Italy Opens Probe into Sephora and Benefit After Allegations Their Social‑Media Marketing Fuels “Cosmeticorexia” Among Preteens

Key Highlights:
Introduction
What Italian Regulators Say and What They Searched For
How Brands Reach Children: Micro‑Influencers, Algorithmic Trends and “Get Ready With Me”
Cosmeticorexia: What the Term Means and Why It Matters
Health Risks of Age‑Inappropriate Skincare: Dermatologists’ Concerns
How Law and Policy Interact with Influencer Marketing: Italy, Europe and Beyond
Industry Practices: Where Marketing Meets Vulnerability
Platforms’ Role: Algorithms, Age Verification and Content Moderation
Practical Steps for Parents, Schools and Clinicians
Potential Legal and Commercial Consequences for Brands and Retailers
International Responses and the Likelihood of More Probes
Where Science, Public Health and Commerce Intersect
Scenarios to Watch: What Might Happen Next
The Broader Cultural Conversation: Appearance, Agency and Commercial Pressure
What to Watch in the Coming Months
FAQ

Key Highlights:

Italian competition authorities and the Guardia di Finanza have launched an investigation into LVMH‑owned Sephora and Benefit Cosmetics for allegedly promoting skincare products to children as young as 10–12 years via covert social‑media campaigns and micro‑influencers.
Regulators say the marketing may have encouraged “compulsive” use of multiple cosmetic products by minors, a behavior linked to the recently named phenomenon “cosmeticorexia” (also called dermorexia), and failed to clarify products were not intended or tested for children.

Introduction

Regulators in Italy have turned the spotlight on how global beauty brands market to minors, opening what officials describe as the first European probe into marketing practices accused of stoking an unhealthy preoccupation with flawless skin among children. The investigation targets Sephora, the international beauty retailer owned by LVMH, and Benefit Cosmetics, also part of the luxury group, after evidence surfaced that the brands used targeted social‑media content and very young micro‑influencers to promote a wide array of skincare items to girls in late childhood and early adolescence.

The inquiry raises intersecting questions about modern influencer advertising, the duty of brands and retailers to protect vulnerable consumers, the physiological risks of age‑inappropriate skincare use, and the responsibilities of platforms that amplify youth‑oriented beauty routines. The case also marks a moment when regulators confront a psychological trend—cosmeticorexia—that medical literature and concerned parents have started naming and documenting. The outcome could reshape how cosmetics companies approach marketing and how policymakers balance commercial speech, child protection, and public health.

What Italian Regulators Say and What They Searched For

Italy’s competition and market authority (AGCM) announced a formal probe into suspected “unfair commercial practices” by Sephora Italy and Benefit Cosmetics, alleging the brands directed promotional campaigns at very young audiences. The regulator said the promotions encouraged frequent, combined, and sometimes compulsive purchase and use of products such as face masks, serums, and anti‑ageing creams by girls as young as 10 to 12 years old.

Inspectors from the AGCM and the specialist antitrust unit of the Guardia di Finanza carried out on‑site inspections at premises linked to Sephora Italy, LVMH Perfumes and Cosmetics Italy, and LVMH Italy. Officials told the press they found marketing strategies that relied on covert techniques, including the use of micro‑influencers under the age of 18, to normalize elaborate skincare routines among children and adolescents—groups regulators consider vulnerable because of their psychological and physical development.

Italian authorities additionally said the companies did not adequately indicate that certain products were not intended for use by minors, nor did they provide warnings about potential risks associated with the “unaware, frequent and combined use” of many cosmetic items. The regulator characterized this pattern as part of the cosmeticorexia phenomenon, defined in recent medical literature as an obsessive pursuit of flawless skin that can lead to excessive, age‑inappropriate, or compulsive use of cosmetics and procedures.

LVMH Italy declined to comment on the investigation when contacted. The probe will examine advertising content, influencer contracts, label and packaging information, and whether companies violated consumer protection rules that forbid exploitative marketing practices directed at vulnerable groups.

How Brands Reach Children: Micro‑Influencers, Algorithmic Trends and “Get Ready With Me”

Advertisers no longer rely only on prime‑time television or glossy magazine spreads to reach young buyers. Social platforms such as TikTok and Instagram host prolific, short‑form video content in which children and teens routinely film skincare routines, product hauls, and makeover sessions. A format known as “Get Ready With Me” (or GRWM) invites creators to show step‑by‑step routines, often blending makeup and skincare tips with personal commentary, music and trends. These clips carry high engagement and are frequently pushed to peers by recommendation algorithms.

