Advertising 'before and after' pictures: key takeaways from CAP's latest guidance
Beauty brands increasingly rely on 'before and after' imagery to demonstrate product efficacy, particularly across social media platforms where visual content drives consumer engagement.
However, with mounting consumer scepticism about marketing authenticity (a recent global survey found that 69% of consumers were concerned about fake images being used in the marketing of goods in 2024), the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) has reinforced its guidance on using such imagery responsibly.
The updated guidance underscores several critical compliance areas that beauty sector marketers must navigate carefully.
The importance of holding robust evidence
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) treats 'before and after' photos identically to testimonials, triggering the evidential requirements under CAP Code rules 3.47-3.50. This means marketers must hold signed and dated proof that images are genuine and unmanipulated.
However, the substantiation requirements extend significantly beyond this. For beauty claims specifically, CAP expects robust evidence that typically includes controlled clinical trials (where one group uses the product and another uses a placebo, with neither group knowing which they're receiving), comparative studies (where the same person has the product applied to one area but not another, allowing direct comparison), and properly controlled before-and-after studies. The guidance emphasises that customer testimonials and anecdotal feedback alone cannot support breakthrough or innovative claims about how a beauty product affects the body.
The ASA has upheld numerous complaints about exaggerated claims represented through 'before and after' photos. For instance, in 2018, a complaint was upheld against ads for laser acne and rosacea treatment because the advertisers could not substantiate the imagery, which was not of their own customers and they could not prove was genuine (The Laser Treatment Clinic Ltd, 22 August 2018). Similarly, in 2019, the ASA found insufficient evidence to support claims made in relation to a teeth-whitening product that suggested results after the first use of the product (Smiles Powder UK Ltd, 29 May 2019).
However, successful substantiation is achievable when advertisers maintain rigorous evidence standards and transparent methodologies. In an ASA ruling involving The Perfect Cosmetics Company Ltd, despite notable differences in facial expression and makeup between 'before' and 'after' skin analysis images, the ASA accepted the claims because the advertiser provided comprehensive clinical trial data across 24 subjects over 10 hours, using untreated eyes as controls and multiple assessment methods including dermatological examination, independent photographic assessment, and subject self-evaluation.
Similarly, L'Oréal's defence of its Total Temptation mascara imagery succeeded through signed declarations from makeup artists confirming no lash inserts were used and no post-production enhancement occurred.
These cases illustrate that the evidence base should normally include at least one adequately controlled experimental human study, though controlled observational studies may suffice in certain circumstances. The key lies in maintaining comprehensive documentation and ensuring that any visual differences genuinely reflect the product's achievable effects.
Production techniques restrictions
‘Before and after’ images have also been considered by CAP in previous guidance in the context of cosmetic production techniques. That guidance provides detailed direction on acceptable pre- and post-production methods. The fundamental principle remains that visual claims must not misleadingly exaggerate achievable effects.
During pre-production, while styling and general make-up remain acceptable, lash inserts cannot exceed what the mascara could achieve on natural lashes. Hair extensions must not significantly add volume beyond what the advertised product can deliver on natural hair. Crucially, 'before and after' sequences where only the 'after' image employed pre-production techniques will likely mislead.
In post-production, any retouching directly relevant to product performance - such as removing wrinkles for eye cream advertisements or enhancing lash length for mascara - remains prohibited. Marketers must retain comprehensive documentation demonstrating any retouching undertaken.
Prescription-only medicines
Advertising of prescription-only medicines (POM), such as Botox and weight-loss injections, continues to be prohibited, including the use of 'before and after' imagery. Even without accompanying claims, 'before and after' imagery is likely to be seen as an implied advertisement.
This prohibition has gained particular relevance given the ASA's deployment of AI technology since 2023 to identify weight loss POM advertisements across social media platforms. Non-compliant campaigns now face much higher chances of being identified and investigated. In early July, the ASA took action against nine weight loss injection ads as part of this initiative.
Health and slimming claims
Any slimming or health claims - whether explicit or implied through imagery - must be backed by robust evidence and meet specific regulatory standards. For medicinal or medical claims, products must be licensed by the MHRA or EMA, or be CE-marked medical devices. For slimming claims, any effectiveness claims must be supported by rigorous trials on people.
When using 'before and after' images of people who have followed diet or exercise programmes, brands must be careful not to suggest they can treat obesity by showing 'before' images of obese individuals, unless the programme is supervised by qualified health professionals. This restriction exists because obesity often involves underlying medical conditions, and CAP Code rule 12.2 prohibits marketers from discouraging essential medical treatment that requires professional supervision.
The 2023 Pure Clear Minds Ltd case illustrates these requirements. The company claimed a "95% success rate" for its 'Hypnotic Gastric Band Program' alongside 'before and after' images, but lacked adequate clinical trial evidence to substantiate these weight loss effectiveness claims.
Practical implications
The updated guidance reflects CAP's recognition that visual claims carry the same weight as written statements, making it essential for beauty brands to treat 'before and after' imagery with the same care they would apply to any written efficacy claim. With the ASA deploying AI technology to actively scan websites and social media platforms, and heightened regulatory focus on visual advertising in the beauty sector, compliance has become more important than ever.