The Standard · Claims library
What every claim must prove.
What counts is what the claim means to a shopper. Having an ingredient in the bottle rarely proves the product actually does the thing. For each of 30claims, here's what it tells a buyer, the evidence we need to see, what doesn't count, the wording that's allowed, and what we publish once it checks out.
30 of 30 claims
“Clinically proven”
Needs proof from the finished productThat a measured human study demonstrated the stated result.
Evidence we need
A controlled finished-product clinical study with a pre-specified endpoint, population, comparator and statistics.
What doesn’t count
Ingredient-category literature; consumer-perception surveys.
Wording that’s allowed
“Clinically shown to [exact endpoint] in [population] over [duration].”
What we publish if it checks out
The endpoint, population and duration tested.
“Non-comedogenic”
Needs proof from the finished productThat the product is unlikely to clog pores or trigger breakouts.
Evidence we need
A controlled finished-product human-use study with defined lesion grading.
What doesn’t count
An ingredient database check or comedogenicity index.
Wording that’s allowed
“Non-comedogenic in a [n]-participant study over [duration].”
What we publish if it checks out
Tested population and duration.
“Hydrates for X hours”
Needs proof from the finished productThat measured hydration lasts for the stated duration.
Evidence we need
Corneometry or a suitable clinical instrumental study through the claimed duration.
What doesn’t count
A single timepoint, or humectant presence in the formula.
Wording that’s allowed
“[X]-hour hydration measured by corneometry in [n] participants.”
What we publish if it checks out
The duration, method and result.
“Repairs / strengthens skin barrier”
Needs proof from the finished productThat the product improves the skin's barrier function.
Evidence we need
TEWL plus suitable corroborating clinical or biomarker endpoints.
What doesn’t count
Ingredient theory alone; wording implying treatment of disease.
Wording that’s allowed
“Supports the skin barrier (measured by reduced TEWL over [duration]).”
What we publish if it checks out
The barrier endpoint and wording verified.
“Reduces wrinkles or pigmentation”
Needs proof from the finished productA visible reduction in wrinkles or pigmentation.
Evidence we need
Validated imaging or clinical grading with predefined analysis and appropriate duration.
What doesn’t count
Before/after photos without controls; drug-level wording.
Wording that’s allowed
“Appearance of [wrinkles/pigmentation] reduced in [n] over [duration].”
What we publish if it checks out
The appearance endpoint measured.
“Blue-light / HEV / infrared protection”
Needs proof from the finished productThat the product protects against blue light, HEV or infrared.
Evidence we need
Wavelength-relevant spectral data plus a product-relevant biological or clinical endpoint.
What doesn’t count
UV-visible absorbance alone.
Wording that’s allowed
“Shown to reduce [specific effect] from [wavelength band].”
What we publish if it checks out
The spectral range and biological endpoint.
“Anti-pollution”
Needs proof from the finished productThat the product defends skin against pollution.
Evidence we need
A defined pollutant, mechanism and endpoint via a controlled deposition, cleansing, barrier or biomarker study.
What doesn’t count
A generic urban-dust cell assay used for every benefit.
Wording that’s allowed
“Helps remove / protect against [defined pollutant] (measured by [endpoint]).”
What we publish if it checks out
The pollutant, mechanism and endpoint.
“Microbiome-friendly”
Needs proof from the finished productThat the product supports the skin microbiome.
Evidence we need
A defined taxa or functional endpoint with sampling method, controls and clinical relevance.
What doesn’t count
pH or preservative choice alone.
Wording that’s allowed
“Shown not to disrupt [defined microbiome measure] over [duration].”
What we publish if it checks out
The microbiome endpoint measured.
“Waterproof / water-resistant”
Needs proof from the finished productThat performance survives water exposure for a stated time.
Evidence we need
A product-specific accepted test and the legally allowed wording for the category.
What doesn’t count
Wording (“waterproof”) not permitted in the market; untested durations.
Wording that’s allowed
“Water-resistant ([40/80] minutes)” per the applicable method.
What we publish if it checks out
The tested duration and method.
“Dermatologist tested”
Needs proof from the finished productThat a dermatologist was involved in testing the product.
Evidence we need
A statement of what the dermatologist actually did: the protocol, the people tested, the product version, and any reactions.
What doesn’t count
A single private recommendation; implied endorsement or superior efficacy.
Wording that’s allowed
“Dermatologist tested: [what was done] in [n] over [duration].”
