Minimalist Terms of Service 2026: The AI Skincare Advice Waiver

Minimalist's terms of use run to fifteen numbered clauses. Clause 10 is the one worth reading twice, because it is about a feature the brand actually ships — recommendation tools that suggest which serum or sunscreen to buy:

"The User understands that product recommendations by Minimalist may be provided by relying on artificial intelligence and therefore the suggestions may not be fully accurate. It is recommended that the User consult a dermatologist before deciding to use a product recommended by Minimalist on the Website. The User also waives all rights to pursue remedies against Minimalist for such product recommendations generated using artificial intelligence."

Three separate things happen in that paragraph. It discloses that recommendations may be machine-generated. It advises a dermatologist before acting on one. And it asks the user to waive all rights to pursue remedies over those recommendations. The disclosure and the advice are good practice and more than most beauty sites offer. The waiver is the part a buyer should notice, because it is the sentence that converts a helpful caveat into a contractual position.

This matters more on a skincare shelf than it would on, say, a shoe shop. An actives brand sells retinol, salicylic acid, vitamin C and niacinamide at strengths that interact with one another and with skin type. A recommendation is not a styling suggestion here; it is advice about what to put on your face. The terms themselves say so by pointing at a dermatologist.

Nothing here suggests any Minimalist recommendation has been wrong, or that any product is unsafe. Disclosing that a tool uses AI, recommending professional advice and limiting liability are ordinary and lawful. We did not use any recommendation tool, buy anything or test any claim. The point is narrower: the page that tells you to see a dermatologist is the same page that asks you to waive your remedies, and both sentences sit in the same clause.

The governing-law clause is one sentence and it is specific: "Any dispute and/or differences in interpretation of and/or in relation to the Terms of Use and/or the usage of the Website shall be governed by the laws of India and shall be subject to the sole jurisdiction of the appropriate court(s) in Jaipur, India."

Jaipur, and the word is "sole". That is worth knowing simply as a practical fact: the brand is widely sold and shipped nationally, and the forum its terms name is a single city. For comparison inside this same corpus, Mamaearth's terms name Delhi and Amazon's name Delhi, while Vijay Sales names Mumbai — every retailer picks one, and they are not the same one.

Exclusive-jurisdiction clauses are standard commercial drafting and nothing improper is alleged by quoting this one. Whether such a clause can displace the forum a consumer is otherwise entitled to use in India is a question for a court or a consumer commission, not for a price page, and this page expresses no view on it. If you have an actual complaint rather than a question about clauses, the grievance route a brand publishes is the thing to use first — it is faster than any argument about contract terms.

The document also fixes its own legal form: "This document constitutes an electronic contract between the User and Minimalist under the Information Technology Act, 2000", and the user agrees the terms "in printed or electronic form, shall be admissible in judicial and/or arbitration proceedings". The named publisher is Uprising Science Private Limited, which is the entity any formal letter would have to be addressed to — the brand name on the bottle is not the name on the contract.

The second sentence of the agreement sets the update rule: "By accessing and/or using the Website, You agree to be bound by these Terms. The Terms may be updated by Minimalist from time to time without notice."

Read together with the acceptance-on-access wording, that means the version you agreed to is whichever one was posted at the moment you browsed, and there is no undertaking to tell you when it changes. Every quotation on this page carries the date it was read — 8 October 2026 — for exactly that reason, and a reader checking later may find different text.

The termination clauses run the same way. "Minimalist reserves the right to terminate Your access to the Website, and/or certain areas or features of the Website, at any time without assigning any reason and with or without notice to you." It further "reserves the right to take down the Website without any prior notice or explanation" and to "limit, deny and/or provide different features to different User(s)".

That last phrase — different features to different users — is the sort of clause that reads as boilerplate but describes something concrete on a site that runs a loyalty currency and personalised offers. No claim is made here that Minimalist shows different prices to different shoppers; the terms reserve a right to differentiate features, which is not the same thing and is not evidence of anything.

Clause 11.1 is a long force-majeure and disclaimer sentence, and buried in its list is something that is not a natural disaster. Minimalist "shall not be held liable for any losses whatsoever arising from the use of and/or inability to use the Web Site and/or any of its features for any reason whatsoever which includes but is not limited to any loss of MCash due to discontinuation of the loyalty program, any delay or failure or disruption of the content or services delivered through the Website, acts of God, forces or causes beyond its reasonable control", continuing through internet failures, strikes, riots, floods, war and government orders.

The loyalty balance is listed alongside acts of God. MCash is Minimalist's own store currency, earned on purchases and spent against later ones, and the terms say plainly that if the programme is discontinued the brand is not liable for what the balance was worth. Anyone sitting on an unspent balance is holding something the terms describe as expendable.

That is not unusual — most loyalty schemes reserve the right to end and most disclaim liability for accrued points, and no wrongdoing is alleged by reporting it. It is simply the clearest practical consequence in the whole document: if you are earning MCash, the sensible thing is to spend it rather than save it. Nothing here says the programme is ending; we have no information suggesting it is.

One more clause belongs in the practical list. Under-18s and persons with disability may use the site only "under the supervision and/or with prior permission of, a parent and/or such legal guardian", and the user warrants on each use that they meet the eligibility requirement.

Clause 13.3.4 is the longest sub-clause in the document and it is about AI-generated content — this time content the user uploads rather than content the brand generates. Minimalist may terminate a user for "Any unauthorized creation, generation, modification, alteration, hosting, displaying, uploading, publishing, transmitting, storing, updating, sharing or otherwise disseminating of modification of synthetically generated information (“SGI”) as defined under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code), Rules 2021".

It then lists the statutes such content may attract penalties under, naming the Information Technology Act, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, the POCSO Act, the Representation of the People Act 1951, the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act 1986, the workplace harassment Act of 2013 and the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act 1956.

A beauty brand's terms of use are not where most people expect to meet the deepfake rules, and its presence dates the document: this is a recently maintained page, not a decade-old template. The same document carries both sides of the AI question — what the brand's own systems may generate for you in clause 10, and what you may not generate on its platform in clause 13.3.4.

Minimalist also reserves intellectual property broadly: nothing on the site may be "copied, downloaded, reproduced, re-posted, transmitted, displayed, distributed, rented, sublicensed, altered, stored for subsequent use" without written consent, and the survival clause keeps the IP, consent, third-party link and dispute-resolution provisions alive after any relationship ends.

Four practical points, none of them legal advice. One: treat an on-site product recommendation as a starting point, not a diagnosis — the terms themselves say it may be AI-generated, may not be fully accurate, and recommend a dermatologist first, which is sound regardless of what the waiver does. Two: spend MCash rather than bank it, because the terms specifically disclaim liability for a balance lost to the programme being discontinued. Three: screenshot the price and the offer on the day you buy, since the terms can be updated without notice and the version you agreed to is the one that was live when you browsed. Four: note the publishing entity — Uprising Science Private Limited — and the Jaipur jurisdiction clause if you ever need to write formally. Everything above is Minimalist's published text as it stood on 8 October 2026 and a published policy can be amended at any time. This page describes contract terms and expresses no view on whether any of them would be enforced; nothing here is legal or medical advice.