Free from claims on cosmetics are one of the most common compliance failures in the EU, and the reason is counterintuitive. The problem is usually not that the claim is untrue. Paraben free products really do contain no parabens. The problem is that the claim is unfair to a legally permitted ingredient, and fairness is one of the six common criteria every cosmetic claim has to meet.
That criterion is what makes paraben free, silicone free and sulphate free difficult to defend on an EU pack, while alcohol free and fragrance free remain acceptable. This guide sets out the legal basis, works through the claims brands actually use, and explains what to do with artwork and marketplace listings that already carry them.
Key takeaways
- Cosmetic claims are governed by Regulation (EU) 655/2013, which sets six common criteria: legal compliance, truthfulness, evidential support, honesty, fairness and informed decision making.
- The Commission technical document on claims includes specific guidance on free from claims and treats most of them as failing the fairness criterion.
- Paraben free is the textbook example of a claim to avoid, because it denigrates a group of preservatives that are legally permitted and assessed as safe within their limits.
- A free from claim about a prohibited substance, such as free from corticosteroids, is not acceptable either, because compliance with the law is not a selling point.
- Free from animal derived ingredients and alcohol free remain acceptable, because they support genuine consumer choice rather than attacking another ingredient.
- Any free from claim has to be true including traces and impurities, so it depends on supplier declarations rather than on your own batch sheet.
- Hypoallergenic is not a free from claim and carries its own evidential burden, since it can never mean zero risk of reaction.
Where the rule comes from
Article 20 of Regulation (EC) 1223/2009 says that cosmetic labelling, presentation and advertising must not attribute characteristics or functions the product does not have. Regulation (EU) 655/2013 then sets the common criteria that every claim must satisfy, and a Commission technical document explains how those criteria apply in practice, with a dedicated annex on free from claims.
The two criteria that catch free from wording are fairness and informed decision making. Fairness means a claim must not denigrate competitors or ingredients that are legally used. Informed decision making means the claim has to help the consumer choose, not confuse them with information that has no bearing on safety or performance.
None of this is enforced through a pre-approval process. Nobody checks your artwork before launch. It is enforced by market surveillance authorities, by competitors through unfair competition and advertising law, and increasingly by marketplaces applying their own listing rules. That is why the risk shows up months after launch, usually as a complaint rather than as an inspection.
Claim by claim
The table below reflects how the technical document and national authorities treat the most common wording.
| Claim | Position | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Paraben free | Not acceptable | Denigrates legally permitted preservatives assessed as safe within Annex V limits |
| Free from corticosteroids | Not acceptable | The substance is prohibited anyway, so the claim implies a benefit over compliant products |
| Silicone free, sulphate free, mineral oil free | Usually problematic | Same fairness issue, unless the wording is neutral and supports a genuine choice |
| Alcohol free | Acceptable | Supports informed choice for consumers who avoid alcohol, provided no ethanol is present |
| Fragrance free or perfume free | Acceptable | Relevant to consumers avoiding fragrance sensitisers, provided no fragrance is added |
| Free from animal derived ingredients | Acceptable | Supports a lifestyle choice and does not attack another ingredient |
| Hypoallergenic | Acceptable only with strong evidence | Requires substantiation and cannot promise no reaction at all |
The distinction running through the table is simple once you see it. A claim that helps a consumer avoid something for their own reasons is fine. A claim that implies another legal ingredient is dangerous is not.
Why paraben free became the standard example
Parabens are permitted preservatives with concentration limits set in Annex V after scientific review. Some, such as methylparaben and ethylparaben, are among the best characterised preservatives available. Marketing them as something to be avoided implies that products containing them are unsafe, which is exactly what the fairness criterion prohibits.
There is a practical dimension too. The move away from parabens pushed formulators towards a narrower set of alternatives, some of which have caused their own problems. Methylisothiazolinone, adopted widely as a paraben replacement, went on to be prohibited in leave-on products after a wave of contact allergy. A claim that steers consumers away from a well characterised ingredient is not automatically good for them.
Do not solve this by moving the claim off the pack and onto your website or a marketplace listing. Article 20 and Regulation (EU) 655/2013 cover labelling, presentation and advertising, which includes your product pages, social posts and influencer briefs. Enforcement action against online claims is now more common than action against printed packs.
