Science-Washing in Beauty & Wellness: The Hidden Threat

In a world drowning in jargon —“clinically proven,” “scientifically tested,” “dermatologist-approved”— a subtle deception is gaining ground: science-washing. This is not greenwashing (misleading environmental claims), but a sibling tactic: dressing up marketing in the garb of science. The effect is the same: consumers believe a veneer of legitimacy that may lack real grounding.

To receive the Luxiders Newsletter, sign up here.

The rise of Science-Washing

In a world obsessed with “scientifically proven” products, a new form of deception has quietly taken over: Science-Washing. It’s when brands borrow the language, symbols, and credibility of science to make their products sound more effective —or ethical— than they really are. Just as “greenwashing” hides behind sustainability claims, science-washing hides behind the white lab coat.

According to a report by wissenschaftskommunikation.de, science-washing can be defined as “a deliberate action to simulate scientific practices or quality assurance to deceive others.” In beauty, wellness, and nutrition industries, this looks like vague claims —clinically proven, dermatologist-tested, scientifically formulated— that often lack any independent evidence. A 2024 study by Foley & Lardner LLP, highlighted that many beauty companies misuse scientific language to gain credibility without transparency. These tactics have become more common as consumers, especially younger ones, seek proof, performance, and purpose. The irony: the more people demand science, the more brands fake it.

a black woman using natural skincare — © Leighann Blackwood via Unsplash

a white skincare product against science-washing — © Birgith Roosipuu via Unsplash

Why Science-Washing harms Gen Z

Science-washing isn’t just a clever marketing trick. It’s a manipulation that disproportionately affects Gen Z, and specially women, two of the most targeted and digitally connected consumer groups.

Gen Z lives on social media, where short videos, influencer claims, and sleek “lab-style” branding dominate. Phrases like “clinically backed” or “proven formula” can quickly go viral, spreading a sense of legitimacy that few stop to verify.

According to Science in Poland, many consumers struggle to distinguish genuine research from pseudo-scientific marketing. When “science” is presented in a polished, simplified form, it’s easy to trust –especially when it promises beauty, youth, or wellness–. For women, the consequences go beyond wasted money. Products marketed as “clinically proven” anti-aging creams or hormonal balancers may contain ingredients with unverified or even risky effects. The false promise of “scientific security” can mask genuine danger.

The more consumers are deceived, the harder it becomes to trust real science. As marketing exploits the language of research, it blurs the line between fact and fiction —and undermines confidence in scientists, studies, and even medicine itself.

Clean Skincare vs Science-Washing Skincare — © Unsplash

Scandals that exposed fake science

Sephora’s “Clean at Sephora” lawsuit. In 2024, Sephora faced a class-action lawsuit claiming its “Clean at Sephora” label misled customers into believing products were entirely free of synthetic or harmful ingredients. The court dismissed the case, but it sparked global debate about how retailers define “clean” or “scientific.” In 2023, a plaintiff (Lindsay Finster) filed a class-action lawsuit alleging that Sephora’s Clean at Sephora line misleadingly implied that its products were free from all synthetic or harmful ingredients —even though some contained ingredients that consumers might interpret as inconsistent with “clean.” In March 2024, a U.S. district court dismissed the complaint, noting that the plaintiff failed to show that “reasonable consumers” would be misled and that Sephora had made explicit or implied promises beyond what was defined in its “clean” standard. The case revealed the vagueness around terms like “clean” and how courts may defer to the brand’s defined boundary (Sephora stated its “clean” excludes certain ingredients like phthalates or formaldehyde, not all synthetics). So, even a major retailer can face claims over ambiguous scientific language and be held accountable for clarity in marketing.

PFAS in “safe” cosmetics. Major brands including L’Oréal and Coty have been accused of marketing products as “clean” and “eco-friendly” while containing PFAS, or “forever chemicals,” linked to health risks. PFAS are chemical compounds that resist degradation and have been linked to health concerns. There have been class-action and fraud claims alleging that beauty or makeup products, especially “waterproof” and long-wear formulas, contain PFAS not disclosed to consumers. For example, a lawsuit called Waterproof Makeup PFAS claims that some cosmetics contain PFAS not listed in ingredients and that manufacturers misrepresented safety. As regulatory scrutiny heightens, cosmetic companies must reckon with the gap between “safe / non-toxic” marketing and the reality of chemical testing and disclosure. href=”https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/beauty-products-meet-forever-chemicals-challenge–pracin-2025-09-22/” target=”_blank” rel=”noopener”>Reuters recently noted that PFAS litigation is a growing risk for the personal care industry. So claims of “clean,” “safe,” or “non-toxic” must face the test of actual chemical analysis, not just marketing promises.

