Analysis Reveals Gaps in Evidence for Skincare Product Claims

As consumers increasingly turn to artificial intelligence (AI) and online resources for skincare guidance, the findings raise concerns about the reliability of the information available. M11 noted that 849 claims pointed to existing evidence that was not published alongside the claims, while 454 claims either had no published proof or were contradicted by the product page. Only 39 claims were categorized as having available proof. The report emphasized that a flagged claim should not automatically be deemed false but indicates that verification through accessible materials may not be possible.

Among claims relevant to dermatologic care, 35% were flagged as unverifiable concerning treatment, curing, or preventing conditions. Moreover, 23% of brands made allergen or “free-from” claims that could not be substantiated, and 12% made sun-protection claims without available testing evidence. One example highlighted a balm marketed for eczema and psoriasis, which was described as potentially crossing into drug territory without sufficient evidence of medical authorization; however, the specific brand was not identified.

The analysis also revealed 250 serious product-data gaps across 214 of the brands, including missing certifications, incomplete ingredient lists, discrepancies across sales channels, undisclosed concentrations of active ingredients, and unsupported claims. About one-third of the brands had at least one serious data gap classified as high or critical impact, issues particularly relevant for patients with allergies or chronic skin conditions, as incomplete information could affect product recommendations.

Inconsistencies were also observed across platforms, with 35% of mass-market brands, 23% of mid-market, 20% of indie and challenger, and 19% of luxury brands misrepresenting products. Interestingly, higher price points did not correlate with stronger evidence. M11’s Verifiability Index, scoring 52 out of 100 for the overall skincare category, indicated only slight differences in verifiability scores across market segments. In fact, 68% of flagged luxury claims referred to results without supporting studies, the highest percentage noted among the analyzed groups.

These findings are increasingly relevant as generative AI tools are used for product research. Unlike dermatologists who consider a patient's specific needs, consumer-facing AI systems may rely on the verifiability of information from brand websites and marketplaces. If these sources contain unsupported or outdated information, an AI-generated suggestion may reflect those limitations.

While the report does not imply that AI shopping tools provide inaccurate recommendations, it highlights vulnerabilities in the information sources from which both consumers and AI derive product claims. M11’s analysis serves as a point-in-time assessment based on brands active in the UK market, utilizing multiple AI models to evaluate claims. The results indicate that confidently presented claims online do not guarantee supporting evidence, a key takeaway for dermatology clinicians and consumers alike.