Free from has to be true all the way down
Where a free from claim is acceptable, it still has to be accurate at trace level, not just at formulation level. Three sources of failure recur:
- Carriers and diluents. Many actives arrive dissolved in ethanol or in a glycol. An alcohol free claim fails if the extract you added at 1% is a 30% ethanol solution.
- Fragrance in raw materials. Botanical extracts and some functional ingredients carry fragrance constituents. A fragrance free claim needs supplier confirmation, particularly for the allergens covered by our guide to fragrance allergen labelling.
- Shared production lines. Cross contamination from a previous batch can leave traces of the ingredient you have excluded. This matters most for animal derived and allergen claims, and it belongs in your good manufacturing practice records.
All three are supplier questions, so the evidence for a free from claim usually lives in declarations rather than in analysis. Collect them before launch and keep them in the product information file, because the substantiation has to be available for inspection.
What to say instead
The useful reframing is to describe what the product is rather than what it is not.
- Name the system you used. Preserved with a plant derived system. Formulated with a mineral UV filter. This is factual, substantiable and not comparative.
- Describe the benefit. Suitable for fragrance sensitive skin, if you hold the evidence. Lightweight finish without silicones can usually be rephrased as a texture claim.
- Use neutral suitability wording. Suitable for vegans, where you can back it, is safer than free from animal ingredients and reads better.
- Keep certification marks separate from claims. A third party certification logo carries its own rules and does not exempt you from the common criteria.
If your range leans on environmental positioning as well, note that the rules there tightened separately. Our article on greenwashing and green claims covers the ban on generic environmental claims and what has to change on existing artwork.
Fixing artwork you already have
Most brands discover this rule with stock in the warehouse. A workable approach:
- Inventory the claims across pack, cartons, leaflets, website, marketplace listings and paid ads. The listing copy is usually the fastest to fix and the most exposed.
- Rank by risk. Claims about prohibited substances and health implying free from wording come first, followed by ingredient denigration claims.
- Change digital first, then roll pack changes into the next artwork cycle rather than scrapping stock, unless an authority has raised the specific claim.
- Record the substantiation for every claim you keep, in the format expected in the product information file.
Bringing it all together
Free from marketing worked because it is easy to understand, and it is being retired because it works by implying that legal ingredients are unsafe. The EU position is consistent: tell the consumer what your product contains and what it does, support it with evidence, and do not build the pitch on the failings of an ingredient that passed the same safety assessment yours did.
In practice, the fix is rarely painful. Most free from claims can be rewritten as a positive statement about the formula that is easier to substantiate and better copy. The claims worth keeping, such as alcohol free and fragrance free, need supplier declarations that go down to trace level rather than a glance at the formula sheet.
Lexora reviews claim sets against the common criteria and checks pack artwork against the finished formula. Start with a cosmetic claims compliance check, or have the whole pack examined with a cosmetic label review.
Frequently asked questions
Is paraben free banned in the EU?
There is no article that bans the phrase, but the Commission technical document on cosmetic claims treats it as failing the fairness criterion of Regulation (EU) 655/2013, because it denigrates preservatives that are legally permitted and assessed as safe. In practice that means an authority can require you to remove it.
Can I say my product is free from a banned ingredient?
No. Claiming to be free from something that is prohibited for every cosmetic product implies an advantage over compliant competitors, which fails the fairness and informed decision making criteria. Compliance with the law is the baseline, not a selling point.
Is alcohol free still allowed?
Yes. It is one of the accepted examples, because it helps consumers who avoid alcohol for personal, religious or skin sensitivity reasons make a choice. The claim has to be true including alcohol contributed by extracts and carriers, so check every raw material rather than only the formula sheet.
Do these rules apply to my website and Amazon listing?
Yes. Article 20 covers labelling, presentation and advertising, so product pages, marketplace listings, social media posts and influencer content are all in scope. Online claims are now a common source of enforcement, and marketplaces increasingly police them under their own listing policies as well.
What evidence do I need for a fragrance free claim?
Written confirmation from every raw material supplier that their material contains no added fragrance and no fragrance constituents, plus your own controls against cross contamination on shared production lines. Keep the declarations in the product information file, because substantiation must be available to authorities on request.
Is hypoallergenic allowed on EU cosmetics?
It is allowed only with robust supporting evidence, and it can never imply that an allergic reaction is impossible. In practice you need to show that known sensitisers have been avoided as far as possible and that the assessment supports the claim, which is a much higher bar than a simple free from statement.
