Filters are built into most social apps, and in beauty content they can change exactly the thing a product claims to change. This article explains what the UK’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) and the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) say about filters and retouching in cosmetics advertising. It describes UK rules only; other countries and platforms have their own requirements.
Are filters banned in beauty advertising?
No. According to the ASA’s CAP News article of 14 August 2025, filters are acceptable in general, but not when they exaggerate a product’s effect. The ASA’s advice page on cosmetics production techniques, dated 18 August 2025, makes the same point: filters are not inherently problematic, but the overall impression matters, and they must not mislead consumers about how well a product works.
The test is not whether an image has been edited. It is whether the edit changes the result the ad is promising. The CAP guidance states the core principle as advertised claims, including visual ones, not misleadingly exaggerating “the effect the product is capable of achieving”. That guidance is issued by the CAP Executive, is not binding and is not legal advice, but the ASA applies the same thinking when it rules on complaints.
What did the ASA decide about the tanning filter rulings?
The best-known cases involve tanning. In rulings dated 3 February 2021, the ASA considered Instagram Stories for Skinny Tan Ltd (featuring Elly Norris) and We Are Luxe Ltd, trading as Tanologist (featuring Cinzia Baylis-Zullo). In both, the influencer used a beauty filter that darkened skin tone and complexion compared with how they would have looked without it.
According to the ASA’s CAP News article of 11 February 2021, because the filters were directly relevant to how the tanning products performed, they were likely to exaggerate efficacy and materially mislead consumers. The ASA’s August 2025 article revisited the Skinny Tan case. It said audiences would expect the tan to match the filtered result, and that the brand’s repost of the story counted against it.
The wording of the advice is narrow and worth noting. Influencers should avoid filters “directly relevant to the product being advertised” and likely to exaggerate its effect. A filter on an unrelated part of the picture is a different question.
Which products are most exposed?
The ASA’s production-techniques page sorts its examples by what the product claims to do:
| Product type | Claim a filter or edit could affect | Example in the ASA guidance |
|---|---|---|
| Self-tan | Depth of colour | Skinny Tan and We Are Luxe (Feb 2021): upheld |
| Mascara | Lash length and volume | Rimmel Scandaleyes, Coty UK (19 Apr 2017): upheld |
| Moisturiser | Smoother, more even skin | L’Oréal (1 Feb 2012): upheld |
| Nail product | Shine and colour | Lifes2good UK (24 Dec 2014): upheld |
The pattern is consistent. Where an edit touches the very feature the product is meant to improve, the risk rises. Where the same styling and photography were used throughout and no post-production created the effect, the ASA has not upheld complaints, as with a L’Oréal serum ad (5 December 2012) and a L’Oréal mascara ad (20 June 2018).
Does a disclaimer fix a filtered image?
Not according to the ASA. Its August 2025 article says a disclaimer does not cure an exaggerated filter effect, because it is unlikely to offset the overall impression of the ad. The production-techniques page adds that disclaimers cannot rescue an ad that is inherently misleading, and that important qualifying text should be clearly sized and placed.
For creators, this means a small “filter used” note is not a safe harbour if the filter changes what the product appears to do. This is the article’s reading of the guidance, not a quoted ASA rule, but it follows directly from the sources above.
How are before-and-after images treated?
The ASA’s guidance treats before-and-after images as objective claims. The “after” image should reflect what consumers can generally achieve, and retouching features relevant to performance is a particular concern, such as the lines around the eyes in an eye-cream ad or hair extensions in a hair-care ad.
In the August 2025 article, the ASA looked at an ad from Oneade on Facebook. Sped-up shots and “filter-like” skin in the before-and-after images led it to find the results were dramatically filtered. The brand gave no evidence that the images were representative or unaltered, and it did not respond to the complaint, which the ASA recorded as a breach of rule 1.7. The article also says advertisers should hold signed and dated proof that before-and-after photos are genuine.
Who is responsible: the creator or the brand?
Both can be. The ASA’s 2021 article says responsibility ultimately lies with the advertiser, and that it is for the advertiser to demonstrate that a filter did not mislead. It also notes that filters are usually applied when content is created, so unfiltered “before” material is unlikely to exist to show the filter’s effect.
The ASA’s influencer guidance (6 August 2026) says that an influencer with an affiliate link or code is acting as an advertiser, and that the ASA typically holds the brand at least jointly responsible, even if it did not control the specific content. Brands, the 2021 article suggests, may want to set out filter expectations in their agreements with influencers.
What does a lower-risk workflow look like?
Based on the guidance above, a brand or creator could adopt these habits. They are the article’s own summary of the published sources, not an ASA checklist:
- Separate the effect from the edit. Where a product claims to change skin tone, lashes, nails or lips, show the result without a filter that affects that feature.
- Keep originals. Retain unedited files and records showing that images are representative.
- Avoid building an ad around a filter. The Skinny Tan ruling concerned a filter that made the tan look deeper, which is the very claim being sold.
- Do not rely on small print. Qualifications cannot rescue a misleading overall impression.
- Write filter terms into briefs. This reflects the ASA’s suggestion that brands set out responsibilities with influencers.
Is the content labelled as an ad in the first place?
Filter rules sit alongside disclosure rules. The ASA’s influencer guidance says it and the CMA prefer labels that explicitly call out content as advertising, such as “Ad”, placed upfront rather than behind a “See more” prompt. It says “gifted” on its own is unlikely to be a sufficiently clear label, and that a discount code alone does not make the commercial relationship clear. For the wider picture, see the explainer on influencer disclosure rules in the UK, US and EU and the guide to gifting, affiliate and paid deals.
What about claims beyond the picture?
Visual exaggeration is only one issue. In the August 2025 article, a TikTok post for the lip plumper Plump It! claimed it “creates long term plumping results by naturally improving collagen production”. The brand’s study involved 29 women, lasted one month, had no control group, was not peer-reviewed and did not test the final product. The ASA found the evidence insufficient and said physiological claims such as improving collagen need a very high level of evidence. The point for creators is that a flawless-looking result and an unsupported claim are separate problems, and either can lead to a ruling. How complaints are processed is covered in our piece on how the ASA handles complaints about influencer ads.
Filters are not the only way dupes and lookalikes raise questions in this category; the article on dupe culture in beauty and fashion covers the intellectual property side.
Filters are tolerated, but not as proof of performance
The published position is steady across 2021 and 2025: a filter is not a problem in itself, but it must not make a product appear to work better than it does. The closer the edit sits to the product’s claimed benefit, the greater the risk, and neither small print nor a creator’s own disclaimer is likely to repair the impression. For brands, that means keeping evidence and agreeing terms with creators. For creators, it means letting the product, not the app, do the work on screen.
This article is general information based on published ASA and CAP guidance, not legal or regulatory advice. Rules, guidance and platform policies change, and it describes the UK system only.
Sources: Advertising Standards Authority (Beauty and Cosmetics: The use of production techniques); Advertising Standards Authority (The (mis)use of social media beauty filters when advertising cosmetic products); Advertising Standards Authority (Don’t gloss over the facts); Advertising Standards Authority (Recognising ads: social media)
