Back to the archive

The encyclopedia · Advertising & PR · Marketing decision · 2022

Estée Lauder fined ¥2.38m for 'younger by 77%' claims on its 小棕瓶 serum

In February 2022 Shanghai's market regulator fined Estée Lauder ¥2.38m for 'younger index +77%' claims on its sixth-generation 小棕瓶 serum.

Estée Lauder (雅诗兰黛) · 2022-02

What happened

Between October and mid-December 2019, Estée Lauder ran China ads for its sixth-generation 特润修护肌透精华露 (the 小棕瓶 serum) claiming '年轻指数+77%' ('younger index +77%') and '柔润+17% 平滑+20% 透亮+15%' — a bright set of numbers on a flagship anti-ageing product.

The regulator found the numbers could not stand as blanket promises. The efficacy data came from studies on different age samples, under limited conditions, used with sunscreen, and the 'younger index' was a partial measure of skin-metabolism markers being used to stand for 'younger' as a whole. Expert review concluded that a recovery in metabolic markers does not equal a measurable gain in youthfulness, and the qualifications buried in small print were not enough to stop consumers being misled.

On 9 February 2022 the Shanghai Market Supervision Administration fined the company ¥2,381,671 — roughly double the ad spend — ruling the ads breached 广告法 Article 4(1) and Article 28(1)&(2). Asked about the penalty, the brand's own flagship-store customer service noted the sixth-generation serum was no longer on sale, replaced by the seventh.

The fine was not Estée Lauder's first. The same entity had been penalised for false advertising in 2021 (¥400,000), 2018 (¥110,000) and 2017 (¥88,800), so a flagship brand spent half a decade cycling through the same lesson.

Why it happened

  • The marketing team turned narrow study results into blanket percentage promises, treating a conditioned research finding as a universal claim
  • The 'younger index' built on skin-metabolism markers was a partial proxy sold as proof of overall youthfulness, a meaning the small print could not undo
  • Repeat penalties in 2017, 2018, 2021 and 2022 show the tactic was a habit, not a one-off lapse
What it costa ¥2.38m false-ad finecostly

The lesson

Fine print is not a defence: if a claim is only true under narrow study conditions, putting the number on a poster is a false ad. A repeat offender pays the same bill again.

Aftermath

Shanghai's regulator fined the company ¥2.38m and the existing sixth-generation ads were replaced by the seventh-generation product. The case joined a lengthening public list of beauty brands penalised for efficacy claims that outran their evidence.

Sources

spotted an error? The club wants to know.

Comments · 0

    Sign in to join the comments.

    More like this

    Somewhere, someone solved the problem this company failed at. 2nd Opinion →