Getting you a comprehensive review of the product
Reading every ingredient in the formula…
Reading every ingredient in the formula…
Join The Clean Sheet™ community
Science-backed beauty tips, ingredient alerts, and early access. Straight to your WhatsApp.
Join for free →While the LA MIOR Peel-Off Lip Tattoo Kit delivers on its core promise of long-lasting lip color, its complete lack of ingredient transparency and contradictory claims create significant consumer confusion and risk.
₹677 • Analysed 4 September 2026
The LA MIOR Peel-Off Lip Tattoo Kit positions itself as 'India's FIRST' in its category, a bold claim that lacks public substantiation and raises ASCI concerns. The product's pricing is competitive, especially with frequent discounts on platforms like Flipkart, making it accessible to a broad Indian consumer base. However, the complete absence of a full INCI list for this specific product is a significant transparency issue under India Cosmetics Rules 2020, which mandates INCI disclosure on the label. Furthermore, the contradictory 'fragrance-free' claim on Myntra versus the brand's own statement about using synthetic fragrances is a clear ASCI violation.
Independent and free. The Clean Sheet takes no money from brands to review, rank, or approve a product. This is a web evidence review, not a Clean Sheet certification. We checked the ingredient list, publicly available test reports, marketing claims, and formula logic using only public information available at the time of review.
This is a bold claim of market leadership. No verifiable third-party market research or comparative study is publicly visible to substantiate 'India's FIRST'. It relies on brand assertion.
The brand provides clear 'How to Use' instructions detailing the 3 steps. User reviews generally support ease of application and long-lasting effect.
This is a quantified time-bound claim. No finished-product clinical or instrumental study with stated methodology, sample size, and results is publicly visible to support 16 hours of no-fade wear. User reviews are mixed, with some confirming long-lasting but not necessarily 16 hours.
While user reviews often praise the long-lasting and smudge-resistant nature, the 'seamless' and 'no fading/feathering' claims lack specific finished-product testing evidence.
The product design clearly consists of two parts with described functions. User experience generally aligns with this functional description.
This is a cosmetic claim largely supported by product format and user reviews. The matte finish and intense color payoff are frequently mentioned by users.
These are performance claims. While user reviews often support transfer-proof and long-lasting, specific finished-product testing for 'waterproof' and 'fade-proof' is not publicly visible.
Claims 'hydrating', 'skincare powered', 'antioxidants', 'barrier-repair' are linked to ingredient story (Astaxanthin, Ceramides, Rose, Peptides). However, without a full INCI, we cannot verify the presence or concentration of these ingredients in the finished product. No finished-product hydration or barrier-repair studies are visible.
What we could confirm from public sources and the verified ingredient list.
Standards & Compliance
Usage warnings and directions are clear on the label.
Brand makes a vegan / vegetarian claim.
Sustainability & Ethics
Brand makes a cruelty-free / PETA claim.
Screened against a curated reference set that we are continuing to verify and expand, so “clear” means no flag from that set, not a guarantee. Not a substitute for a full toxicological or clinical assessment.
| Ingredient |
|---|
INCI order as declared on packaging. Position reflects approximate concentration (high to low).
Cannot assess without full INCI list.
Cannot assess full compliance without INCI list. Mandatory INCI disclosure on label is not met by online listings.
Cannot assess without full INCI list.
Cannot assess without full INCI list.
Cannot assess without full INCI list.
Cannot assess without full INCI list.
Cannot assess without full INCI list.
Cannot assess without full INCI list.
Cannot assess without full INCI list.
Cannot assess without full INCI list.
Flags are based on publicly available INCI only. Not a substitute for full regulatory compliance review.
“India's FIRST Peel-Off Lip Tattoo Kit”
Claims of being 'FIRST' or 'No. 1' require substantiation with comparative data and methodology, which is not publicly provided.
“16 Hours No-Fade Wear / 16 Hours No-Fade Seamless Peel Off Lip Stains”
Quantified claims like '16 Hours No-Fade Wear' require robust, verifiable clinical data, which is not publicly available.
“Free from harmful ingredients / Notorious Nines: Parabens, Sulphates, Formaldehyde and Formaldehyde…”
The claim 'Free from harmful ingredients' is vague and subjective. The specific 'Notorious Nines' list is a strong 'free-from' claim, but without INCI, it cannot be verified. The contradiction with 'Fragrance-Free' on Myntra vs. 'may use synthetic fragrances' on brand site is an ASCI concern for misleading claims.
“Fragrance-Free”
This is a direct contradiction between a marketplace claim and the brand's own statement regarding fragrance. This is highly misleading.
This is a bold claim of market leadership. No verifiable third-party market research or comparative study is publicly visible to substantiate 'India's FIRST'. It relies on brand assertion.
Missing
The brand provides clear 'How to Use' instructions detailing the 3 steps. User reviews generally support ease of application and long-lasting effect.
Evidence visible
This is a quantified time-bound claim. No finished-product clinical or instrumental study with stated methodology, sample size, and results is publicly visible to support 16 hours of no-fade wear. User reviews are mixed, with some confirming long-lasting but not necessarily 16 hours.
Missing
While user reviews often praise the long-lasting and smudge-resistant nature, the 'seamless' and 'no fading/feathering' claims lack specific finished-product testing evidence.
Missing
The product design clearly consists of two parts with described functions. User experience generally aligns with this functional description.
Evidence visible
This is a cosmetic claim largely supported by product format and user reviews. The matte finish and intense color payoff are frequently mentioned by users.