Micro‑influencers—creators with modest yet highly engaged followings, often in the low thousands—play a pivotal role in this ecosystem. They are perceived as authentic and accessible, and they often have closer relationships with followers than mega‑influencers. Brands favor micro‑influencers because they can reach niche demographics at lower cost, achieve higher engagement rates, and create content that appears organic rather than overt advertising.

Regulators allege Sephora and Benefit enlisted very young micro‑influencers—followers of whom included preteen audiences—to showcase and recommend rituals that encourage the repeated purchase of multiple products. The alleged strategies include unlabelled sponsorships, product placements embedded in lifestyle content, and stylized tutorials that show how different products combine into a daily regime. When an influencer under 16 publishes a viral routine that features ten different serums and masks, peers are likely to mimic the behavior without awareness of ingredient risks or long‑term consequences.

The structure of social platforms amplifies this effect: short videos autoplay, hashtags consolidate trends, and the “For You” or explore pages algorithmically surface similar content to users who engage even briefly. A single GRWM clip can spawn dozens of imitators and become the template for a generation’s beauty habits. These dynamics explain why regulators singled out social media as the primary channel through which alleged malpractice occurred.

Cosmeticorexia: What the Term Means and Why It Matters

Cosmeticorexia, sometimes called dermorexia, describes a pattern of preoccupation with skin imperfection that can escalate into compulsive use of cosmetic products or procedures. The term has appeared in dermatological and psychiatric literature to capture how cultural pressures for perfect skin intersect with modern marketing and social norms. Clinicians have observed a spectrum: from obsessive checking and repetitive application of multiple products to seeking invasive treatments for perceived flaws that are either minimal or nonexistent.

The concern is not mere vanity. During late childhood and adolescence, self‑image is particularly malleable. Peer acceptance, social comparison on social media, and identity formation coincide with physiological changes—acne, oiliness, dryness, sensitivity—that create both real skin concerns and fertile ground for excessive grooming. When children are exposed to content that equates self‑worth with poreless, luminous skin, they risk developing distorted standards and habits that affect mental health.

Medical papers link cosmeticorexia to anxiety, body dysmorphic disorder (BDD), and repetitive behaviors that disrupt daily functioning. In some cases, individuals with skin‑related preoccupations may avoid social situations or become consumed by routines that require significant time and expense. Clinicians note that while not all heavy product use equates to a diagnosable disorder, excessive, age‑inappropriate application—especially when spurred by persuasive marketing—raises red flags.

Parents and health professionals report growing anxiety about young children adopting complex regimens that imitate adult influencers. The concern is not only the psychological impact but also the physical consequences of applying potent active ingredients without medical oversight. The Italian probe frames both aspects—psychological manipulation via advertising and the potential for harm to health—as central to its line of inquiry.

Health Risks of Age‑Inappropriate Skincare: Dermatologists’ Concerns

Skin is a living organ with developmental differences across ages. Children’s skin is thinner, has different barrier properties, and can react unpredictably to active agents formulated for adult skin. Dermatologists emphasize several concrete risks when minors adopt adult skincare regimens without guidance:

Barrier disruption: Over‑exfoliation with acids (alpha hydroxy acids, beta hydroxy acids) or abrasive scrubs can strip lipids from the stratum corneum, leading to dryness, irritation and increased sensitivity. Once the skin’s barrier is compromised, it becomes prone to infections, inflammation, and chronic sensitivity.
Contact dermatitis and allergic reactions: Cosmetic products contain preservatives, fragrances and botanical extracts that can sensitize skin. Repeated, combined use of multiple products increases cumulative exposure and the chance of allergic contact dermatitis, which sometimes manifests weeks after initial exposure and can become chronic.
Photosensitivity and long‑term damage: Some actives increase phototoxic reactions or thin the epidermis, raising vulnerability to ultraviolet damage if sun protection is not used. Retinoids and certain acids can cause peeling and heightened sun sensitivity; for younger skin, the risk‑benefit balance is different than for adults seeking anti‑ageing outcomes.
Misuse of prescription or medical‑grade agents: Easy access to online vendors and unregulated advice can lead young users to seek topical retinoids, hydroquinone or chemical peel agents without dermatologist supervision. These substances can produce severe irritation and pigmentary changes if misapplied.
Psychological consequences: Physical skin reactions often exacerbate anxiety about appearance, creating a feedback loop where individuals apply more products to “fix” irritation caused by prior applications.

