By Rachel Raphael and Marcha Isabelle Chaudry

Clean. Natural. Non-toxic. Safe. These are some of the hottest words in beauty. But what do they actually mean?

“Good for you” beauty is all the rage. It is a central selling point for cosmetics and other personal care products. A marked shift toward transparency, safety and sustainability in these products has reshaped consumer expectations and catalyzed innovation in product development and brand storytelling. In 2024, the US natural cosmetics market was estimated to reach $1.87 billion, up 7.1% from the year before.

Despite its widespread popularity, the concept of “clean beauty” remains amorphous. Even the highly anticipated Modernization of Cosmetic Regulation Act (MoCRA) doesn’t address the clean beauty conundrum. Commonly used terms lack any universal definition. This creates a gap between the expectations of consumers and the practices of the brands whose products they use. Although some companies benefited from the ambiguity, the beauty industry can expect increased scrutiny over “clean,” “natural,” “non-toxic” and “safe” product claims in the coming year. That scrutiny can come from federal regulators, or the many state actors, advocacy groups, and plaintiffs’ attorneys who are more than willing to carry the torch.

This article explores the complexities of clean beauty, and practical steps cosmetics companies should consider going into 2025. Here’s a review of the US and EU regulatory landscape.

Safety: Ingredient Bans and Restrictions

The EU is known for leading the charge when it comes to regulating the safety of cosmetics and personal care products, having adopted restrictions, and even outright bans, on thousands of ingredients ranging from certain metals and pesticides to animal-derived ingredients. All cosmetic products sold in the EU, regardless of origin, also must meet strict safety, labeling and testing standards. The EU uses a regulatory structure known as Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation, and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH). Any chemical substance produced in, sold in, or imported into the EU must have a REACH number. Companies must register with REACH and provide a comprehensive safety and hazard profile for any chemicals used in cosmetics and personal care products.

The US landscape looks much different. Except for color additives and a few prohibited ingredients, cosmetics companies may use almost any raw material as a cosmetic ingredient and market the product without approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Although FDA’s rule is that cosmetics must be safe for consumers when used according to directions on the label or in the expected way, companies do not need to file safety data or product formulation information with the agency. In the US, ingredient restrictions and bans for cosmetics vary across the country, with several states having enacted or proposed legislation banning or limiting the use of certain ingredients in cosmetics and other personal care products. Of those states, California leads the way in adopting stricter regulations influenced by the EU’s comprehensive standards—banning dozens of ingredients from use in cosmetics products and requiring warnings on all products, including personal care and cosmetics products, containing certain chemicals.

Marketing and Advertising: False and Misleading Claims

The EU and US also have laws to regulate false and misleading advertising and product labeling. The EU’s Unfair Commercial Practices Directive regulates business-to-consumer commercial practices, broadly prohibiting unfair and misleading advertising. The EU’s Cosmetics Regulation (EC) No. 1223/2009 further governs product labeling, requiring cosmetics to include essential information such as the name and address of the responsible person, a full list of ingredients in descending order of weight, specific warnings for safe use, batch numbers for traceability and the country of origin for imported products.

In the US, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act prohibits unfair or deceptive business practices, including false and misleading advertising of cosmetics and personal care products. And the FDA regulates the labeling of cosmetics and personal care products under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) and the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, which require certain information on all cosmetic and personal care product labels. The FD&C Act also prohibits the marketing, distribution and sale of “misbranded” products; i.e., products with labels that are false or misleading and/or do not bear the required labeling information, or with containers that are made or filled in a deceptive manner.

Notably, however, neither the FDA nor the FTC issued guidance regarding what constitutes “clean” cosmetic and personal care products. Despite stricter ingredient bans and labeling requirements, neither has the EU. The same is true for other countries across the globe. This means that companies can advertise and label their products with terms such as “clean,” “natural,” “non-toxic” and “safe” without meeting any specific criteria regardless of where in the world they are sold.

Industry Innovation That Outpaces Cosmetics Regulations

In the face of a patchwork of safety rules and regulations around the world, the beauty industry continues to grow rapidly, outpacing regulators by developing new concepts, and with them, creative marketing strategies. The concept of clean beauty emerged from a growing interest in health and longevity and a consumer demand for safer, better-for-you products. However regulatory frameworks operate within structured legal systems, requiring extensive review, stakeholder consultation, and legislative approval before implementing new standards.

A major hurdle to defining “clean beauty” is the lack of international harmonization in cosmetic regulations. The lag between innovation and regulation creates a disconnect between consumer expectations regarding product safety and the research, testing and analysis actually required of the products they use. And brands across the globe have been able to successfully leverage emotionally resonant language that often lacks scientific or legal precision.

An Uncertain Future: Continuing Ambiguity or a Move Toward Clarity

Despite the appeal of international standardization, a globally accepted definition of “clean beauty” is likely a long way off. Many view the incoming US presidential administration as a move in the opposite direction. Historically, Republican administrations have taken a more restrained approach to regulation and enforcement, resulting in looser regulatory restrictions and fewer enforcement actions. Companies throughout the industry are questioning how this transition will affect US regulation of cosmetics and other personal care products.

Of course, a regulatory vacuum at the federal level does not mean a blank check for wellness-oriented claims. Scrutiny of “clean,” “natural,” “non-toxic” and “safe” beauty is going to continue as state regulators, plaintiffs’ attorneys, competitors, advocacy groups and other industry actors eagerly step in to fill the void. Indeed, cosmetics and other personal care products marketed as “clean” are already popular targets of consumer-driven false advertising lawsuits.

