For most of the last decade, wellness brands could say almost anything. "Supports immunity." "Promotes radiance from within." "Restores cellular balance." Each of these phrases sits in a regulatory gray zone wide enough to drive a brand through — and most brands did.
That gray zone got noticeably narrower in the last six months. Three regulators — the FTC in the United States, the MHRA in the United Kingdom, and a coordinated working group within the European Commission — have all tightened guidance on cosmetic and wellness claims. The shifts are technical, but the practical effect is the same: a lot of label copy and a lot of marketing decks are about to be rewritten.
What is now in scope
- Structure-function claims that imply specific physiological mechanisms ("balances the gut microbiome").
- Outcome claims tied to vague subjective endpoints ("feel your most radiant self").
- Comparative claims against entire categories ("better than retinol").
- Founder-led claims in social media, which are now being treated under the same standard as on-pack copy.
The last one is the sleeper. Many founders have built their brand voice around personal product narratives — and have, until now, enjoyed a relatively soft regulatory touch compared to formal advertising. That distinction is being eroded, fast.
Our compliance counsel told us to scrub the founder's Instagram going back three years. We are scrubbing the founder's Instagram going back three years.
Three case studies
Case one. A mid-size US wellness brand received a warning letter for ingestible-skincare claims. The product remained on shelves; the copy was rewritten within four weeks; the case is unlikely to result in enforcement, but the warning is now in the public record.
Case two. A UK indie pulled three SKUs from sale rather than reformulate or rewrite. The founder told us the legal cost of defending the claims exceeded the projected revenue from the products.
Case three. A European multinational quietly removed two long-running ad campaigns and revised its global brand standards document. No public announcement.
What this means
The era of vague "supports immunity" copy is ending faster than most founders expected. The next 12 months will reward brands with serious clinical substantiation, defensible mechanisms, and copy disciplined enough to survive a regulator's read. It will punish — at a minimum with rewrite costs, at a maximum with shelf removal — the brands still operating on the loose vocabulary of the last cycle.