What we publish if it checks out
What was tested, by whom, and the outcome.
“Ophthalmologist tested”
Needs proof from the finished productThat an eye-area study was conducted under ophthalmic oversight.
Evidence we need
Defined ophthalmic oversight and a product-use protocol.
What doesn’t count
Any implication of no irritation or contact-lens compatibility on its own.
Wording that’s allowed
“Ophthalmologist tested for [defined use].”
What we publish if it checks out
The eye-area study scope.
“Hypoallergenic”
Needs proof from the finished productThat the product is formulated to reduce the potential for allergy.
Evidence we need
A formula-wide allergen and sensitisation review, plus suitable product evidence and complaint history.
What doesn’t count
Anything implying “allergy-free” or zero risk.
Wording that’s allowed
“Formulated to minimise known allergens; not a guarantee against reactions.”
What we publish if it checks out
The population reviewed and the limitation.
“Sensitive skin”
Needs proof from the finished productThat the product is suitable for sensitive skin.
Evidence we need
A study in a defined sensitive-skin population plus a formula safety review.
What doesn’t count
A generic patch test or a fragrance-free formula alone.
Wording that’s allowed
“Suitable for sensitive skin (tested in [n] with self-reported sensitive skin).”
What we publish if it checks out
The sensitive-skin population tested.
“Tear-free”
Needs proof from the finished productThat the product will not sting the eyes in normal use.
Evidence we need
An ocular hazard assessment plus ethically reviewed finished-product use evidence suited to the age group.
What doesn’t count
pH alone, or a single laboratory assay.
Wording that’s allowed
“Tear-free, assessed for [age group] in normal use.”
What we publish if it checks out
The ocular assessment and population.
“Pregnancy safe”
Needs proof from the finished productThat the product has been reviewed for use during pregnancy.
Evidence we need
A formula-wide exposure and reproductive-safety assessment by competent experts, with precise use conditions.
What doesn’t count
A single in-vitro teratogenicity test; any absolute guarantee.
Wording that’s allowed
“Reviewed for use during pregnancy under [defined conditions].” (Prefer this over “pregnancy safe”.)
What we publish if it checks out
The reproductive-safety review and its scope.
“Baby safe / pediatrician approved”
Needs proof from the finished productThat the product is suitable for a defined infant or child age group.
Evidence we need
An age-specific safety assessment and a defined reviewer or study role.
What doesn’t count
A universal-safety promise; unspecified age ranges.
Wording that’s allowed
“Assessed for [age group]; use as directed.”
What we publish if it checks out
The assessed age group and reviewer role.
“Fragrance-free”
Depends on the exact wordingThat no perfume or masking fragrance was added.
Evidence we need
Documentary evidence of no intentionally added perfume or masking fragrance, with supplier review and a clear policy on aromatic extracts.
What doesn’t count
Equating fragrance-free with hypoallergenic.
Wording that’s allowed
“Fragrance-free: no added perfume or masking fragrance.”
What we publish if it checks out
The definition applied.
“Unscented”
Needs proof from the finished productThat the product has no perceptible scent.
Evidence we need
Finished-product sensory evidence and a formula review.
What doesn’t count
Presenting “unscented” as identical to fragrance-free (it may contain masking ingredients).
Wording that’s allowed
“Unscented (may contain masking ingredients).”
What we publish if it checks out
The sensory basis.
“Free-from [ingredient]”
Depends on the exact wordingThat a specific ingredient is not present.
Evidence we need
Full formula and supplier documentation; a validated assay only when contamination or carry-over risk warrants it.
What doesn’t count
Highlighting the absence of a legally prohibited or irrelevant ingredient, or implying alternatives are automatically safer.
Wording that’s allowed
“Made without [ingredient]”, as long as the ingredient matters and is genuinely not in the product.
What we publish if it checks out
The verified absence and its relevance.
“Chemical-free / toxin-free”
Not allowed, never certifiedImplies the product contains no chemicals or “toxins”.
Evidence we need
Not scientifically supportable as written.
What doesn’t count
No evidence can support it. The wording itself is rejected: every cosmetic is made of chemicals, and “toxin” means nothing without a dose.
Use this instead
Replace with a specific, substantiated claim (e.g. “made without [named substance]”).
What we publish if it checks out
Nothing. The claim is not certified.
“Anti-acne / treats dandruff”
Needs proof from the finished productThat the product treats or prevents a skin condition.
