Cosmetic Packaging Advertising Law: 4 Categories of Prohibited Words in Practice—3 Real Cases of Print Shops Penalized Only After Production

Last November, a cosmetics contract manufacturer in Wuxi approached us saying they had been fined ¥50,000 by the market regulator because the packaging of a brand's face mask they produced on contract had the words "medical skincare" (医学护肤品) printed on it.The market regulator's position: cosmetics are not drugs, and the expression "medical skincare" implies a medical effect, violating Articles 17 and 18 of the Advertising Law.

The client immediately sent us the penalty notice with one accompanying line: "You printed the packaging—why didn't you tell us in advance that these words couldn't be printed?"

That one sentence is the hardest question to answer in the cosmetic packaging business.

The Advertising Law Regulates Not "Who Printed It," but "Who Disseminated It"

Let's clarify the legal boundary first.The Advertising Law divides responsibility among three parties: the "advertiser, advertising operator, and advertising publisher." Print shops are typically identified as the "advertising operator" or "advertising producer" in this chain, bearing responsibility for the "design, production, and agency" stages.But the actual "violating entity" is the "advertiser"—the cosmetics registrant or filing person.

The problem is: when penalties are imposed, the market regulator doesn't fine only the brand.The print shop, as the producer that "knew or should have known" the advertising content was illegal, will be jointly pursued.The two words "should have known" are the biggest trap—they imply that "by industry convention you should have known this type of word cannot be printed;since you didn't remind the client, it's your responsibility."

Practical Identification of 4 Categories of Prohibited Words

The prohibited words most likely to cause problems on cosmetic packaging can be grouped into 4 categories.Under each category I list real cases encountered when taking orders, and how print shops should remind clients when they receive such manuscripts.

Category 1: Medical Terminology

"Medical skincare," "medicinal cosmetics," "medicinal," "treatment," "anti-inflammatory," "antibacterial," "anti-inflammatory," "sterile," "medical grade"—these words are absolutely prohibited on cosmetic packaging, regardless of how the brand explains them.

Article 8 of the 2021 NMPA “Cosmetic Labeling Management Measures” clearly states: cosmetic labels must not bear “false or misleading content.”" Medical terminology implies the product has a medical effect and is the category most easily identified as "misleading."

The Wuxi case fell into this category.The cost of the four words "medical skincare" was ¥50,000 in fines + confiscation of illegal gains + product removal and packaging redo.The packaging redo cost ¥28,000, totaling nearly ¥80,000 that this client spent on those four words.

Category 2: False Efficacy Claims

"Anti-aging," "anti-wrinkle," "spot-removing," "acne-removing," "hair-growth," "slimming," "fat-reducing," "body-shaping," "DNA repair," "cell regeneration," "7-day spot lightening," "3-day acne removal"—any efficacy not included in the cosmetic category rules, or whose claims exceed the product's category scope, constitutes false efficacy claims.

The cosmetic category rules (Classification Rules and Catalogue of Cosmetics, 2021) divide efficacy into 26 categories: cleansing, makeup removal, beautification, fragrance, deodorization, anti-wrinkle, firming, soothing, oil control, exfoliation, body cooling, sun protection, repair, cleansing...etc.Each product may only claim efficacy within its own category.

A common pitfall manuscript seen at print shops: the client's product is a "moisturizing" emulsion, but the manuscript has "anti-wrinkle" printed on it.This is "out-of-scope promotion."

Category 3: Comparative/Absolute Terms

"Best," "finest," "number one," "top-grade," "ultimate," "permanent," "thorough," "100%," "all-natural," "pure plant," "no additives," "zero preservatives," "zero irritation"—these are the absolute terms explicitly prohibited under Article 9 of the Advertising Law, regardless of context.

"No additives" (无添加) has been one of the most common pitfall absolute terms in recent years.What the client means is "no preservatives, fragrance, or pigments added," but once the three characters "no additives" are printed on the packaging, the market regulator will identify them as suggesting 'other cosmetics have additives, but we don't'—creating a comparative implication that constitutes an absolute term.

The first reaction of a print shop seeing such terms should be: recommend the client change them to specific descriptions.For example, change "no additives" to "no preservatives added (not present in the ingredient list)," and change "100% all-natural" to "ingredients derived from natural plant extracts."

Category 4: False "Third-Party Endorsements"

"Recommended by dermatologists," "hospital clinically verified," "developed by XX university professor," "celebrity favorite," "endorsed by XXX"—before such content is printed on packaging, there must be genuine and valid supporting documentation;otherwise it constitutes false advertising.

