At first glance, skincare among children and adolescents may seem like one of the more harmless social media trends. Learning basic hygiene habits is certainly desirable, while an interest in cosmetics can be a form of play, creativity and bonding with peers or parents. There are also educational workshops where teenage girls, under professional guidance, make simple skincare and hygiene preparations suited to the needs of their age group, while learning about responsible ingredient selection and safe use. The problem begins when that interest develops into elaborate skincare routines, the use of active ingredients intended for adult skin and exposure to commercial messages that children are not yet able to assess critically.
This raises the question of whether we are dealing merely with a passing cosmetics trend or with a more sophisticated form of exploitation of children’s vulnerability. Here, the child is not exploited through physical labour, but simultaneously becomes a marketing tool, a distributor of the commercial message and the target audience to whom the product is sold. This is precisely why such exploitation appears harmless at first: it is concealed behind attractive packaging, entertaining videos, a sense of community and the illusion of free choice.
It is particularly troubling that a very young content creator with a smaller but highly engaged following – a so-called micro-influencer – does not appear to another child as a paid advertiser, but as a trusted peer.
The psychological consequences may be profound. Children learn that their normal face is an unfinished project; that pores, skin texture and the first blemishes are flaws to be corrected; and that acceptance and belonging depend on buying products and performing a routine correctly. Skincare then ceases to be hygiene, play or a pleasant ritual and becomes a means of controlling one’s appearance.
What is cosmeticorexia?
Cosmeticorexia, also known as dermorexia, refers to a culturally reinforced preoccupation or obsession with achieving ‘flawless’ skin. It can lead to excessive, age-inappropriate or compulsive use of cosmetic products and aesthetic procedures.
The concept was explored in greater detail in 2026 in the specialist journal Dermatology and Therapy by clinical psychologist Alberto Stefana of Italy’s National Institute of Health and dermatologist Giovanni Damiani of the University of Milan. Cosmeticorexia is not currently recognised as a mental disorder, nor are there standardised diagnostic criteria for it. Nevertheless, the authors consider that it may represent a clinically relevant problem warranting clearer definition, standardised assessment and epidemiological monitoring.
Its core features include a gradual increase in the time and money invested in routines, anxiety or distress when they cannot be performed, and reliance on skincare as a means of regulating emotional states. This pattern may persist despite skin irritation, financial burden or psychosocial difficulties.
The phenomenon is further encouraged by the portrayal of normal skin features as problems that need to be treated or corrected, alongside the growth of a market for cosmetic products presented as having medicine-like effects and social media platforms that reward content centred on skincare routines and physical appearance. The boundary between skincare and treatment becomes increasingly blurred, while normal skin features are more frequently presented as problems for which there is a corresponding product.
Emerging evidence suggests that exposure to such content and the adoption of the behaviours it promotes are beginning at increasingly younger ages. Preadolescents and adolescents are especially susceptible to social comparison, the need to belong and appearance-focused content. Intensive social media use has been linked to greater concern about appearance, a less positive body image and maladaptive appearance-management behaviours.
For some people, skincare may become an avoidant coping strategy for dealing with unpleasant emotions. A routine may temporarily relieve anxiety while simultaneously maintaining the need to monitor the skin constantly and search for new flaws. Cosmetic practices themselves may cause or worsen visible skin changes, which then become a reason to introduce further products. This creates a self-reinforcing cycle: the more extensive the routine, the greater the potential for irritation, while irritated skin fuels further concern and expansion of the routine.
‘Sephora kids’ and routines costing hundreds of euros
The phenomenon known as ‘Sephora Kids’ refers to preadolescents and younger adolescents who, most often under the influence of social media, purchase products for elaborate routines and active ingredients intended to meet the needs of adult skin. These include retinoids, exfoliating acids, serums and anti-ageing products whose suitability for this age group is seriously questioned by dermatologists.
