In a ruling issued on 27 May 2026, the ARB found that La Roche-Posay's claim that it is the "No. 1 recommended brand by South African dermatologists" was adequately substantiated. However, it partially upheld the complaint after finding that a dermatologist's social media post referencing "acne" breached the Cosmetics Advertising Code.
The decision follows the ARB's April ruling in which it dismissed a complaint by L'Oréal against Beiersdorf's Eucerin brand, finding that Eucerin's own "No.1 dermatologist recommended" claims were supported by credible market research. Together, the rulings highlight a growing reality in skincare marketing: competing brands can both lay claim to being number one, provided they can produce robust evidence to support their position.
At the centre of the latest dispute was a coordinated La Roche-Posay social media campaign featuring influencers, dermatologists and paid partnerships carrying variations of the claim that the brand is South Africa's most recommended skincare brand among dermatologists.
Beiersdorf argued that the claim was unsubstantiated and misleading, pointing to its own research, which it said showed Eucerin as the leading recommendation among dermatologists. L'Oréal responded with evidence from a four-year dermatology barometer conducted by Ipsos, a SAMRA-accredited research agency. The latest wave of the study surveyed 141 private-practice dermatologists between October 2025 and January 2026 and concluded that La Roche-Posay was the most recommended dermocosmetic brand among respondents.
The ARB accepted the research, together with an independent review by veteran researcher Schalk van Vuuren, as sufficient substantiation. It found that the evidence was current, independently verified and held by the advertiser before the campaign launched.
In doing so, the Directorate echoed observations from the earlier Eucerin case, noting that different surveys conducted at different times and using different methodologies can legitimately produce different market leaders in a highly competitive category.
While L'Oréal emerged largely victorious, the company did not escape entirely unscathed.
A dermatologist who had received a congratulatory gift from the brand published a social media post referring to acne. The ARB found that because acne is a recognised medical condition, the reference amounted to an impermissible medical claim under the Cosmetics Advertising Code.
Importantly, the Directorate rejected L'Oréal's argument that it could not be held responsible for wording created by third parties. The ruling reinforces the regulator's increasingly strict approach to influencer and creator marketing, holding that brands remain accountable for claims made by individuals who receive gifts, incentives or other forms of commercial benefit.
The ARB ordered L'Oréal to instruct the dermatologist to remove or amend the post.
