In New Zealand and Australia you can claim what a cosmetic does to the surface of the skin — hydrates, smooths, brightens, cleanses, protects. The moment a claim implies your product treats a condition, heals damage or changes a physiological process, it stops being a cosmetic in the eyes of the regulator and becomes a medicine (NZ) or a therapeutic good (Australia).
That single sentence is the most expensive thing most indie founders learn late. A well-formulated, fully compliant product can still be pulled from shelf, refused by a retailer, or land you a Commerce Commission warning letter — not because of what is in the bottle, but because of six words on the front of it.
What counts as a cosmetic claim in New Zealand and Australia?
Both countries define a cosmetic by what it is for, not what is in it.
In New Zealand, cosmetics sit under the Environmental Protection Authority's Cosmetic Products Group Standard, made under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. A cosmetic is a product applied to the external parts of the body mainly to clean, perfume, change appearance, correct body odour, protect, or keep in good condition.
Australia's definition is close to identical, and the Therapeutic Goods Administration draws the line the same way: a cosmetic acts on an external part of the body; a therapeutic good prevents, diagnoses, cures or alleviates a disease, ailment, injury or defect, or influences a physiological process.
So "visibly reduces the appearance of fine lines" is cosmetic. "Reverses sun damage" is not. "Helps keep skin hydrated and comfortable" is cosmetic. "Relieves eczema" is not. The verb is usually what gets you.
Which words push a skincare claim into therapeutic territory?
There is no official banned-word list, and anyone selling you one is oversimplifying. Regulators look at the overall impression — label, website, social posts, influencer scripts and before-and-after photos together. But in our experience these are the reliable red flags:
- Named conditions: eczema, psoriasis, acne (as a disease rather than "blemish-prone skin"), rosacea, dermatitis, fungal infection.
- Medical verbs: treats, cures, heals, prevents, repairs, restores, regenerates, anti-inflammatory, antibacterial, antimicrobial.
- Depth language: anything claiming to act below the surface — "penetrates to the dermis", "rebuilds collagen", "resets the skin barrier at a cellular level".
- Implied drug positioning: "clinically proven alternative to prescription retinoids", or dosing language like "apply twice daily for 12 weeks for results".
Sunscreen is its own category. In Australia, primary sunscreens are regulated as therapeutic goods by the TGA, not as cosmetics — a genuine trap for NZ brands assuming trans-Tasman symmetry. We cover this separately in our guide to sunscreen formulation in NZ and Australia.
What evidence do you need before you make a claim?
This is the part founders consistently underestimate. In New Zealand, section 12A of the Fair Trading Act 1986 makes an unsubstantiated representation unlawful — and critically, it does not matter whether the claim later turns out to be true. What matters is whether you had reasonable grounds at the time you made it. Australia's equivalent sits in the Australian Consumer Law, enforced by the ACCC.
The level of evidence scales with the boldness of the claim:
- Ingredient-level claims ("formulated with 5% niacinamide") — your formula card and certificates of analysis are usually enough.
- Sensory and appearance claims ("leaves skin feeling smoother") — a consumer perception panel, even a modest one, is the standard support.
- Efficacy claims ("reduces the appearance of wrinkles by 22%") — you need instrumental or clinical testing on your finished formula, not a supplier's study on the raw material.
That last distinction costs brands the most money. A supplier data sheet showing an active performed well at 10% in a simple gel is not evidence that your 2% emulsion does the same thing.
Do "natural", "organic" and "clean" claims need proof too?
Yes — and these are enforced more often than people expect, because they are easy for a competitor to complain about. Neither country has a legally binding definition of "natural" or "clean" for cosmetics, which does not make them safe. It makes them a Fair Trading Act risk, because you are still required to hold reasonable grounds for the impression you create.
"Organic" is different again: if you want to use it meaningfully, you need certification (BioGro or ACO, for example) against a defined standard and a defined percentage. Saying "organic skincare" when three of nineteen ingredients are certified organic is exactly the kind of claim that draws attention.
