Advertising use of before-and-after depictions for hyaluronic acid injections legally prohibited
The Higher Regional Court of Hamm made a decision on October 15, 2024 (Case No. 4 UKI 2/24) that affects the advertisement of aesthetic treatments with hyaluronic acid injections. The focus of the proceedings was the admissibility of before-and-after images in the promotion of corresponding cosmetic services.
Regulations according to the Therapeutic Products Advertising Act
§ 11 HWG as a standard for advertising statements
The Therapeutic Products Advertising Act (HWG) explicitly prohibits advertising with before-and-after images for operative and invasive procedures in § 11 Para. 1 No. 5 HWG, unless these measures are purely cosmetic. What is decisive here is whether the relevant service is equivalent to a treatment serving medical purposes.
Classification of hyaluronic acid injections
According to the jurisprudence, hyaluronic acid injections, as minimally invasive treatments, are considered medical interventions within the meaning of § 11 HWG. Their promotion using pictorial representation of the results in a before-and-after comparison is therefore subject to the advertising ban to prevent undue influence on potential patients.
Decision of the Higher Regional Court of Hamm
Facts and judicial evaluation
In the underlying case, a practice operating in the field of aesthetic medicine advertised online with pairs of images documenting an optical change after a lip injection with hyaluronic acid. The OLG Hamm viewed this as a violation of the HWG regulations, as presenting such image comparisons could misleadingly influence individuals considering such treatments.
The court determined that depicting treatment results side by side for advertising purposes is suitable for reinforcing subjective expectations and making an objective discussion of potential risks or limitations of the treatment more difficult. The court believes that the economic interests of the providers take a backseat to the public interest in protection against inappropriate influence.
No exception for generally accepted procedures
The ruling illustrates that even for common, frequently performed minimally invasive cosmetic procedures, the advertising ban for before-and-after images applies. An exception in terms of professional freedom of practice does not arise, according to the OLG Hamm, either from the acceptance of the method or from the degree of invasiveness.
Future impacts on advertising concepts
Significance for providers of cosmetic treatments
With the ruling, it is expected that providers will need to be more mindful of creating legally compliant advertising statements, especially where pictorial representations are used to visualize perceived results. The risk of costly warnings in the event of non-compliant HWG advertising is likely to increase.
Keep track of ongoing developments
It should be noted that court decisions in the field of advertising law are subject to continuous development. The present judgment of the OLG Hamm is based on the relevant legislation and jurisprudence at the time of the decision (Source: https://urteile.news/OLG-Hamm_4-UKI-224_Keine-Werbung-mit-Vorher-Nachher-Bildern-fuer-Unterspritzung-mit-Hyaluronsaeure~N34449). The legal status and any further legal remedies should be derived from the current procedural status.
Conclusion and outlook
The judgment of the Higher Regional Court of Hamm illustrates the strict standards for advertising aesthetic procedures with hyaluronic acid injections from the point of view of consumer protection and transparency. For companies offering these services, compliance with advertising regulations is becoming increasingly important.
In addressing specific questions regarding the design of advertising appearances and marketing measures in the context of cosmetic procedures, early clarification in competition law can be beneficial. Further information on individual legal clarification is provided by MTR Legal under legal advice in competition law.
