ARB Ruling Upholds Eucerin Advertising Claims In Dispute Over Dermatologist Endorsements

This ad was submitted in the complaint. Source: ARB.

Challenging claim

The ruling, issued on 22 April 2026, concludes that Beiersdorf met the requirements of the Code of Advertising Practice, including provisions relating to substantiation, misleading claims, and the use of dermatologist endorsements.

At the centre of the dispute were four claims used across Eucerin’s advertising between November 2025 and February 2026, including “SA’s No.1 Dermatologist Recommended Brand” and category-specific variants for even tone, acne-prone skin and sun protection.

L’Oréal challenged the claims on the basis that they were unsubstantiated and misleading, arguing that Beiersdorf relied on an undisclosed October 2025 market survey and failed to provide evidence during initial exchanges. The complainant also suggested that any such data would be outdated, pointing to its own (unsubmitted) research from February 2026 indicating different market leaders.

Beiersdorf, however, maintained that it held valid substantiation at the time the claims were made and that it was under no obligation to disclose supporting evidence to a competitor outside of formal ARB proceedings.

Market survey

In its defence, the company submitted a comprehensive market survey conducted by international research agency Mindline, supported by an independent review from a SAMRA-accredited expert. The study surveyed 152 dermatologists in South Africa — a sample the ARB accepted as statistically significant — and evaluated recommendations across both overall brand perception and specific skincare concerns.

The Directorate accepted the underlying research on a confidential basis, noting that it contained commercially sensitive information, but relied on a non-confidential expert summary to assess its validity.

Crucially, the ARB found that the timing of the research did not undermine the claims. While the advertising referenced an “October 2025” survey, fieldwork continued through to December 2025, with analysis completed in January 2026. The Directorate ruled that this timeline was sufficiently current to support advertising that ran between November 2025 and February 2026.

The Board also dismissed L’Oréal’s argument around more recent competing data, noting that the complainant had not submitted this evidence for consideration. It reiterated that the burden of proof lies with the advertiser to substantiate its claims — not with competitors to disprove them.

Interestingly, the ARB said this case leads to a broader industry reality: that competing surveys, conducted using different but valid methodologies, could produce different “#1” outcomes in a tightly contested category.

Ultimately, the ARB concluded that Beiersdorf’s claims were supported by credible, independent, and methodologically sound evidence, and therefore did not breach the Code. The complaint was dismissed.