"Cruelty-free" and "vegan" are more defensible, provided you can evidence them down the supply chain — which means supplier declarations on every raw material, not just an assumption. Our studio is cruelty-free by default and we collect these declarations as part of formulation.
When does a claim change how your product is regulated?
Immediately, and retrospectively. In New Zealand, a product carrying a therapeutic claim is captured by the Medicines Act 1981 regardless of what you call it. In Australia, a single therapeutic claim can pull an otherwise ordinary moisturiser into the TGA's remit, with registration obligations, manufacturing standards and advertising rules that no indie launch budget is built for.
Worth noting for 2026 planning: New Zealand's Therapeutic Products Act 2023 was repealed rather than brought into force, so the Medicines Act framework remains the operative one. If you are building a multi-year regulatory plan, confirm the current position before you commit — this is an area that has moved more than once.
Separately, your ingredients are regulated whatever you claim. Australian brands still need to meet AICIS obligations, and NZ brands the Group Standard — see our guide to NZ cosmetic regulations and product safety compliance.
How do we handle claims at The INCI Lab?
We treat claims as a formulation input, not a marketing afterthought. If you tell us at brief stage that you want to say "soothes reactive skin", we can often design the formula and the supporting testing to earn a compliant version of that claim — which is far cheaper than reformulating or reprinting labels later.
Claims review is built into the compliance stage of the Pathfinder Framework across our pathways: The Accelerator (semi-custom, 4–6 months, starting from around NZ$2,000) and The Visionary (bespoke from scratch, 9–12 months, starting from around NZ$4,000, with full IP transferred to you before manufacturing). MOQs run from 100 to 500 units depending on the pathway, and we prepare documentation for NZ, Australian, EU and US markets.
If you just need a second opinion on wording you have already drafted, Ask The Chemist is a 30-minute consult from NZ$150 — usually the cheapest compliance decision a founder makes.
Frequently asked questions
Can I say my skincare is "anti-ageing" in New Zealand or Australia?
Generally yes, if you frame it cosmetically — "reduces the appearance of fine lines" rather than "reverses ageing". You still need reasonable grounds for the claim, which usually means consumer perception or instrumental testing on your finished formula.
Is "dermatologically tested" a regulated claim?
It is not a protected term, but it is a factual claim you must be able to evidence. You need documentation of the actual test, who conducted it, and on what. If it was a 20-person patch test, do not let your packaging imply a clinical trial.
Do I need clinical trials to launch an indie skincare brand?
No. Most indie launches are supported by safety assessment, stability testing and preservative efficacy testing rather than clinical studies. Clinical or instrumental testing only becomes necessary when you want to make measurable performance claims.
What does claims-supporting testing typically cost?
It depends entirely on the claim. As a reference point, preservative efficacy (challenge) testing runs at NZ$1,200 per formula — that is a safety requirement rather than a claims test, but it gives a sense of scale. Consumer perception panels and instrumental efficacy studies sit well above that. See our overview of testing and certification support in NZ and Australia.
Who actually enforces cosmetic claims?
In New Zealand, the Commerce Commission enforces the Fair Trading Act, Medsafe handles therapeutic classification, and the EPA administers the Cosmetic Products Group Standard. In Australia, the ACCC covers misleading claims, the TGA covers therapeutic goods, and AICIS covers ingredient introduction.
Can I fix a non-compliant claim without reformulating?
Often, yes. Many claim problems are wording problems, and a rewrite plus the right supporting evidence resolves them. Reformulation is only needed when the claim was structural to the product concept — for example, an actives level that cannot support the performance you have promised.
Planning a launch in New Zealand or Australia and unsure what you can say? Bring us your draft claims early. Explore our formulation pathways or book a consult and we will tell you honestly which claims are defensible, which need evidence, and which need to go. If you are based across the Tasman, see how we handle cosmetic formulation for Australian beauty brands.
This article is general guidance for cosmetic brand founders, not legal advice. Regulatory positions change — confirm current requirements with the relevant regulator or a regulatory consultant before you print labels.