Evidence visible
These are performance claims. While user reviews often support transfer-proof and long-lasting, specific finished-product testing for 'waterproof' and 'fade-proof' is not publicly visible.
Missing
Claims 'hydrating', 'skincare powered', 'antioxidants', 'barrier-repair' are linked to ingredient story (Astaxanthin, Ceramides, Rose, Peptides). However, without a full INCI, we cannot verify the presence or concentration of these ingredients in the finished product. No finished-product hydration or barrier-repair studies are visible.
Mentioned only
These are claimed active ingredients. Without a full INCI list for the product, their presence and likely concentration cannot be verified. The brand website lists them as 'Key Ingredients' but not in an INCI format.
Missing
The brand explicitly states PETA certification and vegan/cruelty-free status. This is a verifiable third-party certification.
Evidence visible
Public evidence the brand could provide to close verification gaps
This review evaluates brand claims against visible evidence and formula logic. It does not replace a full ingredient safety analysis or a clinical product test. Results vary by individual, and the consumer should always read the full ingredient list and follow usage guidance.
Are you the brand? If you have published test data or want to request a re-review, write to us at hello@thecleansheet.in.
This is a quantified time-bound claim. No finished-product clinical or instrumental study with stated methodology, sample size, and results is publicly visible to support 16 hours of no-fade wear. User reviews are mixed, with some confirming long-lasting but not necessarily 16 hours.
While user reviews often praise the long-lasting and smudge-resistant nature, the 'seamless' and 'no fading/feathering' claims lack specific finished-product testing evidence.
The product design clearly consists of two parts with described functions. User experience generally aligns with this functional description.
This is a cosmetic claim largely supported by product format and user reviews. The matte finish and intense color payoff are frequently mentioned by users.
These are performance claims. While user reviews often support transfer-proof and long-lasting, specific finished-product testing for 'waterproof' and 'fade-proof' is not publicly visible.
Claims 'hydrating', 'skincare powered', 'antioxidants', 'barrier-repair' are linked to ingredient story (Astaxanthin, Ceramides, Rose, Peptides). However, without a full INCI, we cannot verify the presence or concentration of these ingredients in the finished product. No finished-product hydration or barrier-repair studies are visible.
Cannot assess without full INCI list.
Cannot assess full compliance without INCI list. Mandatory INCI disclosure on label is not met by online listings.
Cannot assess without full INCI list.
Cannot assess without full INCI list.
Cannot assess without full INCI list.
Cannot assess without full INCI list.
Cannot assess without full INCI list.
Cannot assess without full INCI list.
Cannot assess without full INCI list.
Cannot assess without full INCI list.
Flags are based on publicly available INCI only. Not a substitute for full regulatory compliance review.
This is a bold claim of market leadership. No verifiable third-party market research or comparative study is publicly visible to substantiate 'India's FIRST'. It relies on brand assertion.
Missing
The brand provides clear 'How to Use' instructions detailing the 3 steps. User reviews generally support ease of application and long-lasting effect.
Evidence visible
This is a quantified time-bound claim. No finished-product clinical or instrumental study with stated methodology, sample size, and results is publicly visible to support 16 hours of no-fade wear. User reviews are mixed, with some confirming long-lasting but not necessarily 16 hours.
Missing
While user reviews often praise the long-lasting and smudge-resistant nature, the 'seamless' and 'no fading/feathering' claims lack specific finished-product testing evidence.
Missing
The product design clearly consists of two parts with described functions. User experience generally aligns with this functional description.
Evidence visible
This is a cosmetic claim largely supported by product format and user reviews. The matte finish and intense color payoff are frequently mentioned by users.
Evidence visible
These are performance claims. While user reviews often support transfer-proof and long-lasting, specific finished-product testing for 'waterproof' and 'fade-proof' is not publicly visible.
Missing
Claims 'hydrating', 'skincare powered', 'antioxidants', 'barrier-repair' are linked to ingredient story (Astaxanthin, Ceramides, Rose, Peptides). However, without a full INCI, we cannot verify the presence or concentration of these ingredients in the finished product. No finished-product hydration or barrier-repair studies are visible.
Mentioned only
These are claimed active ingredients. Without a full INCI list for the product, their presence and likely concentration cannot be verified. The brand website lists them as 'Key Ingredients' but not in an INCI format.
Missing
The brand explicitly states PETA certification and vegan/cruelty-free status. This is a verifiable third-party certification.
Evidence visible
“India's FIRST Peel-Off Lip Tattoo Kit”
Claims of being 'FIRST' or 'No. 1' require substantiation with comparative data and methodology, which is not publicly provided.
“16 Hours No-Fade Wear / 16 Hours No-Fade Seamless Peel Off Lip Stains”
Quantified claims like '16 Hours No-Fade Wear' require robust, verifiable clinical data, which is not publicly available.
“Free from harmful ingredients / Notorious Nines: Parabens, Sulphates, Formaldehyde and Formaldehyde…”
The claim 'Free from harmful ingredients' is vague and subjective. The specific 'Notorious Nines' list is a strong 'free-from' claim, but without INCI, it cannot be verified. The contradiction with 'Fragrance-Free' on Myntra vs. 'may use synthetic fragrances' on brand site is an ASCI concern for misleading claims.
“Fragrance-Free”
This is a direct contradiction between a marketplace claim and the brand's own statement regarding fragrance. This is highly misleading.
Public evidence the brand could provide to close verification gaps