Cosmeticorexia: when skincare starts too early

In the most-watched videos, they are called get ready with me. A little girl sits in front of the mirror and shows her routine: cleanser, toner, serum, essence, cream, mask, eye cream. Sometimes she is seventeen. Sometimes she is seven.

The phenomenon has a technical name, cosmeticorexia, and since March 2026 it also has an open case file: the Italian Competition Authority has launched two investigations specifically into this issue. It is one of the first cases in Europe in which cosmetic marketing aimed at minors has come under such explicit scrutiny.

Cover image generated with the support of artificial intelligence.

[INDICE:h2]

The Italian investigation

On March 27, 2026, the Italian Competition Authority announced the opening of two investigative proceedings involving a major international cosmetics retailer, a makeup brand belonging to the same group, and the Italian subsidiary of the French luxury giant that controls them.

The allegation concerns possible unfair commercial practices linked to children's and adolescents' early use of adult cosmetics, including those under ten to twelve years old, with encouragement to compulsively purchase face masks, serums, and anti-ageing creams. The basis appears to be the omission or misleading presentation of relevant information (warnings and precautions regarding cosmetics not intended or tested for minors), both online and in physical stores. The Authority also mentions the involvement of very young micro-influencers. The inspections were carried out with the Guardia di Finanza's Special Antitrust Unit.

One necessary clarification: these are investigations, not a decision. The companies involved have confirmed that they were informed of the proceedings and have said they are cooperating, maintaining that they operate in compliance with the rules. No one has established that they violated anything. The significance of the news does not lie in the name on the case file: it lies in the fact that an authority decided this issue merits a case file.

The TikTok study's figures

In terms of data, there is one study I find more useful than any controversy. It was published on June 9, 2025, in Pediatrics, the journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, by a group from Northwestern University.

The method is smart because it starts with the algorithm: two researchers created accounts stating that they were thirteen years old and collected the first one hundred skincare routine videos suggested by the platform, made by creators between seven and eighteen years old.

• Each video had an average of 1.1 million views.
• The routines included an average of six products, with an average cost of $168. Some exceeded $500.
• Only 26.2% of the videos included sun protection.
• The twenty most-viewed videos featured an average of eleven potentially irritating active ingredients, with a maximum of twenty-one.
• Twenty of the ingredients present appear in the reference series used in paediatrics for allergy testing for contact dermatitis.

The authors' conclusions are straightforward: these routines offer the minors they target little or no benefit, and may expose them to harm.

«If anti-ageing starts at ten, ageing becomes a threat before it even exists.»

The risk is not only dermatological

When it comes to the skin, the problem is clear: layering several products with the same active ingredients (especially alpha hydroxy acids and retinol) increases irritation, photosensitivity, and the risk of sensitisation. An allergic contact dermatitis that develops at twelve can affect a person throughout their life, and later involve soaps, shampoos, and detergents too.

There is, however, a second aspect that concerns me more. The study's authors observed that these videos insist on an ideal of lighter, brighter skin, setting a very high beauty standard. And the products promoted most are not cleansers or sunscreens: they are anti-ageing serums and creams.

A ten-year-old girl has no wrinkles to prevent, pores to tighten, or discolouration to correct. She has skin that works. Teaching her to look every day for what is wrong is a cultural act, not a cosmetic one, and its effects last much longer than redness.

Playing with makeup is not the same thing

I want to be precise, because it is easy to slip into moralism here. Children have always imitated adults, and makeup can be play, expression, and creativity. Trying on lipstick in front of the mirror is play, not a risk.

The difference lies between playing and correcting. Blush used for fun and a daily nine-step routine with acids, retinoids, and fragrances do not raise the same issue. In the first case, the skin is a space for play. In the second, it is a problem to optimise.

Why peers sell better than advertising

An eleven-year-old micro-influencer does not look like an advertisement. She speaks the same language as the people watching, shows her bedroom, and turns a purchase into an act of belonging rather than a transaction. What is more, the platform reduces the distance between desire and purchase to a few seconds: you see the product, watch the routine, and buy without leaving the app.

That is why transparency about commercial relationships carries twice the weight here. Sponsored content does not become neutral because it is presented by someone very young: it simply becomes harder to recognise as advertising.

What young skin really needs

There is no universal routine, but in the absence of specific conditions, the picture is simple and has not changed:

1. Gentle cleansing, when needed. Not three times a day.
2. Moisturising, if the skin is dry or feels tight. If it does not feel tight, it is often unnecessary.
3. Sun protection, which is the step with the best-documented long-term benefit, and is precisely what is missing from roughly three out of four videos.

Acne, dermatitis, and other real conditions require targeted advice from a dermatologist who examines that particular skin. Not a sequence copied from a feed.

My take

This is not a battle against skincare: that would be strange, given what I do for a living. It is a question of how we talk about it.

The mechanism that leads a little girl to buy an anti-ageing serum is the same one I described when discussing fear of chemicals: anxiety is created, and the solution is sold. The only difference is that here the target is ten years old and does not have the tools to recognise what is happening.

For those who develop and sell cosmetics, this entails a concrete responsibility: telling people who do not need something that they do not need it. Giving up a sale is the most serious way I know to build trust. And trust, unlike a sale, comes back.

Cosmeticorexia does not begin with a jar. It begins when care becomes control, play becomes performance, and the algorithm repeats often enough that normal skin is incomplete.