Evidence we need
Market classification and the regulatory evidence required for a drug/therapeutic claim.
What doesn’t count
Cosmetic-only evidence for a disease claim.
Wording that’s allowed
Cosmetic appearance wording only, unless the product uses the correct drug/therapeutic pathway.
What we publish if it checks out
The classification and permitted wording.
“Natural / organic”
Needs paperwork and supply-chain proofThat the product is natural or organic.
Evidence we need
ISO 16128 may support a content calculation; certification and claim rules are reviewed separately.
What doesn’t count
ISO 16128 on its own. It does not cover claims, safety, the environment, fair trade, packaging or regulation.
Wording that’s allowed
“[X]% natural origin (ISO 16128)”, or a recognised organic certification.
What we publish if it checks out
The natural-origin figure or certification.
“Vegan”
Needs paperwork and supply-chain proofThat the product contains no animal-derived inputs.
Evidence we need
Formula, processing aids, raw materials and supplier-chain evidence.
What doesn’t count
A vegan claim used to imply cruelty-free, safe, natural or sustainable.
Wording that’s allowed
“Vegan: no animal-derived ingredients or processing aids.”
What we publish if it checks out
The chain-of-custody basis.
“Cruelty-free / not tested on animals”
Needs paperwork and supply-chain proofThat the product and its ingredients were not tested on animals.
Evidence we need
A defined policy scope, legal exceptions, supplier declarations and monitoring.
What doesn’t count
An unscoped claim that hides required legal testing in some markets.
Wording that’s allowed
“Not tested on animals”, with the scope named: finished product, ingredients or company, and which markets.
What we publish if it checks out
The scope of the claim.
“Reef-safe / ocean-friendly”
Needs proof from the finished productThat the product is safe for reefs or oceans.
Evidence we need
A defined receiving environment, formula-wide fate/hazard/exposure evidence and a relevant life-cycle scope.
What doesn’t count
Ingredient exclusions (e.g. “no oxybenzone”) alone.
Wording that’s allowed
A narrower factual claim, e.g. “does not contain oxybenzone or octinoxate.”
What we publish if it checks out
The narrow, factual claim only.
“Sustainable / green / eco-friendly”
Depends on the exact wordingA broad environmental benefit.
Evidence we need
Full life-cycle evidence, or a narrowly defined claim with a stated boundary and materiality.
What doesn’t count
Vague absolute claims without robust, accessible data.
Wording that’s allowed
A specific, limited claim. Never the bare word “sustainable”.
What we publish if it checks out
The specific verified claim and its boundary.
“Recyclable”
Needs paperwork and supply-chain proofThat the packaging can be recycled.
Evidence we need
A material and component assessment plus actual collection, sorting and reprocessing availability in the target geography.
What doesn’t count
Technical resin recyclability alone.
Wording that’s allowed
“[Component] recyclable where [geography] facilities exist.”
What we publish if it checks out
The component, percentage and geography.
“Biodegradable / compostable”
Depends on the exact wordingThat the product or package breaks down naturally.
Evidence we need
The matrix, environment, timeframe, percentage and a claim-specific test, with disposal infrastructure.
What doesn’t count
Undefined conditions; generalising industrial to home composting.
Wording that’s allowed
“Compostable under [industrial/home] conditions per [standard].”
What we publish if it checks out
The conditions and standard.
“Carbon neutral”
Needs paperwork and supply-chain proofThat the product's carbon emissions are net zero.
Evidence we need
A product carbon footprint, a reduction plan, residual-emissions treatment and transparent communication.
What doesn’t count
Offsets presented as a replacement for reductions.
Wording that’s allowed
“Carbon neutral for [subject], [year]; [reductions] then [residual treatment].”
What we publish if it checks out
The subject, boundary, year and role of offsets.
“PCR content / plastic-free”
Needs paperwork and supply-chain proofA recycled-content or plastic-free packaging claim.
Evidence we need
A bill of materials, supplier proof, mass balance or chain of custody, exclusions and a calculation rule.
What doesn’t count
A figure that silently excludes pumps, labels, liners or secondary packaging.
Wording that’s allowed
“Contains [X]% post-consumer recycled [material] (bottle only).”
What we publish if it checks out
The components included and the percentage.
A certified product page lists only the claims covered by its certificate, and states that no other claims are covered. Unsupported material claims are corrected or removed before certification.