Real‑world cases illustrate these pathways. Clinicians report adolescents presenting with chronic facial dermatitis after following viral exfoliation trends or mixing multiple serums recommended by online creators. In some jurisdictions, emergency dermatology clinics have seen spikes in acute irritant reactions tied to DIY beauty trends.

Preventive steps include encouraging minimal, evidence‑based routines for younger skin—gentle cleansing, moisturization, and sunscreen—and reserving potent actives for guidance by a dermatologist. Labels and marketing that fail to indicate age‑appropriateness or potential risks remove an important layer of consumer protection, which is why regulators are scrutinizing whether brands acted responsibly.

How Law and Policy Interact with Influencer Marketing: Italy, Europe and Beyond

The Italian AGCM framed the investigation under consumer protection and unfair commercial practice rules, which prohibit exploitative advertising targeted at vulnerable consumers, including children and adolescents. The involvement of the Guardia di Finanza signals investigators’ focus on breadth and potential economic elements of these practices, such as undisclosed sponsorships or deceptive pricing.

Across Europe, rules seek to protect consumers from misleading, aggressive, or unfair commercial practices, and some member states have specific rules about advertising to children in broadcast and digital media. Regulators can compel corrective measures, impose fines, and require cessation of offending practices. The probe in Italy is significant because it addresses social‑media marketing methods that sit at the margins of traditional advertising law: influencer content that may be native in appearance but serves a commercial purpose.

Comparative regulatory examples provide context. The U.K. Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has enforced rules requiring clear disclosure of commercial relationships in influencer posts; it has banned or required modification of content that targets children with age‑inappropriate claims. In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) enforces endorsement guidelines that require influencers to disclose paid partnerships in a clear and conspicuous manner; the agency has issued warnings and settlements where disclosure was inadequate.

European Union policymaking has advanced several regulatory tracks that bear on the problem. The Digital Services Act (DSA) introduces new obligations for large platforms to manage risks associated with their services, including the systemic amplification of harmful content. The DSA also creates frameworks for addressing illegal or harmful practices online, though its direct application to influencer marketing and age‑targeted cosmetic advertising will involve interpretation and enforcement at member‑state levels.

If the Italian probe finds unlawful conduct, consequences could range from mandated labeling and disclosure changes to fines and injunctive relief. An adverse finding could also prompt other national regulators to initiate parallel inquiries, influence industry best practices, and trigger reputational fallout for the brands involved.

Industry Practices: Where Marketing Meets Vulnerability

Beauty brands and retailers have long aimed youthward because early brand loyalty can translate into lifetime customers. The tactics alleged in the Italian probe reflect an industry evolution: rather than mass broadcast campaigns, marketing now leans on network effects, peer credibility and content that blends entertainment with recommendation.

Covert marketing strategies cited by regulators typically involve:

Using underage or borderline‑age influencers whose followers are overwhelmingly minors, creating natural peer-to-peer appeal.
Crafting tutorials and lifestyle content that normalize multi‑step routines and promote collection purchases.
Minimizing or omitting disclosure of commercial relationships, so content reads like a personal recommendation rather than advertising.
Employing micro‑influencers to scale campaigns across discrete communities, making detection harder.

Brands defend influencer marketing as authentic storytelling and community engagement. Yet responsibility lies with companies to ensure campaigns comply with rules protecting minors, that sponsorships are transparent, and that content does not encourage potentially harmful behavior. Responsible marketing means verifying audiences, avoiding active ingredients or claims marketed to inappropriate age groups, and clearly stating product suitability.

Retailers like Sephora, with a large footprint and multi‑brand inventory, face additional duties: product mix, online categorization, checkout prompts and staff training can help prevent sales of unsuitable items to minors. A retailer’s platform can also gate or flag products requiring age verification and provide clearer warnings.

