Adverts from six companies promoting liquid Brazilian butt lifts (BBLs) have been banned by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) in the UK. The reason given was for trivialising surgical risks and exploiting women’s insecurities about their body image. The advertisements appeared primarily on Facebook and Instagram. They featured what the ASA described as aggressive marketing tactics, such as time-limited deals, which they claim were deemed to irresponsibly pressure consumers into making rush decisions about cosmetic procedures.
A liquid Brazilian butt lift (BBL) is a cosmetic procedure that involves injecting dermal fillers into the buttocks. The aim is to enhance the size and shape. Traditional surgical BBLs transfer fat from other parts of the body. Liquid BBLs rely solely on injectable fillers to create a fuller, more rounded appearance.
Despite appearing less invasive, liquid BBLs still carry significant risks, including infections, swelling. But the worst part comes in the form of complications from improper injection techniques. But how is it possible for a non-surgical treatment to be more dangerous than a surgical procedure, you might ask. And rightly so.
Well, apart from the risk of multiple injections, and just one going wrong, surgical treatments are offered in hospitals or appropriately equipped medical facilities. Non-surgical treatments on the other hand, require only a fraction of the requirements, meaning that if anything were to go wrong during a Liquid BBL procedure, admission to hospital, would be the only option. The lack of resources to treat an emergency is what really heightens the risk.
The ASA emphasises that liquid BBLs still carry significant medical risks. These include, but are not limited to, infections, and should therefore be promoted responsibly. The watchdog criticised the ads for downplaying these dangers. They claim that they presented cosmetic enhancements as routine, risk-free, and essential for personal happiness and wellbeing.
One of the offending advertisements enticed customers by promoting an “exclusive opportunity” to achieve a “perfect peachy look”. This is phrasing the ASA described as socially irresponsible. Another ad promised “safe and effective body filler treatments” with “beautifully natural results”. The ASA says misleadingly suggesting a guarantee of safety. A further advert falsely claimed a 0% infection rate and minimal pain, both statements deemed again misleading by the ASA.
The banned advertisements were identified using artificial intelligence tools, which proactively scan online platforms for potentially problematic content. Beautyjenics, Bomb Doll Aesthetics, and CC SkinLondonDubai failed to respond to inquiries from the ASA. A lack of cooperation the watchdog described as displaying an “apparent disregard” for the advertising code.
In contrast, Rejuvenate Clinics responded positively, committing to removing time-sensitive promotions and explicitly highlighting the medical oversight involved in their procedures. EME Aesthetics contested the ASA’s judgement, stating all their clients receive comprehensive consultations without pressure. Dr Ducu acknowledged the ASA’s concerns, clarifying that their promotional offers were intended solely to make treatments more financially accessible. He insisted that customers were always encouraged to make informed, pressure-free decisions.
The ASA reiterated the principle that marketers must not exploit consumer insecurities or imply that happiness depends on conforming to specific body standards. This has been their red line and stance for many years now. This action follows recent warnings from health officials and the government regarding the serious health implications associated with Brazilian butt lifts. Brought to the limelight by a case where a woman required emergency hospital treatment after undergoing the procedure in Glasgow. In that case the Glasgow City Council, banned several clinics and a practitioner in the city from offering the procedure.
Health Secretary Wes Streeting has additionally advised caution regarding cosmetic procedures. He has been particularly warning Britons against travelling abroad for treatments advertised as overly attractive deals. Currently, there is no specific UK law governing who can perform liquid BBL procedures or where they can be carried out.
The government has indicated ongoing plans to introduce appropriate regulations in this increasingly challenging area of cosmetic enhancement. A large part of the problem contains clinics with unqualified staff performing dangerous procedures. Organisations such as Save Face, have long been protesting and advocating for bans and regulations to limit the risks. However none of these regulations are yet to see the light of day as both industry professional and consumers await for more protections.
Are they ever to come? And at what cost?