Hair relaxers and hidden health risks. L’Oréal’s “Dark & Lovely” hair relaxers have been at the center of lawsuits alleging that long-term use caused uterine cancer and reproductive health issues. Plaintiffs argue the company marketed safety with a scientific sheen while ignoring mounting evidence of harm. In late 2022, a wave of lawsuits shook the beauty industry, exposing one of its most unsettling realities: the long-term health consequences of chemical hair relaxers marketed to women—especially Black women—under the banner of safety and scientific formulation.

At the heart of the controversy is L’Oréal’s “Dark & Lovely” brand, a household name for decades in textured-hair care. The products were advertised as clinically tested, gentle, and safe for regular use, often endorsed with dermatological or scientific overtones. Yet, behind this language, plaintiffs allege a pattern of neglect.

According to consolidated cases filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, women who used these relaxers for years developed uterine cancer, endometriosis, and other reproductive health disorders. The lawsuits cite a 2022 National Institutes of Health (NIH) study that found women who used chemical hair straighteners frequently were more than twice as likely to develop uterine cancer compared with non-users.

The plaintiffs claim that L’Oréal and other manufacturers ignored or concealed this growing body of evidence, choosing instead to continue marketing their products as “scientifically advanced” and “dermatologist-tested.” Critics argue that this is a textbook case of science-washing — leveraging the authority of scientific language to shield commercial interests and perpetuate racialized beauty standards.

In response, L’Oréal has denied wrongdoing, stating that its products are safe when used as directed. However, the lawsuits have amplified broader conversations about toxic exposure, racial inequity, and the misuse of scientific credibility in beauty marketing. For many, the case highlights a deeper moral question: when does “tested” stop meaning “safe,” and start meaning “marketed”?

“Clinical” beauty without clinical proof. A number of high-end skincare brands, including Sunday Riley and Drunk Elephant, have faced backlash for promoting “clinical-grade” results based on selective or unpublished data. Some cited ingredient-level studies as proof of full-formula effectiveness —a classic science-washing tactic. The term clinical carries an aura of legitimacy. It evokes laboratories, controlled trials, and white-coated experts. But in today’s beauty industry, clinical-grade has become as much a marketing adjective as a scientific one — and several luxury skincare brands have come under scrutiny for blurring that line.

Take Sunday Riley and Drunk Elephant, two cult-favourite skincare brands that rose to fame on social media. Both built reputations around being clean, science-driven, and results-oriented. Their packaging speaks the language of chemistry: peptides, acids, antioxidants. Their websites refer to “clinically proven results” and “lab-tested formulas.” Yet, investigations and consumer watchdogs have pointed out that most of these claims rely on ingredient-level studies — tests performed on single active ingredients, not the full product formulas. For instance, a peptide or vitamin C compound may show benefits in isolation, but once mixed with other ingredients (and preservatives, fragrances, or stabilisers), those effects can diminish or interact unpredictably.

This selective citation is a hallmark of science-washing. It creates a veneer of credibility by invoking scientific evidence that doesn’t truly apply to the marketed product. Unlike pharmaceuticals, cosmetics are not required to publish clinical data, which leaves ample room for vague phrases like clinically tested or proven results. Sunday Riley has also faced a separate reputation blow after a 2019 U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) settlement over allegedly faking online product reviews to boost sales on Sephora’s website. While that case wasn’t directly about science-washing, it deepened consumer skepticism about authenticity and honesty in “clinical beauty.”

Drunk Elephant, for its part, has been praised for ingredient transparency yet criticised for bold “clinical-level” claims unsupported by published research. Experts have noted that “clean” or “biocompatible” branding is not the same as scientific validation—it’s a semantic play, often meant to appeal to health-conscious, science-trusting consumers without requiring scientific proof. The problem isn’t innovation; it’s the illusion of it. True clinical validation involves independent, peer-reviewed testing on full formulations, not ingredient fragments or brand-funded microtrials. Until beauty companies embrace that standard, “clinical-grade” will remain more of a promise than a proof.

For an industry that prides itself on innovation, the next real breakthrough won’t come from another molecule or miracle serum —it will come from truth.

How to spot Science-Washing

To spot Science-Washing, you have to be skeptical of words like “clinically proven”, “scientifically tested”, or “dermatologist-approved” if no study is linked or cited. Check for independent research, not brand-funded tests; look for ingredient transparency and full INCI lists; and last but not least, favour brands that explain their process, not just their promises.

Science-washing is not just marketing —it’s manipulation. It preys on our desire for facts, certainty, and control. When brands fake science, they don’t just sell false hope; they erode public trust in science itself.