These cases are not limited to on-product labeling. They also target broad statements about product safety on company websites, in overall marketing campaigns, and on social media platforms. Plaintiffs in many of these cases allege that clean claims, even aspirational ones, are false and misleading if the product contains synthetic chemicals or any other ingredient that might pose a risk of harm, regardless of how remote. This means even if the ingredient is something commonly used in the industry, contained at concentrations within allowable levels, or is ubiquitous in the environment, a marketing campaign that involves claims such as “clean,” “natural,” “non-toxic” or “safe” is off the table.

To date, these cases have had mixed results. A major challenge for plaintiffs is establishing standing; i.e., an injury in fact that is concrete and particularized, and actual or imminent. This obstacle is sizeable particularly where the claim is not that plaintiff (or other consumers) suffered bodily harm but only that they wouldn’t have bought the product (or paid less). Another major challenge for plaintiffs is the need to plausibly allege that a reasonable consumer would be deceived by representations about a product. For example, courts have been hesitant to interpret “clean” to mean free from any and all synthetic ingredients, particularly where the ingredient label clearly identifies the synthetic ingredient at issue.

Despite varied success, false advertising lawsuits over “clean” beauty claims show no signs of slowing down. Recent decisions provide helpful guidance for companies that want to use clean claims as part of their advertising strategy: substantiation and context are key. The more a company backs up its claims with verifiable, scientific data, and the more a company explains what it means by “clean,” “natural,” “non-toxic” or “safe,” the easier it is to defeat claims of false or misleading advertising. All wellness-oriented claims carry an increasing risk of legal challenge, but robust scientific support and a clear communication strategy can go a long way in mitigating that risk and maintaining consumer trust.

Best Practices for Companies in the Clean Beauty Business

As the clean beauty landscape evolves, companies must take proactive steps to maintain their competitive edge, navigate regulatory obstacles and mitigate their legal risk.

1. Perform a Marketing Claims Assessment and Prioritize Transparency.
   • Provide context for any generic, wellness-oriented claims, such as “clean,” “natural,” “non-toxic” and “safe.”
   • Use the company website and product packaging to educate consumers, build trust and minimize the potential for misunderstanding.
   • Make sure all claims, however qualified, have sufficient, scientific support, and work with legal counsel to identify potential ambiguities and mitigate exposure.
2. Look to Supply Chain Partners.
   • Verify that everyone in the supply chain; e.g., third party vendors, suppliers, contract manufacturers, have the documentation needed to support marketing claims.
   • Companies should have insight into what is going into their products and where the ingredients, packaging and other components are sourced.
3. Leverage Third-Party Certification Programs.
   • Certifications from reputable organizations make it harder to challenge the veracity of a company’s wellness-oriented marketing claims.
   • Because laws related to ingrediency safety in the US are relatively limited, validation from an established third party may also make the difference when it comes to consumer purchase decisions.
   • Examples of third-party certifications include Cosmos (organic and natural), Made Safe (non-toxic, cruelty-free), EWG Verified  (non-toxic), and NSF (non-toxic), many of which set their own standards for ingredient sourcing and percentages of natural components.
4. Stay “In the Know” on Regulatory Developments, Both State and Federal, Domestic and International.
   • Monitor changes to US federal and state regulations, as well as international frameworks, particularly in the EU.
   • Engage with industry groups and legal experts to stay ahead of regulatory requirements, and on top of emerging trends. International developments may well influence US regulatory changes in the future.
   • For US brands with international markets, aligning with the strictest standards across the globe may become necessary to stay competitive.
5. Consider Collaborating with Industry Stakeholders
   • Participate in industry-wide efforts to define terms related to clean beauty.
   • By collaborating with advocacy groups, regulatory bodies and other brands, companies ensure their voices are heard. This means the potential to shape the future rules of the road and to demonstrate leadership in the space.

Transparency is no longer optional—it is the foundation of a successful clean beauty strategy. Substantiation of claims, whether through third-party certifications, scientific testing, or rigorous internal reviews, will be critical for navigating the increasingly complex regulatory landscape. By implementing these steps, businesses will be better poised for success in 2025 and the years to come.

About the Authors

Rachel Raphael is a partner at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP. Raphael regularly represents clients in all tiers of the supply and distribution chain and in a variety of industries, including personal care and cosmetics. She defends clients against claims of unfair and deceptive business practices, breach of contract, fraud, negligence, false advertising, and breach of warranty in complex product liability and class action litigation throughout the US. She also advises clients on the many issues that may arise over the product lifecycle, whether it involves negotiating with a contracting partner, evaluating the risk of a new venture or navigating product-related complaints. As a litigator and risk management counselor, Raphael offers insight on how companies can mitigate the legal risks associated with the manufacture, distribution, packaging, labeling and marketing of their products.

Marcha Isabelle Chaudry an attorney and founder of the Equity and Wellness Collaborative (EWC), specializes in compliance management for beauty and wellness businesses. She provides expert guidance on navigating complex legal and regulatory requirements throughout the product development process, including facility registration, product listing, claims review, labeling, certification and adverse event reporting. By focusing on safety and streamlined compliance, Chaudry equips businesses with the tools to meet industry standards efficiently and effectively.

The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of their firms or clients. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be, and should not be taken as legal advice.