The alleged failure to include explicit warnings or age guidance on packaging and marketing is central to the Italian case. Industry observers note that many brands have voluntarily adopted stricter influencer disclosure practices or age‑gating for categories like tanning products or intense chemical peels, but the patchwork of voluntary standards leaves space for inconsistent enforcement.

Platforms’ Role: Algorithms, Age Verification and Content Moderation

Social platforms host the content that catalyzed the concern. Algorithms reward engagement, not age‑appropriateness; a viral skincare video from a 13‑year‑old can travel quickly to millions of similar‑aged viewers. Platforms have implemented various policies meant to protect minors—content labeling, restricted modes, parental controls and prohibitions on targeted advertising for users below certain ages—but enforcement remains uneven.

Age verification on platforms is imperfect. Many users misstate birthdates at sign‑up; sophisticated verification (document checks, credit card authentication) raises privacy and accessibility concerns. Platforms must balance child safety with user experience and privacy, which complicates robust age gating.

Content moderation challenges include:

Distinguishing between benign personal vlogs and commercial content when sponsorships are undisclosed.
Identifying and removing content that promotes harmful grooming behaviors or gives medical advice without evidence.
Measuring audience composition; platforms may lack granular, verifiable data on the age distribution of a creator’s followers.

Policy solutions under discussion include stronger disclosure requirements for sponsored content, algorithmic transparency to reduce unintentional amplification of content for minors, improved reporting pathways for parents and clinicians, and collaborative enforcement between platforms and regulators.

Some platforms have started to limit certain features for younger users—for example, restricting direct messaging, making accounts private by default for underage users, or limiting ad targeting options for younger cohorts. These measures are useful but do not eliminate the risk that brands and creators can intentionally or inadvertently market to minors.

Practical Steps for Parents, Schools and Clinicians

Guarding children against the combined risks of cosmeticorexia and age‑inappropriate product use requires coordinated approaches at home, school and in healthcare settings. Practical, evidence‑based steps include:

Media literacy education: Teach children to recognize when content is advertising and to question the motives behind product recommendations. Schools can incorporate modules on influencer marketing, sponsored content and critical consumption of media.
Open conversations: Parents should discuss beauty standards and social‑media influence proactively. Simple dialogues about why influencers showcase multiple products and the role of sponsorship help children contextualize content.
Minimalist skincare guidance: Dermatologists recommend basic, gentle skincare for preteens—non‑foaming mild cleanser, light moisturizer and daily sunscreen. Potent actives and anti‑ageing products should be avoided without medical indication.
Read labels and consult clinicians: Before introducing new products, check ingredient lists and, for persistent skin problems, seek dermatologist advice rather than following viral recommendations. Patch tests can help identify sensitivities.
Monitor and set boundaries: Parents can use device settings to limit exposure, encourage age‑appropriate content, and set time boundaries around social‑media use. Parental controls on platforms, while imperfect, reduce serendipitous exposure.
Watch for behavioral signals: Excessive time spent on appearance‑focused content, preoccupation with perceived flaws, compulsive product buying, or avoidance of social situations can indicate problematic patterns that merit professional attention from pediatricians, dermatologists or mental‑health specialists.

Schools and pediatric services can help by normalizing diverse skin types, addressing bullying and teaching evidence‑based skin care to reduce trial of dangerous or unnecessary procedures.

Potential Legal and Commercial Consequences for Brands and Retailers

The Italian probe could have a range of outcomes, each with different implications for brands and the broader industry. If regulators find violations of consumer protection rules, companies may face orders to modify marketing, stricter labeling obligations, fines, or mandated corrective communications. Such penalties would signal regulators’ willingness to apply existing laws to novel social‑media marketing techniques.

Even absent formal sanctions, reputational damage can affect sales and investor perception. Consumers increasingly scrutinize brand ethics, and allegations that a company targeted vulnerable children can precipitate boycotts, activist campaigns or lost goodwill. Retailers must also consider their platform responsibilities; marketplaces that host third‑party sellers risk being implicated in similar investigations if they fail to police age‑restricted categories.

For the influencer industry, enforcement could lead to tighter contract requirements, mandatory disclosure clauses, and age‑restriction covenants. Agencies that broker deals may need to implement audience verification and compliance checks to reduce risk.

Regulatory clarity emerging from high‑profile probes can benefit responsible market participants: clear rules create level playing fields and reduce incentives for covert practices. Brands that proactively adopt rigorous age‑sensitive policies, transparent sponsorship disclosures and clinical safeguards may gain competitive advantage as consumer trust becomes a more salient asset.

