On November 5, 2025, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) in the United Kingdom took decisive action against a wave of adverts for LED face masks, banning them for making unauthorized claims about treating acne and rosacea. The move comes at a time when at-home beauty devices have exploded in popularity, with social media feeds awash in influencers touting the latest high-tech skincare gadgets. But as the ASA’s crackdown reveals, not all that glitters in the world of beauty tech is backed by science—or by regulatory approval.
The surge in interest around at-home LED masks has been hard to miss. Scroll through Instagram or TikTok, and it’s easy to find videos of users—sometimes celebrities, often everyday people—donning glowing masks and promising clearer, more radiant skin. The devices, which use light-emitting diodes (LEDs) to bathe the face in various colored lights, have been marketed as the next big thing for tackling stubborn skin issues. But as the BBC reports, dermatologists are split on whether these at-home gadgets can really deliver the same results as the professional, medical-grade equipment found in clinics.
That skepticism is not without reason. According to the ASA, many of the claims made by brands promoting these devices cross a crucial regulatory line. In the UK, any device that claims to treat medical conditions—such as acne or rosacea—must be registered with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). Only those that appear in the MHRA’s Public Access Registration Database (PARD) are permitted to make such claims. The watchdog’s recent investigation, powered by artificial intelligence to scan for potentially rule-breaking ads, found several prominent offenders.
Among the most notable was Project E Beauty, whose website featured before-and-after images of a woman’s acne, accompanied by the testimonial: "By week three, my acne had disappeared." The advert further promised "Our most advanced LED mask for deeper skin renewal" and boasted of an "83% improvement in acne lesions in four weeks." The ASA was unequivocal in its response, stating that "no medical claims could be made for the product, whether or not such claims appeared in customer testimonials." Project E Beauty LLC responded by removing references to "healing," "treating acne," and "rosacea" from its marketing materials. The company also clarified that any mentions of acne in reviews or before-and-after photos were now clearly labeled as personal testimonials, not evidence of clinical efficacy.
Another high-profile case involved Silk’n, a brand whose paid social media advertisement showed a woman using an LED mask with the caption: "Finished with the blue light to help treat my acne and scars." Invention Works BV, trading as Silk’n, acknowledged that using the term "acne" in this context constituted a medical claim. The company explained that the advert was created by a real user after prolonged use of the mask and reflected her individual experience. Nevertheless, the ASA instructed Silk’n that such adverts must not appear again in their current form.
The sweep didn’t stop there. Beautaholics, a retailer promoting the RejuvaLux mask, claimed on its website that the device "provides targeted solutions for...acne...rosacea." After the ASA’s intervention, Beautaholics agreed to stop making any claims related to the treatment or prevention of medical conditions in future advertising. Luyors Retail Inc faced a similar fate; its paid social media ad promised to "tackle everything from acne...with clinical precision." Luyors also committed to ensuring that future advertisements would not reference "acne" or other terms that could be interpreted as medicinal claims.
Izzy Dharmasiri, a spokesperson for the ASA, highlighted the underlying problem: "Ads can have an influence on what people buy," she said. "It’s important that advertisers don’t blur the line between cosmetic benefits and medicinal claims." She added, "Advertisers need to have evidence to back up any claims they make in their ads." Dharmasiri emphasized that the ASA’s actions are part of a broader effort to protect vulnerable consumers "seeking genuine solutions to medical problems." For people struggling with persistent skin conditions, misleading marketing can be more than just an annoyance—it can foster false hope and lead to wasted money, or worse, a delay in seeking proper medical advice.
So, what’s the science behind these glowing masks? LED therapy, in general, is thought to stimulate skin cells and promote improvements in skin health. Different wavelengths—such as blue or red light—are believed to target various concerns, from acne-causing bacteria to inflammation. However, as dermatologists have repeatedly told the BBC, there’s a significant gap between theory and proven results, especially when it comes to at-home devices. The main issue? There simply haven’t been enough large-scale, long-term clinical trials to confirm that these consumer-grade gadgets deliver on their promises.
Medical-grade LED devices used in clinics are subject to rigorous testing and oversight, and even then, results can vary from person to person. At-home versions, while often more affordable and accessible, lack the same level of scrutiny. Without robust evidence, claims that a mask can "treat" or "heal" specific skin conditions are, at best, premature—and at worst, misleading. That’s why the MHRA’s registration process is so vital. It ensures that any device making medical claims has been properly assessed for both safety and efficacy. Consumers can check the MHRA’s Public Access Registration Database to verify whether a product is officially recognized for medical use.
The ASA’s recent use of artificial intelligence to scan for problematic adverts marks a new chapter in the ongoing battle against misleading health and beauty claims online. With the sheer volume of content generated by brands and influencers alike, manual monitoring is no longer enough. AI tools can sift through thousands of posts, videos, and images to flag potential violations more efficiently than ever before. Still, as this latest crackdown shows, human oversight remains essential to interpret the context and ensure that companies don’t simply repackage old claims in new guises.
For now, the message from regulators is clear: cosmetic devices can promise a glow, but not a cure. Advertisers must tread carefully, ensuring that their marketing stays firmly on the right side of the law. As the beauty tech boom continues, consumers would do well to approach bold claims with a healthy dose of skepticism—and, when in doubt, seek advice from qualified medical professionals rather than influencers or glossy adverts.
The crackdown on misleading LED mask ads is a timely reminder that, in the fast-moving world of beauty technology, evidence and transparency matter just as much as innovation and style.