The scale of this trend was demonstrated by the study Pediatric Skin Care Regimens on TikTok, published in Pediatrics in 2025 by Molly Hales, Sarah Rigali, Amy Paller, Walter Liszewski and Tara Lagu. The research team analysed 100 videos posted by 82 content creators aged between 7 and 18 years.
Approximately one-third of the videos were posted by children aged 13 or younger, while the remainder were posted by creators aged 14 and over. All but one were girls or young women. The videos were most often filmed at bedroom dressing tables or bathroom sinks, and a typical routine contained one or more cleansers, toners, serums and moisturisers. Sunscreen appeared far less frequently. Glow Recipe, Bubble, Drunk Elephant and The Ordinary were particularly overrepresented.
The most common format was ‘Get Ready With Me’, accounting for 52% of the videos analysed. While applying products, the girls discussed their plans and daily activities, allowing the cosmetics routine to blend naturally into content that did not resemble conventional advertising.
In a further 20% of videos, the products, their order and the way they were applied were the main focus. Evening and ‘after-school’ routines accounted for 16% of the content, while videos entitled ‘Sunday Skin Care’ or ‘Sunday Reset’ featured more elaborate and time-consuming practices, such as applying masks.
Nine ‘Mommy and Me’ videos were particularly revealing: mothers and daughters applied cosmetic products together, with the daughter most often instructing the mother in the correct order and method of use. This almost symbolically reverses the traditional relationship: instead of learning a hygiene habit from an adult, the child becomes the product expert and the bearer of a consumer trend.
A total of 260 different products were identified in just 100 videos. The most common active ingredients were alpha-hydroxy acids, including citric, lactic and glycolic acid, and vitamin-based ingredients such as niacinamide, tocopherol and panthenol.
The routines contained an average of six products and cost an average of USD 168, or approximately EUR 146. The most expensive and time-consuming routines included more than ten products with a total value exceeding USD 500, or approximately EUR 435.
Among the 25 most-viewed videos, the most frequently featured product was the hydroxy-acid toner Glow Recipe Watermelon Glow BHA+PHA Pore-Tightening Toner. A 150-millilitre bottle cost USD 35, or approximately EUR 30. Only one-third of the most-viewed videos featuring this toner also included sunscreen.
Overall, only 26.2% of the routines analysed included sun protection. This represents a significant missed opportunity, particularly for the youngest users, who do not need anti-ageing ingredients or elaborate routines but could genuinely benefit from consistent protection against UV radiation.
The study also found that the most-viewed routines contained an average of 11 potentially irritating active ingredients, with some containing as many as 21. The problem does not necessarily lie in any single ingredient, but in applying multiple products at the same time, repeating the same active ingredients at different stages and creating cumulative skin exposure.
In one video, a reaction developed on camera. A young girl applied 14 products to her face, with a total value of almost USD 350, or approximately EUR 305. By the end, the skin on the upper part of her face was visibly red and inflamed. Although she praised the resulting ‘glow’, she also admitted that she did not know what was happening to her skin and asked for help because her face was burning intensely and causing considerable pain.
That scene captures the entire paradox: visible inflammation is interpreted as a desirable ‘glow’, while a painful reaction becomes almost a minor inconvenience in the performance of the routine.
The research team also found that these routines are time-consuming. In some videos, girls wake as early as 4:30 a.m. to complete their elaborate morning skincare before school. The routine is no longer a casual hygiene habit, but an activity around which sleep and everyday obligations are organised.
Is the skin barrier of children really immature?
Discussion of cosmetics for children should be grounded in the actual physiology of the skin. Children’s skin gradually matures during the first years of life, while prepuberty and puberty bring a new change – not because the skin barrier becomes ‘immature’ again, but because hormonally driven sebum production leads to oilier skin and the development of acne.
