United Kingdom · CAP Code · landing pages

Non-comedogenic claims on UK landing pages — CAP literacy

Blemish-prone skincare and makeup landing pages use non-comedogenic heroes beside oil-free and dermatology badges. Shoppers often read the term as a promise of clear skin rather than a formulation descriptor tied to testing. This guide helps UK marketers inventory non-comedogenic strings on live URLs. Not ASA clearance and not legal advice.

Not ASA clearance. Not legal advice. CiteBefore inventories advertising claims and evidence columns. The ASA decides complaints.

Free scan  ·  £29 Register  ·  £79/mo Watch

Non-comedogenic vs other skin claims

Acne-prone skincare landing pages stack non-comedogenic badges with oil-free, fragrance-free and dermatology icons. Shoppers often treat non-comedogenic as a guarantee of clear skin rather than a formulation descriptor.

CAP Code 3.7 treats many composition and performance claims as objective — marketers inventory exact wording before paid social scales.

Cross-read hypoallergenic claims, fragrance-free claims, and paraben-free claims.

Common non-comedogenic patterns

StringShopper readRegister note
Non-comedogenic / non comedogenicWill not block poresCheck hyphenation variants in feeds
Won't clog poresColloquial equivalentLog plain-English paraphrases
Comedogenicity testedImplies protocolCapture test name if stated
Acne-friendly formulaHealth-adjacentCross-read health claims guide
Non-comedogenic makeupCategory-specificSeparate row from skincare hero

INCI and claim alignment

Ingredient lists may include heavy esters while heroes say non-comedogenic — formulation sign-off should sit in evidence folders even when not printed on-page.

Dermatologist recommended lines do not automatically substantiate non-comedogenic claims — separate register rows.

See dermatologist recommended claims and clinically proven green claims checklist.

Worked example

PDP bullet: “Non-comedogenic serum for blemish-prone skin.” Before/after module shows cleared acne in fourteen days. Literacy notes:

Common misreadings

Desk checklist

CheckPass hint
Hero vs INCI review recordedFormulation sign-off on file
Test method named if usedOn-page or linked spec
Before/after separatedBefore/after URL guide
Marketplace feed loggedSeparate row from PDP
Agency paraphrase controlledAgency handoff guide

Promotional crossover

Free gift with purchase tiles may attach sample sachets with different comedogenicity profiles — variant-level rows prevent overclaim.

Limited time offer modules beside non-comedogenic heroes must not imply clinical outcomes without evidence.

See free gift with purchase claims and limited time offer claims.

Subscription and pricing modules

Subscribe-and-save copy sometimes drops non-comedogenic on renewal emails — log lifecycle messages separately from landing page hero.

Installment buy-now-pay-later badges concern credit, not pore claims — do not merge substantiation folders.

See subscription auto-renewal claims and BNPL claims.

Post-launch rescans

Reformulation without copy updates is a common CAP risk — schedule rescans after any emollient system change.

Star rating review count claims must not imply non-comedogenic proof unless reviews are substantiated — see star rating guide.

See star rating claims and claim register template.

Retail pharmacy and clinic context

Pharmacy landing pages may place non-comedogenic beside medicinal product licensing — keep cosmetic claims in the advertising register even when pharmacists endorse ranges.

Clinic locator modules that imply dermatologist supervision do not extend non-comedogenic proof to every SKU listed — log clinic copy separately.

See pH-balanced claims and silicone-free claims.

Mineral oil and talc crossover

Mineral-oil-free heroes on the same range do not substantiate non-comedogenic claims — inventory separate rows for each free-from string.

Talc-free powder marketing on adjacent categories must not imply shared comedogenicity testing unless evidence covers both lines.

See mineral-oil-free claims and talc-free claims.

Register hygiene reminder

Log hyphen and non-hyphen spellings of non-comedogenic in marketplace feeds — search indexes treat them as separate strings.

Archive screenshots when retailers request softer won't clog pores language — capture approved alternatives as their own register rows.

Preservative-free heroes on sister SKUs do not extend non-comedogenic substantiation — log cross-links without merging evidence columns.

See preservative-free claims when free-from modules stack on the same landing page.

Cruelty-free and vegan tiles concern ethics and origin — they do not substantiate pore claims without their own evidence folders.

Questions

Is non-comedogenic the same as oil-free on a landing page?

No. Oil-free describes absence of oils; non-comedogenic claims concern pore clogging. Inventory separate register rows.

Must non-comedogenic claims cite a test method?

Many pages use the term without naming comedogenicity testing. Log whether a protocol, score or dermatologist statement appears on-page.

Does CiteBefore run comedogenicity tests?

No. CiteBefore inventories visible advertising copy. Formulation testing remains your R&D team's task.

Can non-comedogenic apply to makeup and skincare differently?

Product format affects shopper expectations. Log category beside each string in the register.

Do sample sachets inherit non-comedogenic from the bottle PDP?

Promotional samples may use different formulas — capture sample URLs separately.

Try free scanPricing

All guides: /guides/.