Purpose The purpose of this paper is to provide a comparative legal review of how India and the USA regulate cosmetic advertising and labeling to protect consumers. It aims to analyze the similarities and differences in statutory frameworks, enforcement mechanisms and the role of regulatory authorities such as CDSCO, FDA and FTC. The paper also explores how misleading claims and deceptive marketing affect consumer trust and public health. Ultimately, it seeks to identify best practices and propose recommendations for improving transparency, ethical compliance and cross-border harmonization of cosmetic regulations. Design/methodology/approach This study adopts a qualitative, descriptive and comparative methodology. It is based on a review of existing legislation, regulatory guidelines and published literature from government portals, peer-reviewed journals and official acts including India’s Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and the U.S. Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. Case-based analysis and secondary data sources are used to examine regulatory enforcement, labeling requirements and advertising restrictions in both jurisdictions. No primary data or empirical surveys were conducted, as the paper focuses on analyzing existing frameworks and identifying regulatory gaps and policy implications. Findings The study finds that both India and the USA share the common objective of ensuring truthful labeling, product safety and consumer protection. India’s regulatory approach emphasizes strict labeling and advertising control under CDSCO and the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The USA relies on the FDA and FTC for compliance and enforcement but faces challenges with “clean beauty” and self-regulated marketing terms. Despite structural differences, both systems increasingly focus on transparency, ethical marketing and consumer awareness. The findings suggest that harmonized international labeling standards could enhance regulatory efficiency and consumer confidence. Research limitations/implications This paper is limited to a comparative legal analysis based on secondary sources and statutory materials from India and the USA. It does not include empirical or quantitative data collection, nor does it cover the European Union or other jurisdictions. Future research could extend to cross-border advertising case studies, consumer perception surveys or comparative analysis of enforcement outcomes. Despite these limitations, the study provides valuable insight into the structure and evolution of cosmetic regulation and offers a foundation for further policy research on global harmonization and ethical compliance. Practical implications The review provides regulators, policymakers and cosmetic manufacturers with a clearer understanding of how advertising and labeling laws can be aligned to enhance consumer trust. It highlights the importance of accurate product representation, regulatory consistency and awareness campaigns to prevent deceptive marketing. Businesses can use these insights to strengthen compliance strategies, while regulators can refine oversight mechanisms and consumer grievance processes. Academically, the paper contributes to the field of regulatory affairs and consumer law by identifying actionable steps toward harmonized global frameworks for fair and transparent cosmetic advertising. Originality/value This paper contributes original comparative insight into how two major markets – India and the USA – approach cosmetic advertising and consumer protection. Unlike previous studies that address national policies in isolation, this review integrates cross-jurisdictional perspectives and highlights emerging ethical and regulatory challenges. The work adds value to existing literature by combining legal, managerial, and ethical viewpoints, offering both academic and practical relevance. It provides a strong reference point for future research in international regulatory affairs, consumer policy and the global standardization of cosmetic labeling and advertising laws.
K. et al. (Mon,) studied this question.