L’Oréal and Estée Lauder are shifting their focus from anti-aging skincare to longevity, positioning aging as a biological process that can be measured and influenced, but pursuing different strategies.

L’Oréal’s strategy is broad and data-driven. Its Longevity Integrative Science platform is anchored by its proprietary Longevity AI Cloud ™, which the company says analyzes over 260 biomarkers using a framework of twelve hallmarks of aging to predict how ingredients affect skin biology. L’Oréal applied this research to its Cell BioPrint Skin Age Test and Lancôme Absolue Longevity products. It pairs DNA-derived ingredients such as PDRN with mitochondrial repair claims.

Estée Lauder’s strategy is narrower, luxury-led and built on proprietary research and clinical studies. Its Skin Longevity Institute focuses sirtuin biology, energy-boosting delivery systems and academic collaborations. It repositioned Re-Nutriv around its SIRTIVITY-LP™ technology, based on over 40 patents, and claims improvements in visible skin age, citing two peer-reviewed clinical papers examining a skincare regimen and a facial age assessment model.

Across the market, brands are converging on the same premise: skincare can influence how skin ages at the cellular level. Luxury moved first with the most conviction. Guerlain promises measurable gains in cellular vitality. Tatcha reframes barrier health as long-term cellular performance.

Mass and clinical brands are following suit. Nivea promotes epigenetic “resetting.” OneSkin claims to reduce biological age by targeting senescent cells. Paula’s Choice has a Skin Longevity Guide and guides customers to optimize their “skin healthspan” with its CellularYouth™ Age Disrupting Longevity Serum.

Ingredient stories mirror the positioning. Terms drawn from geroscience such as sirtuin activators and NAD+ boosters sit at the center of product claims. Longevity reframes skincare from aesthetic maintenance to biological optimization, promising visible improvement and cellular intervention. This redefines what the category claims to do, and it structurally repositions skincare as applied biology. That repositioning introduces a new requirement: proof.

A scientific term, reframed

In medicine, longevity has a precise meaning: extending lifespan while improving healthspan, which is the years lived in good health, free from chronic disease and functional decline. Skincare borrows the language of cellular longevity to elevate cosmetic outcomes, blurring the distinction between looking younger and biologically aging more slowly. That gap is where the credibility problem begins.

“In longevity medicine, the goal is healthy life extension, measured by tools like health-adjusted life expectancy and quality-adjusted life years — population-level outcomes that take years or decades to demonstrate,” says David Barzilai, MD, PhD, founder of Barzilai Longevity Consulting and a Harvard Medical School Lecturer. “When the same vocabulary travels into a category that operates on weeks of topical use, the words begin to mean different things. The brands that navigate this well will be the ones that get specific about what their product actually does, at what level of biology, on what timeframe, and with what evidence.”

That bar is higher than most brands are meeting. Aging is driven by interconnected biological processes researchers call the “hallmarks of aging”: cellular senescence, mitochondrial dysfunction, chronic inflammation and others. These processes are influenced by metabolic health, environmental exposures and lifestyle. But demonstrating that a skincare ingredient affects pathways does not establish that it slows biological aging or extends healthspan.

In clinical dermatology, longevity has a more specific meaning, linked to inflammaging, oxidative stress and tissue regeneration. These mechanisms affect skin function, not just appearance. Research increasingly frames skin health within longitudinal care models that connect skin aging with functional health and quality of life. The emerging science of skin longevity is legitimate, but understanding the biological processes that influence skin aging does not establish that every product marketed around them can meaningfully alter them.

Where AI accelerates the gap

Many beauty platforms position AI-driven skin analysis as biological insight. Using selfies, subjective prompts in quizzes and pattern recognition trained on visual datasets, they evaluate surface features such as wrinkles, pigmentation and texture, then provide personalized recommendations. They are effective engagement tools, but they do not measure biological aging.

These platforms do not offer sub-surface imaging or independently assess internal drivers of skin aging: hormonal shifts, inflammation, nutrient status, metabolic health, chronic stress. Surface analysis can track how skin looks. It cannot explain how or why it’s aging.

More advanced approaches are beginning to move beyond surface inference toward direct biological measurement. Tape-strip diagnostics, such as L’Oréal’s Cell BioPrint, analyze protein biomarkers, while sub-surface imaging technologies use light-based methods to visualize structures beneath the skin, offering insight into vascular changes, pigmentation depth, and tissue composition.

