Swedish woman’s failed hair transplant exposes regulatory gap in beauty industry law

A few years ago, Maja was struck with the hair disease alopecia. As her hairline thinned out and no treatments were effective, she decided to undergo a hair transplant. Unfortunately, the procedure went wrong. She has experienced itching for several years at her hairline because the hair follicles were placed in the wrong direction. Furthermore, very thick hair strands were placed at the front of her hairline.

Maja reported the procedure to Ivo, the Health and Social Care Inspectorate, and assumed that the 2021 law that regulates the beauty industry would protect her. However, hair transplants are an exception. Ivo does not consider the most common method, FUE, as a surgical procedure and therefore does not oversee it.

The hair did not grow as promised by the clinic. Maja reported her case to the National Board for Consumer Disputes (ARN), but the board did not investigate it as it would require a medical assessment, which is outside the ARN’s jurisdiction.

The purpose of the beauty procedure law is to ensure that those undergoing treatment at a beauty clinic can trust that the personnel have the right skills. However, hair transplants were overlooked when the law was written.

Today, essentially anyone can perform these treatments. There is no legislation regulating it at all, making it very difficult to seek redress when something goes wrong. Maria Wiezell, a consumer advisor at the Swedish Consumers Association, referred to this as “an imagined security.”

Ivo states that a change in the law is required for hair transplants to be included in the agency’s oversight. “If a change in the law were to occur, the agency’s supervisory responsibility would also change, but it is up to the political organization to decide,” writes Göran Olsson, head of unit at Ivo in an email.

The most common method for hair transplantation in Sweden today is the FUE method. It involves moving each individual hair follicle from one area to another. This method is not considered surgical by IVO, and the agency therefore does not oversee the clinics that perform the procedure.