Impossible “glass skin” advertising

Some social media accounts promote products using models with impossibly smooth, poreless and highly reflective skin. The final effect can look less like healthy skin and more like someone has poured oil over the face.

The problem is not the phrase “glass skin” itself. It is advertising that exploits perfectly normal insecurities about pores and texture, then implies that a cosmetic can produce poreless, texture-free skin. Hydration and a temporary increase in surface glow are realistic cosmetic outcomes. Erasing normal skin structure is not.

In many demonstrations, layer after layer of product is applied to manufacture a wet finish for the camera. That does not show what one product will achieve when used normally, particularly when the promoted formula is not primarily designed for hydration.

Brands covertly infiltrating online communities

Beauty brands entering online communities to leave fake reviews and manufacture hype is not new. What stood out in 2024 was the number of Korean beauty brands appearing to use staff, influencers or paid participants to name-drop products in Facebook groups, subreddits and comment sections without disclosing the connection.

The practice can range from fake customer reviews to undisclosed advertising. It is particularly damaging in spaces where people ask for personal recommendations and reasonably assume that replies come from genuine customers rather than brand employees or incentivised reviewers.

These practices can breach advertising and consumer-protection rules. Brands outside K-Beauty have also faced enforcement, including Sunday Riley in the United States. The Asian Beauty subreddit has also maintained a list of brands banned from its community for business-rule violations.

Deceptive and unfair product claims

Misleading beauty claims are neither new nor unique to Korea. The additional difficulty for international K-Beauty consumers is that regulatory decisions in Korea are usually reported in Korean. Enforcement involving a globally popular brand may therefore receive little attention in English-language beauty media.

The episode discusses a brand that had been challenged by Korean regulators over the way it advertised a ginseng serum. It also draws a parallel with the Korean sunscreen controversy of 2020, when some developments involving brands popular outside Korea received comparatively limited attention within the country.

Advertising sunscreens where they do not meet local requirements

Sunscreen rules differ significantly between markets. In the United States, sunscreens are regulated as over-the-counter drugs. In Australia, many primary sunscreens are regulated as therapeutic goods. A product sold legally as a cosmetic in Korea is not automatically approved for advertising and sale as a sunscreen in every other country.

The episode considers the promotion and distribution of Korean sunscreens in the US and Australia without the relevant local compliance. It also discusses a case in which the Australian account of a Korean beauty brand acknowledged that its Korean SPF 50+ rating would be closer to SPF 30+ under the Australian testing standard, despite the product continuing to circulate with the original claim.

Non-compliant products may not be subject to the same local pre-market or post-market requirements as properly listed products. This leaves consumers with less visibility if a formulation, test result or label presents a problem. It also disadvantages the businesses that invest the time and money required to enter a regulated market correctly.