In a study published in 2017, Fanqi Kong, Carlos Galzote and Yuanyuan Duan compared skin properties in healthy children of different ages – from one to ten years – with those of their mothers. Each age group included approximately 29-30 children. The researchers assessed the clinical appearance of the skin, transepidermal water loss, moisture content and water-holding capacity on the face, forearm and lower leg.
The skin barrier of younger children was more permeable than that of older children and adults, but permeability-related values approached those of adult skin by approximately five years of age. Clinically, the skin of younger children was softer, smoother and generally in better condition than that of older children and their mothers, while softness and smoothness gradually decreased with age.
The mothers had a higher measured skin moisture content than the children, although the authors noted that prior use of moisturising products, as well as the site and method of measurement, may have influenced this result. Overall hydration of children’s skin increased with age, primarily because barrier maturation reduced transepidermal water loss.
The study shows that the greater skin sensitivity of preadolescents and adolescents cannot simply be attributed to an ‘immature skin barrier’. At that age, a greater concern is the unnecessary cumulative use of numerous potentially irritating active ingredients.
What does young skin really need?
According to the American Academy of Dermatology, basic skincare for preadolescents should be based on gentle cleansing, moisturising as needed and daily sun protection. The face may be washed once or twice a day, while a single evening cleanse may be sufficient for dry or sensitive skin. Harsh cleansing and introducing too many products too early may cause irritation.
The turning point comes with hormonal changes during prepuberty and puberty. Increased sebum production can lead to an oilier complexion, clogged pores, blackheads and acne. Only then may skincare acquire an additional, targeted function that corresponds to the skin’s actual needs.
In the European cosmetics context, a salicylic acid product may be introduced as needed for oily skin, clogged pores, and mild blemishes. Salicylic acid may cause dryness and irritation, which is why appropriate moisturising remains an important part of skincare. New products should be introduced one at a time and gradually so that their tolerability can be assessed. This is not a universal recommendation for all teenagers: skin without blemishes does not require an active ingredient simply because a child has entered puberty.
Severe, persistent or inflammatory acne, as well as lesions that leave scars or dark marks, require assessment by a dermatologist and, where necessary, treatment with medicines. Acne treatment should not be equated with a cosmetics routine or devised independently on the basis of social media recommendations.
The AAD does not recommend retinol, vitamin C or exfoliating acids intended to treat wrinkles, signs of photoageing and uneven pigmentation as part of routine skincare for children and adolescents, because they target concerns their skin generally does not have. A retinoid or salicylic acid may be justified when there is a dermatological indication, but the decision to use it should then be left to a dermatologist.
Puberty does change the needs of the skin, but it does not turn a child’s bathroom into an anti-ageing cosmetics department. Gentle cleansing, moisturising as needed and sun protection are sufficient for preadolescents. As sebum production increases and blemishes appear, salicylic acid may be introduced selectively. The active ingredient then addresses a genuine skin need rather than a social media trend.
Cosmeticorexia under regulatory scrutiny
In March 2026, the Italian Competition Authority, Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato, opened two investigations into Sephora, Benefit Cosmetics and affiliated LVMH companies over possible unfair commercial practices associated with the premature use of adult cosmetics by children and adolescents, including those under the age of 10 or 12.
The investigations concern not only the products themselves, but also the possible encouragement of compulsive purchasing of face masks, serums and anti-ageing creams, covert marketing through very young micro-influencers, and insufficiently clear or potentially misleading information about whether the products are intended for or tested on minors. The concerns relate particularly to information available online and in Sephora stores, and to the Sephora Collection and Benefit Cosmetics product lines.
The Italian authority warned that the frequent and combined use of a wide range of products without an adequate understanding of how they should be used may harm the health of minors. A marketing strategy involving very young micro-influencers and encouraging compulsive purchasing among young people, a particularly vulnerable group, was considered especially problematic.
The investigations have not yet been concluded and the liability of the companies involved has not been established. Nevertheless, their very initiation signals an important shift in perspective: cosmeticorexia is no longer exclusively a dermatological and psychological concern, but also an issue of protecting underage consumers, covert advertising and industry responsibility.