Cell BioPrint, introduced at the Consumer Electronics Show in 2025 and launched at select Lancôme stores in March 2026, illustrates both the ambition and challenge of longevity claims in skincare. In a widely viewed CNET TikTok video, one commenter described it as “Theranos-level smoke and mirrors,” a critique that drew significant engagement. The Verge questioned the lack of publicly available peer-reviewed evidence validating the device’s performance. While measuring biomarkers may offer a direct view of skin biology, the accuracy and clinical significance of those measurements, including whether they predict meaningful aging outcomes, require independent validation.

The biological data beauty isn’t using

Biological data exists across diagnostic health platforms such as Function Health and Superpower, connected health devices and wearables. The Oura Ring, for example, tracks sleep, activity, recovery, and physiological signals associated with stress and menstrual cycles. These systems provide longitudinal data on factors associated with healthy aging, yet remain largely unintegrated into beauty.

Longevity washing and the limits of delivery

As longevity language expands, scrutiny is increasing. Industry observers describe the growing pattern as “longevity washing”: using scientific terminology to elevate formulas without corresponding advances in evidence or delivery.

The science behind aging is real. Sirtuins are involved in cellular repair. NAD+ plays a role in metabolic function. Senescent cells contribute to inflammation and tissue degradation.

“Longevity, properly practiced, is longitudinal and multi-system. It uses serial biomarkers, functional measures such as cardiorespiratory fitness and grip strength, cognitive trajectories, and lifestyle data, all integrated over years. Skincare has a real place inside that picture; skin health is genuinely part of healthy aging, and the brands building thoughtful diagnostics, rigorous formulation science, and honest claims will benefit as the broader system matures. The brands that don’t will find the gap between their language and their evidence harder to defend each year,” says Dr. Barzilai.

The real question is whether topical skincare meaningfully engages these pathways or simply borrows their language. Many molecules central to longevity positioning are difficult to transport across the skin barrier in active form. Evidence supporting their efficacy in topical applications remains limited, particularly when measured against claims of biological age reversal or improved healthspan.

The distinction carries legal and commercial consequences. Under FDA regulations, products marketed to improve appearance are generally classified as cosmetics (with intended use governing classification), while those intended to alter the body’s structure or function may be regulated as drugs. That becomes increasingly consequential when brands promise cellular repair or reversal of biological aging.

“Referencing scientific concepts like sirtuin activation, senescent cell clearance, or mitochondrial repair may classify a product as a drug,” says Todd A. Harrison, a partner at Venable LLP and co-chair of its FDA Group. “Brands seeking innovation should communicate carefully to avoid FDA enforcement actions and class-action lawsuits.”

This is not a hypothetical regulatory risk. In 2014, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)challenged L’Oréal’s advertising for Lancôme Génifique and L’Oréal Paris Youth Code, alleging that the company lacked adequate scientific substantiation for claims that its products targeted genes to deliver anti-aging benefits. L’Oréal settled the charges, agreeing to restrictions on certain gene-related claims. Now, the industry’s vocabulary has shifted from gene science to cellular longevity, but the underlying question remains: What evidence supports the biological benefits being advertised?

Scrutiny is also extending to beauty technology. On Oct. 27, 2026, the National Advertising Division (NAD), the advertising industry’s self-regulatory body,announced that it would refer HigherDOSE to regulatory authorities after the company declined to participate in two inquiries concerning claims for its red light face mask and hair growth device. Those claims included reducing wrinkles, rejuvenating hair follicles and reducing shedding. NAD made no determination that the claims were false or unsubstantiated; the referral resulted from HigherDOSE’s decision not to participate. The case illustrates increased scrutiny of beauty-device performance claims.

The FTC’s advertising standards add another layer of accountability. Brands must substantiate express and implied product claims, including benefits that consumers may reasonably infer from scientific terminology, imagery and marketing. Suggesting cellular rejuvenation without expressly promising it does not eliminate that obligation.

Longevity implies an ability to intervene in the mechanisms of aging. The more brands lean into those claims, the more they expose themselves to demands for clinical evidence, regulatory scrutiny and potential litigation.

From positioning to proof

Real innovation is underway in ingredients, diagnostics and how consumers engage with their skin health. Yet much of what is currently marketed as longevity still relies on narrative rather than science. As scientific authority increasingly underpins beauty brands’ value propositions, consumers will expect measurable biological benefits.

The beauty industry’s onus is to define longevity clearly, distinguishing cosmetic outcomes and biological effects. That means connecting diagnostics, data and product performance over time.

Longevity has become beauty’s most powerful claim, and the one most likely to be tested by consumers, competitors, and regulators. In a category built on trust, the market will be led by brands that can prove their longevity claims rather than simply market them.

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.