May 28, 2026
By Pieter Ijsselstein
Cosmetic makers often make borderline therapeutic claims because those claims are extremely effective at driving sales while still attempting to remain inside the legal definition of a cosmetic.
At the center of it is a tension between:
- what consumers want to hear,
- what regulations allow,
- and what companies can imply without explicitly saying.
The Core Problem: Cosmetics Are Hard to Differentiate
Most cosmetics do relatively simple things:
- cleanse,
- moisturize,
- temporarily improve appearance,
- add fragrance or texture.
But those benefits are not very exciting from a marketing perspective.
“Moisturizes skin” is weak.
“Helps restore damaged skin barrier and calm inflammation” sounds powerful.
So companies push language toward:
- healing,
- restoring,
- repairing,
- detoxifying,
- rejuvenating,
- anti-inflammatory,
- collagen boosting,
- microbiome balancing,
- anti-aging.
These phrases create the impression of:
biological transformation rather than simple cosmetic enhancement.
Why They Stay “Borderline”
In countries like Canada, cosmetics cannot legally:
- treat disease,
- cure conditions,
- alter body function in a therapeutic way,
- make drug claims without approval.
Once a product crosses that line, it may legally become:
- a drug,
- a natural health product,
- or a therapeutic product.
That triggers:
- expensive clinical testing,
- licensing,
- manufacturing standards,
- evidence requirements,
- regulatory oversight.
Most cosmetic companies do not want that burden. So instead, they operate in a carefully engineered grey zone:
- close enough to sound therapeutic,
- vague enough to remain cosmetic.
The Language Is Often Deliberately Constructed
Notice the difference:
Direct therapeutic claim:
“Treats eczema.”
Borderline cosmetic claim:
“Soothes dry, irritated skin associated with eczema.”
Drug claim:
“Reduces inflammation.”
Cosmetic wording:
“Helps calm the appearance of redness.”
This is not accidental wording. Entire marketing departments and regulatory consultants work to:
- maximize perceived efficacy,
- while minimizing legal exposure.
Testimonials Become a Loophole
This is where many brands gain the biggest advantage. The company itself may avoid saying:
“Our cream treats eczema.”
But customer testimonials may say:
“My eczema disappeared.”
The effect on consumers is almost the same. This creates plausible deniability:
- “We didn’t make the claim.”
- “The customer did.”
Regulators, however, increasingly look at the overall consumer impression.
The Psychology Behind It
Therapeutic-adjacent claims work because skincare is deeply emotional. Consumers are often trying to solve:
- embarrassment,
- insecurity,
- chronic irritation,
- aging anxiety,
- social confidence issues.
Words like repair, healing, restore, recovery, and “clinically proven” … activate hope. Even when evidence is weak.
“Science-Washing” Is Extremely Common
Many cosmetic companies also use:
- peptides,
- stem cells,
- marine bioactives,
- probiotics,
- collagen,
- DNA repair enzymes,
- antioxidants,
…paired with references to laboratory studies, “clinically tested ingredients,” and in-vitro research. This creates a scientific aura. But often:
- the ingredient itself may have some evidence,
- while the finished product has never undergone meaningful clinical testing.
That distinction is rarely obvious to consumers.
Why Regulators Struggle
Regulators like Health Canada face several problems:
1. Language evolves quickly
Marketing constantly invents new terms: skin wellness, barrier support, biome repair, neurocosmetics, adaptogenic skincare.
2. Claims are often implied, not explicit
The company avoids clear violations.
3. Testimonials muddy the waters
Anecdotes become quasi-medical evidence.
4. Enforcement resources are limited
Thousands of small brands operate online with little scrutiny.
The Industry Incentive
The reality is simple: stronger claims = stronger sales.
Consumers are far more likely to buy products promising transformation, recovery, anti-aging, and visible change. Especially in skincare, hair growth, acne, eczema, sensitive skin, and anti-aging markets. The commercial pressure to exaggerate is enormous.
The Most Important Distinction
A product can:
- feel soothing,
- reduce dryness,
- improve skin appearance,
- make someone genuinely happier with their skin,
without actually being:
- medically therapeutic,
- clinically proven,
- or capable of treating disease.
That distinction is where much of the cosmetic industry lives. And increasingly, the battlefield is not over what brands explicitly say, but over:
what consumers are led to believe.
