Who: The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) and Beauty Pie Ltd t/a Beauty Pie Ltd (Beauty Pie)
Where: United Kingdom
When: 10 June 2026
Law stated as at: 9 July 2026
What happened
A poster for Beauty Pie in the London Underground featured an image of an LED mask with the text “SKIN TECH THAT’S LIGHT YEARS AHEAD […] C-WAVE FACIAL LED TREATMENT MASK […] CLINICALLY PROVEN TO REDUCE WRINKLES IN 4 WEEKS”. Smaller text towards the bottom of the poster read “Results from a 4-week study of 28 people aged 30-65”.
The complainant challenged whether the claim “clinically proven to reduce wrinkles in 4 weeks” was misleading and could be substantiated. The complaint was upheld by the ASA.
The ASA assessed two product-specific studies provided by Beauty Pie but found both to be insufficient to substantiate the claim as they were unpublished and had methodological limitations. The first study, while reporting improvements in wrinkle appearance, was undermined by several factors. These included a relatively small sample size of 28 participants, methodological limitations such as the absence of blinding for investigators and participants, and the lack of a control or placebo group to demonstrate that any observed improvements were attributable to the device rather than other factors. Further, participants were required to use a hydrogel mask prior to each treatment session, which was not supplied with the LED mask, meaning that the reported visible improvements could not be attributed to the device alone.
The second study, which removed the hydrogel mask from the protocol, also reported skin improvements, but similarly had a small sample size of just 20 participants, no control group and no blinding. Crucially, 65% of participants neither agreed nor disagreed that their fine lines appeared less visible, 20% agreed with the statement and 15% agreed somewhat. The ASA considered that the ad’s claim, “skin tech that’s light years ahead”, created the impression that the product was revolutionary and the self-assessment results were inconsistent with this impression.
Beauty Pie also provided studies on other LED devices, but the ASA found these insufficient to substantiate the product-specific claim. The devices differed materially from Beauty Pie’s mask, for example in terms of light delivery method, treatment duration and frequency of use.
The ASA concluded that the claim was inadequately substantiated and the advertising was misleading.
Why this matters
This ruling serves as a reminder that “clinically proven” is not a label to be used lightly. Businesses making efficacy claims in the beauty sector should support them with product-specific, peer-reviewed evidence from methodologically sound studies. This might include adequate sample sizes, control groups and conditions that reflect real-world use. For health and beauty tech brands, investing in comprehensive studies is of great importance, as a failure to do so risks complaints and adverse ASA rulings. Businesses should also exercise caution when using claims that might suggest that a product is revolutionary, market-leading or sufficiently advanced to have a noticeable effect, unless they hold sufficient evidence to substantiate such claims.