International Responses and the Likelihood of More Probes

Italy’s move may prompt other national regulators to examine similar practices domestically. Consumer watchdogs in other European countries, as well as agencies in the U.K., the U.S. and Canada, have previously taken action on influencer disclosures, advertising to children and misleading health claims. The novelty in this case is framing the issue around a named behavioral health phenomenon—cosmeticorexia—and connecting it to a wide range of cosmetic products sold by a major retailer and brand.

If other regulators follow suit, multinational brands will face compliance challenges across jurisdictions with different advertising standards and enforcement cultures. Coordination among agencies, industry associations and platforms can mitigate fragmentation; however, divergent rulings could force companies to adopt their most conservative global practices, such as universal age gating for certain categories and uniform disclosure standards for influencer partnerships.

Investors and corporate governance stakeholders will watch how companies respond. Boards may demand enhanced oversight of digital marketing practices and reputational risk management programs. For companies in the beauty sector, the episode underscores that digital marketing strategies must be assessed not only for ROI but for regulatory and ethical risk.

Where Science, Public Health and Commerce Intersect

This investigation illuminates an uneasy overlap among commercial incentives, adolescent development, and public health. Science shows that adolescence is a period of heightened sensitivity to social feedback and normative influence. Public health authorities worry when commercial practices exploit these vulnerabilities to sell products with unproven benefits or non‑negligible risks for minors.

A constructive path forward blends regulation with education and industry commitments:

Regulators can clarify the boundaries of acceptable youth‑facing advertising and enforce transparency.
Platforms can strengthen age verification, default privacy protections, and disclosure enforcement.
Brands and retailers can adopt age‑appropriate marketing policies, explicitly flag products unsuitable for minors, and avoid engaging underage creators in promotional roles that target peers.
Healthcare systems and schools can increase outreach about healthy skincare habits and the psychological risks associated with appearance‑focused content.

Some companies have already begun adjusting policies in response to broader concerns about advertising to children. Industry groups can accelerate best practices by sharing compliance tools—standardized disclosure formats, audience verification protocols, and age‑appropriate content guidelines—that reduce ambiguity and operational friction.

Scenarios to Watch: What Might Happen Next

Several plausible scenarios will shape the consequences of this probe:

Focused corrective action: Regulators could require the brands to change marketing content, add explicit age warnings on online product pages, and remove posts that appeal to minors. Compliance would be monitored, and the matter resolved without major fines.
Broad enforcement and fines: If agencies find systematic, deliberate practices that violated advertising or consumer protection laws, they could impose fines and order major remedial steps. Such an outcome would set a significant precedent and likely stimulate similar investigations elsewhere.
Industry self‑regulation: A preemptive shift across the beauty sector could occur, with companies adopting uniform age‑safety policies, standardized influencer contracts, and strengthened labels. This would reduce regulatory pressure but require operational changes.
Legal challenges: Companies could contest findings in court, arguing content was legitimate promotional expression, that age targeting was unintentional, or that responsibility lies with platforms. Litigation would delay final outcomes and raise complex questions about intermediary liability and free expression.
Policy changes: The case may prompt legislative or regulatory amendments that explicitly address influencer marketing to minors and the sale of certain cosmetic categories to underage consumers. Lawmakers could demand stricter provenance requirements for products marketed online and clearer labeling regimes.

Each scenario has implications beyond the immediate brands, influencing how social media platforms moderate content, how parents manage exposure, and how public health professionals assess and respond to cosmeticorexia.

The Broader Cultural Conversation: Appearance, Agency and Commercial Pressure

Beyond legalities and health risks, the probe reignites debate about cultural expectations placed on young people and the commercialization of adolescence. Beauty industries profit by attaching identity and social capital to product consumption. For many young users, emulating influencers is a form of social learning and identity formation. Policymakers face the challenge of protecting minors from exploitative practices without stifling creative expression or parental autonomy.

The cultural conversation includes hard questions: When does marketing cross into manipulation? How can societies preserve young people’s agency while shielding them from predatory commercial tactics? How do educational institutions and families foster resilience to appearance pressures amplified by social media?

