"'Jobssal Care' Cosmetic Advertisement… Court: 'Risk of Misleading as Medicine, Disposition Justified'"

Seoul Administrative Court, Seocho-gu, Seoul. / Photo by Hyunmin Kim kimhyun81@

"Care solution for sensitive 좁쌀 skin" "Prevents 좁쌀 recurrence." (Advertisement slogan)

The Ministry of Food and Drug Safety's decision to impose advertising sanctions on a cosmetics company for using the term '좁쌀 care' in cosmetics advertisements, on the grounds that it could be misunderstood as having medicinal functions, has been upheld by the court.

On the 8th, according to the court, the Seoul Administrative Court Administrative Division 6 (Presiding Judge Lee Ju-young) ruled against the plaintiff in the first trial of the lawsuit filed by cosmetics manufacturer Company A against the Seoul Regional Ministry of Food and Drug Safety Director, seeking cancellation of the suspension order on advertising operations.

Previously, in 2017, Company A used the term '좁쌀 care' in advertisements while selling cosmetics on an online shopping mall. Other cosmetics advertisements also used phrases such as 'Effect of reducing the number of comedones (84%)'. The Ministry of Food and Drug Safety suspended the advertisements for two and three months respectively, stating that "there is a risk that consumers may mistake cosmetics for medicines."

During the trial, Company A argued that "'좁쌀' is a metaphorical expression related to skin texture and is not a term that can be mistaken for a specific disease such as acne," and that "advertisements by other companies using the term '좁쌀' were not considered misleading as medicinal products." They also claimed that the product advertised as having an 'effect of reducing the number of comedones' was advertised without their consent by the advertising agency.

However, the first trial court sided with the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety, stating that "the content could mislead general consumers into mistaking it for a medicinal product." It pointed out that "좁쌀 was used not simply to refer to damaged or sensitive skin but rather to imply skin lesions arising from it."

Regarding Company A's claim that "other companies' advertisements were not sanctioned," the court stated that "this is a claim of unequal application of the law, making it difficult to accept the claim itself." It also rejected the claim of 'unauthorized advertisement,' saying, "the fact that the plaintiff did not modify or supplement the existing advertisements suggests that they intended to continue using the existing advertisements as is, under their responsibility."

Furthermore, the court added, "The order only suspends advertising operations and does not suspend the sales operations themselves," and "the disadvantage suffered by the plaintiff due to this order cannot be considered significantly greater than the public interest achieved by the order."

Company A has appealed against the first trial ruling.