Among the typical cases published by the market regulator in 2023, a brand's face mask was printed with "recommended by dermatologists" and was deemed unable to provide "which specific doctors recommended it" or "what research the recommendation was based on"—fined ¥30,000.

3 Real Cases of Print Shops Being Fined

Case 1: A print shop in Jiangsu in 2022 printed packaging for a brand's sunscreen, which had "medical-grade sun protection" printed on it.The market regulator deemed the print shop "should have known" medical terminology cannot be used on cosmetics—fined ¥20,000.The client (brand) was fined ¥80,000.

Case 2: A print shop in Guangdong in 2023 printed face mask packaging with "anti-aging" printed on it, but the face mask was filed under the "moisturizing" category.The market regulator deemed it false efficacy claims—the print shop was fined ¥15,000.The client (brand) was fined ¥60,000.

Case 3: A print shop in Zhejiang in 2023 printed essence packaging with "recommended by dermatologists," but the brand could not provide a doctor recommendation agreement.The print shop was fined ¥10,000 and the client ¥40,000.The client countersued the print shop for "failure to fulfill the duty to remind," and the court ultimately ruled the brand bears primary responsibility, but the print shop bears 20% joint compensation (approximately ¥8,000).

The common thread in all three cases: the print shop was fined every time, but the proportion of liability differed.In Case 3, the print shop bore 20% joint compensation because the court determined the print shop "did not formally require the brand to provide a written prohibited-words self-check commitment" when taking the order.

3 Client Confirmation Points Print Shops Must Review Before Taking Orders

First: Whether all "adjectives" in the manuscript trigger absolute terms.This step is the print shop's design/typesetting team's responsibility—as long as words like "most," "ultimate," "100%," "permanent," "thorough" appear in the manuscript, the client must provide written confirmation before printing.

Second: Whether all "efficacy claims" fall within the product's filed category.This step requires the client to present the "cosmetic filing information" to check whether the corresponding efficacy expression exists in the filed category.

Third: Whether all "third-party endorsements" have supporting documentation.If the client says "our company has a doctor cooperation agreement," the client must provide a copy of the agreement or a written commitment letter from the brand, committing that "any advertising law disputes arising from third-party endorsements shall be borne entirely by the brand."

1 Responsibility-Sharing Template

In the contract or email confirmation for cosmetic packaging orders, print shops are advised to include the following:

"Party B (print shop) has, in accordance with industry convention, provided written reminders regarding content in the manuscript that may violate the Advertising Law and related regulations—including absolute terms, medical terminology, false efficacy claims, and third-party endorsements.Party A (brand) confirms the manuscript content is true and lawful, and commits to bearing all legal liability arising from the advertising content.If administrative penalties are imposed due to the manuscript content, Party B reserves the right to seek compensation from Party A for fines, confiscations, and disposal losses already incurred."

This is not an overreaching clause—it is industry convention.Jiangsu's 2023 Guidelines for Compliant Business Operations in the Printing Industry explicitly states that printing enterprises should include advertising content compliance review clauses in their contracts.

The Print Shop's "3 Red Lines"

Red line 1: When medical terminology appears in the manuscript—no matter how the client says "this isn't a medical effect" or "this is just an adjective"—the print shop must advise deletion or rewording.

Red line 2: When absolute terms with comparative implications like "no additives" or "all-natural" appear in the manuscript, the print shop must advise the client to change them to specific ingredient descriptions.

Red line 3: When third-party endorsement content appears in the manuscript but the client cannot provide supporting documentation, the print shop must formally refuse to print.

Print shops are not legal departments and cannot review every compliance matter for them.But print shops bear "should have known" responsibility—industry convention tells you which words cannot be printed, and if you don't remind, it's your responsibility.That Wuxi client who was fined ¥50,000 later placed a second order with us, but required us to "clearly state in the contract that our brand is responsible for compliance." This requirement is entirely reasonable—compliance is inherently the brand's responsibility, but the print shop must pin down that responsibility in black and white.

Further Reading

If the client is making children's cosmetics, the “Cosmetic Supervision and Administration Regulations” impose stricter requirements on children's cosmetics—see 3 Categories of Cosmetic Packaging Regulations Implemented in Dense Succession.If the client is making toothpaste-style cosmetic packaging, the “Cosmetic Labeling Management Measures” have separate labeling requirements for toothpaste—see 4 Categories of Cosmetic Label Identification Standards.If the client is making cosmetic packaging for export to the EU, the REACH regulation has additional requirements for ingredient labeling—see 4 Categories of EU Compliance Requirements for Cosmetic Packaging.For printing requirements on the cosmetic packaging filing number, see 3 Categories of Regulatory Requirements for Cosmetic Filing Number Printing.