The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) draws the red line between beauty claim and health claim – 'Beautiful skin ≠ free pass'

From a consumer perspective, advertising with beauty claims must not contain impermissible health-related claims even in the overall context.

I. Legal starting point – Between beautiful skin and body function

The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) had to decide when advertising statements about 'beautiful skin' for dietary supplements meet the definition of a health-related claim within the meaning of Art. 2 (2) No. 5, Art. 10 (1) of the Health Claims Regulation (Regulation (EC) 1924/2006) – and are therefore only permitted if they have been approved and listed by the EU Commission.

The dispute demonstrates exemplarily that the boundary between aesthetic effect ('beauty claim') and functional health reference ('health claim') is fluid. The decisive factor is whether the average consumer understands the statement as a reference to a body function or health improvement.

The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) makes this unambiguously clear:

'If the average consumer understands an advertising statement as health-related, it is subject to the Health Claims Regulation, even if it is linguistically presented as a 'beauty claim'.'

In this way, the scope of protection of Art. 10 (1) HCVO is not circumvented by cosmetic terminology – a decision of considerable significance for the entire beauty-food industry.

II. The case – collagen drink and the promise of 'beauty from within'

A manufacturer of collagen drinking ampoules advertised its product on the website with statements such as:

• 'For beautiful skin from within'
• 'The key to beautiful skin lies in skin structures – 80% of young and healthy skin consists of collagen.'
• 'The collagen peptides are transported into the skin and are available to normal collagen metabolism.'
• 'Clinical studies showed a significant improvement in skin moisture, elasticity, roughness and density.'

A qualified consumer protection association served notice on these statements as impermissible health-related claims. After the defendant had only given a partial undertaking to cease and desist, the association filed an action before the Regional Court (LG) Bochum (judgment of 9.5.2023 – I-18 O 20/22). The Regional Court (LG) granted the claim in full, and the Higher Regional Court (OLG) Hamm (judgment of 27.6.2024 – I-4 U 114/23) upheld the decision.

On the defendant's appeal, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) (judgment of 9.10.2025 – I ZR 135/24, 'Collagen drinking ampoules') set aside the appellate judgment in part and dismissed the action in respect of three of the six challenged statements.away.

III. The Federal Court of Justice (BGH)'s legal considerations – the beauty claim in differentiated case-by-case examination

1. Art. 10 (1) HCVO as a market conduct rule (§ 3a UWG)

The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) confirms that Art. 10 (1) HCVO constitutes a market conduct rule within the meaning of § 3a UWG. A breach thus simultaneously establishes an unfair commercial practice. The decisive factor is always the understanding of the normally informed, attentive and discerning average consumer, in the overall context of advertising.

2. Distinguishing between Beauty Claims and Health Claims

Not every statement about the skin affects a bodily function. Statements about the external appearance (e.g. "beautiful skin", "radiant complexion") can be purely cosmetic in nature.
However, the situation is different if the advertising statement suggests a physiological effect on skin structures, skin processes or metabolic processes.

The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) emphasises:

"The decisive factor is the situative context of the specific infringement; isolated consideration of individual parts of sentences is not permitted."

3. Three impermissible statements in detail

The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) prohibits the following passages because they each established a functional reference:

1. "Important skin structures – 80 % of young and healthy skin consists of collagen"
   → The use of the term "healthy skin" establishes a direct reference to health status.
2. "Transport into the skin layers ... are available to normal collagen metabolism"
   → Description of collagen metabolism as a physiological process; the advertising suggests a functional effect of the product.
3. "Placebo-controlled studies show significant improvements in skin moisture, elasticity, roughness and density"
   → Reference to medically suggestive functional parameters gives the statement the character of a health claim.

With this, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) specifies the line of its previous case law (cf. for example BGH, Urt. v. 7.4.2016 – I ZR 81/15 – Repair-Kapseln) and reinforces the importance of overall assessment in advertising context.

4. No independent category "Beauty Claim"

The Senate explicitly emphasises that the term "beauty claim" does not exist in law.
Insofar as a statement is understood by the consumer as a reference to a bodily function, Art. 10 HCVO applies – regardless of whether it appears cosmetic.

5. Reference to the list of permitted claims (VO (EU) 432/2012)

The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) points out that the EU list itself treats statements such as "contributes to the maintenance of normal skin" as a health-related claim. For collagen, there is no approved claim – therefore, substantially equivalent statements may also not be used.

6. EFSA guidelines not binding

The EFSA guidance, according to which statements about external appearance do "not necessarily" constitute functional claims, does not bind the national courts. The decisive factor remains the normative consumer standard, not the technical view of the authority.

7. Result

The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) partially set aside the decision of the Higher Regional Court (OLG Hamm), limited the prohibition obligation to three statements and otherwise dismissed the action. The costs were set off against each other.

IV. Significance for practice – every wording counts

The judgment clarifies:
"Beauty claims" offerno legal scope for manoeuvre. Decisive is theconsumer expectationin the context of the overall advertising. Even individual terms such as"healthy", "normal metabolism"or"significant improvement"can shift the communication framework into thehealth claim area.

Practical tip:

• Review every statement in the overall context of the advertising.
• Avoid functional terms such as"metabolism, elasticity, barrier, moisture"without an approved claim.
• When making general statements pursuant to Art. 10 (3) HCVO, you must necessarily use aspecific, approved health claimas a reference.
• Ensure that study information does not suggest the product hasmedicinalorfunctionaleffects.

Recommendation – audit and protect your beauty claims now

For manufacturers, retailers and influencers in the dietary supplements sector:
Every advertising message must be reviewed for itshealth law relevance. A claims audit by a specialist competition lawyer is urgently recommended – especially for products containingcollagen, hyaluronic acid, vitamins or secondary plant substances.

Practical tip:
Advertising statements should bereviewed legally before publicationand documented. Even a single careless word can lead towarning notice risk from competition associations.

Our law firmAVANTCORE Rechtsanwältein Stuttgart specialises incompetition lawand also advises oncosmeticsandmedicinal products. We support you withlegally secure claims strategy, createapproval lists of permissible statementsand accompany your product communication – so that your "beauty claims" do not fade before the courts.

Not on beauty claims, but on botanicals we have already discussed a Federal Court of Justice (BGH) decision:

The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) decides on health-related advertising for botanicals and prohibits the use of health claims without EU approval – judgment of 5 June 2025 (I ZR 109/22, "Botanicals II")