies with caution: References to “clinical studies” can also be problematic if they give the impression of scientific evidence of efficacy.
Overall, the ruling creates more clarity. In future, companies will have to carefully consider how scientifically they can advertise beauty products without making inadmissible health claims.
Conclusion
The Federal Court of Justice has drawn the line between cosmetic promises and health-related effects more sharply than before. Anyone who describes mechanisms of action or advertises studies with measurable skin parameters leaves the zone of aesthetics and enters the area of regulated health claims.
This means that beauty is allowed – as long as it remains on the surface.
We are happy to
advise you on
Health claims!