Answers will require collaboration across sectors—regulators, public health professionals, educators, platforms and the beauty industry—guided by evidence about youth development and consumer protection. The Italian probe will contribute empirical data to that debate and could catalyze both regulatory and social change.

What to Watch in the Coming Months

Consumers, investors and public‑health advocates should monitor several developments:

Official findings from the AGCM and any enforcement actions or remedial orders.
Statements or policy changes from LVMH, Sephora and Benefit concerning influencer practices, age‑targeting and labeling.
Platform responses from TikTok and Instagram on influencer disclosure, age gating, and content amplification.
Similar inquiries or warnings from other national consumer protection agencies.
New guidance from dermatology and pediatric associations about youth skincare and social‑media influence.

Collectively, these signals will indicate whether the episode triggers incremental housekeeping or deeper shifts in how cosmetic marketing is conducted in the digital era.

FAQ

Q: What is “cosmeticorexia” or dermorexia? A: Cosmeticorexia—also called dermorexia—describes a compulsive preoccupation with achieving perceived flawless skin that can lead to excessive, age‑inappropriate or repetitive use of cosmetic products and procedures. Clinicians link the behavior to anxiety and, in some cases, to body‑focused repetitive behaviors or body dysmorphic disorder.

Q: Why are regulators investigating Sephora and Benefit? A: Italian authorities allege the brands used covert social‑media marketing—especially via very young micro‑influencers—to promote skincare products to girls aged roughly 10–12, encouraging frequent and combined use without clear warnings that products were not intended or tested for minors. The AGCM is investigating whether these practices constitute unfair commercial practices targeted at a vulnerable audience.

Q: What are the health risks to children using adult skincare products? A: Potential risks include skin barrier disruption from over‑exfoliation, allergic contact dermatitis from fragrances and preservatives, photosensitivity from certain actives, and inappropriate use of potent agents (such as topical retinoids) without medical supervision. Repeated irritation can lead to chronic conditions and psychological distress.

Q: Can influencers be held legally responsible? A: Accountability varies by jurisdiction. Regulators often focus on brands and advertisers who commission content, but influencers and agencies can face enforcement for failing to disclose commercial relationships or for promoting harmful or illegal content. Contracts and local law determine civil liabilities.

Q: What can parents do to protect their children? A: Parents should foster media literacy, discuss the commercial nature of influencer content, encourage simple and gentle skincare routines for preteens, monitor online activity and consult dermatologists for persistent skin concerns. Parental controls and platform settings can reduce exposure to age‑inappropriate content.

Q: Will this lead to changes across the beauty industry? A: The investigation could prompt brands to adopt stricter age‑targeting policies, clearer product labeling, and more transparent influencer contracts. If regulators issue broad rulings, companies may implement uniform compliance measures to avoid similar scrutiny elsewhere.

Q: What role do platforms like TikTok and Instagram play? A: Platforms host and amplify influencer content. Their algorithms can push youth‑oriented beauty trends widely, and age verification systems remain imperfect. Platforms are key to enforcement efforts because they control distribution, disclosure tools, and content moderation mechanisms.

Q: How might regulators punish noncompliant companies? A: Possible measures include orders to remove or modify marketing content, mandatory corrective communications, fines, and requirements to add clearer labeling. Enforcement aims to prevent harm and protect vulnerable consumers.

Q: Is cosmeticorexia recognized as a medical diagnosis? A: Cosmeticorexia itself is not a formal diagnosis in major psychiatric manuals, but clinicians and researchers use the term descriptively to identify patterns of compulsive cosmetic behaviors associated with significant distress or impairment. Related clinical concerns include body dysmorphic disorder and anxiety.

Q: How can young people maintain healthy skin routines? A: Basic measures are effective: gentle cleansing, non‑irritating moisturization, and daily sunscreen. For acne or persistent issues, consultation with a pediatrician or dermatologist provides targeted, safe treatment instead of following trending online regimens.

Regulatory scrutiny of the beauty sector’s digital practices has entered a new phase. The Italian investigation links promotional methods with a behavioral and public‑health concern, forcing brands, platforms and policymakers to reckon with how youthful users are targeted and influenced. Companies that proactively strengthen transparency, prioritize age‑appropriate messaging and coordinate with clinicians and regulators will navigate this shift with less risk—and may help establish safer norms for an industry that reaches millions of impressionable young consumers.