South Africa’s skincare aisle just witnessed a corporate showdown and the referee has spoken. In a ruling that’s turning heads in the beauty and advertising industries, the Advertising Regulatory Board (ARB) has dismissed a complaint by L’Oréal South Africa against Beiersdorf Consumer Products, the company behind Eucerin.
At the centre of the dispute was a bold line many South Africans have seen on shelves and screens:
‘SA’s No.1 Dermatologist Recommended Brand,’
L’Oréal argued the claim was misleading. The ARB disagreed.
The claim that sparked the fight
Between November 2025 and February 2026, Eucerin ran advertising across multiple skincare categories, even tone, acne-prone skin, and sun protection, all anchored by variations of the ‘No.1 dermatologist recommended’ message.
L’Oréal challenged the credibility of these claims, saying Beiersdorf relied on an undisclosed survey from October 2025 and initially failed to provide proof. They also hinted that newer research (which they did not submit) would show different leaders in the market.
But when Beiersdorf finally laid its cards on the table, the picture changed.
The survey that the ARB accepted
Beiersdorf submitted a detailed market study conducted by global research agency Mindline, backed by an independent expert accredited by SAMRA.
The study surveyed 152 dermatologists across South Africa — a number the ARB accepted as statistically meaningful. The research looked at both overall brand recommendations and category-specific concerns like pigmentation, acne, and sun care.
Because the report contained commercially sensitive data, the ARB reviewed it confidentially, relying on a non-confidential expert summary to judge whether the science and methodology held up.
They ruled that it did.
Timing mattered and it worked in Eucerin’s favour
One of L’Oréal’s key arguments was that the research was outdated.
But the ARB noted something important: while the survey was labelled ‘October 2025,’ fieldwork continued through December, and analysis was only completed in January 2026 — right before the ads ran.
That timeline, the Directorate said, was current enough to justify the claims during the campaign period.
In other words, the data wasn’t stale.
A bigger lesson for the beauty industry
The Board noted that in highly competitive categories like skincare, multiple surveys using different but valid methodologies can legitimately produce different ‘No.1’ results.
That’s a rare public recognition of something insiders know well: market leadership can depend on who you ask, how you ask, and when you ask.
It’s not always black and white.
The burden of proof and who carries it
The ARB made it clear that the responsibility to prove a claim lies with the advertiser, not with competitors to disprove it.
Beiersdorf met that burden.
L’Oréal, in this case, did not present counter-evidence for review.
The complaint was dismissed.
The bottom line
The ARB concluded that Eucerin’s claims were credible, independently verified, and not misleading under the Code of Advertising Practice.
Be the first to know – Join our WhatsApp Channel for content worth tapping into! Click here to join!
Also read:
Cape Flair faces backlash over misleading marketing practices