The responsibility of adults
The exploitation of children does not always take the form of physical labour in harsh conditions. In the digital environment, it can be far more subtle: a child simultaneously becomes a product promoter, content that attracts attention and a consumer to whom the product is sold. Commercial benefit is derived by exploiting children’s developmental vulnerability, their need to belong and their still limited ability to recognise covert advertising. This form of exploitation may leave no visible physical traces, but it can have a lasting impact on self-esteem, the relationship with one’s own body and patterns of consumption.
I must admit that I see a ruthless commercial and marketing game here, one in which children become a means of achieving visibility, recognition and, ultimately, profit. The moral responsibility lies with us adults, who are capable of recognising manipulation – from regulatory authorities and the cosmetics industry to parents.
At the same time, it must be acknowledged that, for some families, creating social media content may offer a way out of difficult socioeconomic circumstances. Parents may justify it as an attempt to provide better living conditions for their children, which is in itself a legitimate aim. However, a legitimate intention does not justify turning a child into a marketing tool and a source of income.
Society’s sensitivity to child labour has deep historical roots. Poor families once survived by sending their own children to work, and in some parts of the world this practice continues today, although it is often ignored. Digital exploitation of children cannot simply be equated in severity or circumstances with physical child labour, but it rests on a disturbingly similar principle: adults derive economic benefit by using children’s vulnerability, labour, privacy or influence over their peers.
What disturbs us so deeply about the exploitation of children is not only their vulnerability, but the deliberate exploitation of an unequal power relationship. Children have not yet fully developed the ability to think critically, recognise covert manipulation or understand the long-term consequences of their own exposure. Their natural need for belonging, imitation and approval can therefore easily be turned into a means of making money.
We are particularly troubled when children’s naivety and innocence – qualities that we adults have gradually lost over the course of our lives for various reasons – are exploited by the very people and institutions that should protect them. A child may agree to participate, but that consent is not equivalent to the fully informed and independent decision of an adult, particularly when the child is both emotionally and materially dependent on the adults making the decisions.
Cosmetics manufacturers should therefore seriously consider stating clearly that products intended for adults are not intended for children, particularly when they contain active ingredients that do not meet the needs of children’s skin. The market and patterns of cosmetics use are changing, and safety assessments, communication and labelling must keep pace with the actual and reasonably foreseeable behaviour of consumers. This is the very least that every manufacturer and Responsible Person can do.
Such a warning, however, cannot substitute for responsible conduct by the industry. If the packaging states that a product is not intended for children while very young influencers simultaneously promote it to their peers, the warning becomes a mere formality. Genuine protection of children begins only when adults stop turning their naivety, trust, privacy and need to belong into a market advantage.
References:
- Stefana A, Damiani G. Cosmeticorexia: What It Is, Where It Comes from, and Why It Matters. Dermatology and Therapy. 2026;16(3):1445–1449. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13555-026-01685-2.
- Hales M, Rigali S, Paller AS, Liszewski W, Lagu T. Pediatric Skin Care Regimens on TikTok. Pediatrics. 2025;156(1):e2024070309. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2024-070309.
- Kong F, Galzote C, Duan Y. Change in Skin Properties over the First 10 Years of Life: A Cross-Sectional Study. Archives of Dermatological Research. 2017;309(8):653–658. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00403-017-1764-x.
- American Academy of Dermatology. A Dermatologist’s Guide to Skincare from Growing Up to Glowing Up. Published 28 October 2025. Available at: https://www.aad.org/news/dermatologist-guide-skincare (accessed 2 August 2026).
- Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato. PS13110 – Italian Competition Authority Launches Investigations into Sephora, Benefit Cosmetics and LVMH Profumi e Cosmetici Italia. Rome, 27 March 2026. Available at: https://en.agcm.it/en/media/press-releases/2026/3/PS13110 (accessed 2 August 2026).
