The words we are not allowed to use, and the ones we choose not to
Two lists. The first is the law. The second is the one that actually says something about us.
Routinae sells some of the products written about here, so read this the way you would read any shop’s opinion of its own shelves. Where we think a cheaper product does the same job we say so, and where the evidence is thin we say that too. Our buying standard is published so you can check the argument against it.
There are two lists in this piece. The first is words we are not permitted to use about a cosmetic in the EU. The second is words we are permitted to use and have decided not to.
The second list is the one that says something about us. The first is just the law, and most shops quietly work around its edges.
What the rules actually say
Cosmetic claims in the EU are governed by the Cosmetics Regulation and a set of common criteria that every claim has to satisfy: legal compliance, truthfulness, evidential support, honesty, fairness, and informed decision-making. In plain terms — you must be able to evidence it, it must not disparage competitors, and it must not exploit anxiety.
The part people miss is scope. These rules apply to the labelling, the making available on the market, and the advertising. That means this article. It means our product pages, our emails, and anything we post. We could sell a completely compliant product and still be non-compliant because of how we described it. That is genuinely the easiest mistake in this business to make, and it is entirely within our control.
The line we will not go near: medicinal claims
A cosmetic cleans, perfumes, changes appearance, protects, keeps in good condition, or corrects odours. That is the definition. The moment a product is presented as treating, curing or preventing a disease, it stops being a cosmetic in the eyes of the law and becomes something we are not licensed to sell.
This is where most of the translated Korean marketing copy in European shops falls down — not out of malice, but because the source material was written for a different regulatory system, and translating it faithfully is precisely the problem. So we do not translate it. We write claims from scratch.
| Not available to us | What we say instead |
|---|---|
| Treats acne, anti-acne | For blemish-prone skin |
| Heals, wound-healing | Soothing; helps skin feel calmer |
| Anti-inflammatory | Helps reduce the look of redness |
| Repairs the barrier | Helps support the skin’s natural barrier |
| Whitening | Helps even the look of skin tone |
| Regenerating, cell renewal | Helps improve the appearance of texture |
| Pore-shrinking | Helps minimise the appearance of pores |
| Sunblock, total protection, all-day | High protection SPF 50+. Reapply every two hours |
Some of those substitutions look like weasel words, and we understand why. “Helps improve the appearance of texture” is a worse sentence than “regenerating”. It is also the accurate one. A cosmetic works on the surface and on how skin looks and feels. Anything claiming more than that is either a medicine or a fib.
“Free from”, which is mostly not allowed either
This one surprises people. Under the common criteria, “free from” claims are heavily restricted — and “free from parabens” is specifically not permitted, because it denigrates a group of legally approved ingredients. The rule exists to stop the industry manufacturing fear about ingredients it has already agreed are safe, and then selling the cure. That is a good rule. (That link is an industry consultancy’s explainer rather than an official source, and we flag it as such.)
From 27 September 2026 the EU’s rules on environmental and greenwashing claims tighten again, and a good deal of the language currently on beauty shelves will have to come off it.
The second list: what we are allowed to say and will not
Everything above is compliance. Anyone can do it, and a shop that stops there has only proved it can read.
Clean, chemical-free, non-toxic. These have no definition in EU cosmetics law. They are not really claims about a product at all; they are claims about the things you already own, and they work by making you slightly afraid of your own bathroom. Everything is chemicals. Water is chemicals.
Before-and-after photographs. Lighting, angle, expression and camera do most of the work in the good ones, and the honest ones are indistinguishable from the dishonest ones at the resolution you will see them. If evidence can be produced by moving a lamp, it is not evidence.
Miracle, instant, permanent. None of it is any of those.
Countdown timers and “three people are viewing this”. Manufactured urgency on a moisturiser. It works, measurably, which is exactly why refusing it means something.
Skin-lightening positioning. Off-limits here regardless of legality or demand.
Borrowed authority. No implied dermatologist endorsement we have not actually got, and no “as seen in” built out of a passing mention. If a claim needs a white coat next to it to land, the claim is not strong enough.
The one that costs us most
We will not describe a product as suitable for everyone. “Perfect for all skin types” is the single most commercially useful sentence in beauty copywriting, because it removes the only real friction in the purchase: the possibility that this is not for you.
So instead every product here says who it is not for. That loses sales — sales we would have kept, from people who would then have been mildly disappointed and not come back. We would rather have the smaller number and the returning customer, and we would rather you found out that a product is wrong for you on the page than in the mirror.
How to catch us
Claim rules are easiest to break when you are enthusiastic, and everybody who sells things is occasionally enthusiastic. If you find a sentence on this site that overreaches — a cosmetic implying it treats something, a hedge doing work it should not be doing, a number without a source — tell us and we will fix it and say that we did.
Publishing your own rules is only worth anything if somebody is checking them.