The beauty influencer Rocio Soria, with a following of 1.9 million individuals on TikTok, suggests that an alternative to the Urban Decay Naked eyeshadow palette costing €57 is readily available from Joha beauty for merely €10. Soria indicates that there isn’t a noticeable distinction between the two. On TikTok, making a search using the hashtag #bougieonabudget will present over 60,000 equivalent videos that propose cost-effective replicas or ‘dupes’ for high-end fashion and cosmetics of trusted brands.
The practice of hunting for cheaper substitutes isn’t new. During the 2000s, ladies’ fashion periodicals routinely incorporated sections that compared original designer items to less expensive high street imitations inspired by them. Aldi seems to follow this trend by providing cheaper alternatives to products from snacks to skincare. The “Dupe Culture” is thriving, thanks to the younger audience spreading bargain finds through social media platforms to save money.
This behaviour is largely due to soaring global inflation rates causing beauty and fashion items to become pricier. A Chanel lipstick at Brown Thomas is now priced at €55. Even the cost of shampoo has drastically increased by 30% since 2016. Therefore, it’s not surprising that consumers are seeking methods to limit their expenditure. Proponents of dupe culture claim that these copies are completely legitimate, unlike counterfeit products that deceive customers to believe that they are authorised products by using the original brand’s trademark. Dupes, however, are merely ‘inspired’ by the original and don’t assert any connection to them. Yet, the line between imitation and infringement isn’t always obvious, as Aldi found out in 2019 when it lost a legal battle with the makeup brand Charlotte Tilbury over a cheaper alternative to Tilbury’s Filmstar palette.
The Generation Z cohort seems to have a fondness for buying copycat items, or even counterfeits, not seeing it as a fashion gaffe, but rather as a badge of honour. A survey undertaken by the intellectual property office of European Union last year uncovered that nearly half of the Irish youth aged between 15-24 find it perfectly acceptable to purchase imitation products if the originals are too expensive, marking a considerable rise from the figures noted in a similar study from 2019. The trend, it appears, has been made desirable through social media.
The established belief is that copycat versions are siphoning off sales from the original creators in the market. However, current trends are prompting industry professionals to encourage brands to accept and adapt to this shift, stating that they need to stay in tune with the evolving consumer perspectives. In 2023, Lululemon, a high-end yoga-gear brand, known for dealing with numerous imitation versions of its yoga pants, seemed to endorse this approach. They did so by hosting an event where customers could exchange counterfeit versions of their ‘Align’ leggings for the genuine item at no extra cost. The event not only attracted new customers but also spurred social media chatter and made headlines.
Olaplex, the haircare brand known for its bond repair range which has apparently “motivated” many other hair product manufacturers, including Aldi and L’Oréal, has been recognized for its ability to tap into current trends and for actively partaking in the discourse around copycat products. The company sent over 700 influencers an item dubbed Oladupé No.160 last year, urging them to post product reviews under the hashtag #Oladupe on social media. Olaplex later announced that this ‘duped’ item was in reality, the original product, highlighting that nothing can surpass the original.
Setting legal and public relations complications aside, there arises a question: Do we, as consumers, truly benefit when we invest in dupes? And if an eyeshadow palette is priced less than a tenner, do we even bother about its originality?
While PR and marketing teams might seemingly tackle the issue with a light-hearted approach intended to engage a younger demographic, their legal counterparts evidently hold a different viewpoint. In 2021, Lululemon legally challenged Peloton claiming they had violated six design patents by trading five imitative bra and legging products, a dispute which was later resolved.
Similarly, for several years, hair-care company Olaplex found itself tangled in a legal wrangle with L’Oréal. The allegation was that the international cosmetic company had illicitly used trade secrets and violated patents related to utilising maleic acid in bleach mixtures to repair hair damage. Online trading platforms like Shein and Temu often make news due to alleged copyright or design rights violations related to clothing and jewellery brands.
However, are we as consumers genuinely benefitting from purchasing these substitute products? And should the cost of an eyeshadow palette fall under a tenner, do we even bother? The most striking difference is quality. Advances in technology mean packaging and formulation might appear similar to genuine products, yet the composition of cosmetics is rarely on par with the original. Specific components are challenging, if not impossible, to clone within a limited budget. The pigment in lipstick and eyeshadow might be less intense, fragrances might lack strength, and moisturisers might include inexpensive, harsh emulsifiers that remain on the skin’s surface. That’s expected in the best circumstances.
Many hyperlinks from social media, promoting counterfeit items, often direct to online platforms based in China. Here, health and safety regulations are not as rigorous as in the EU. This blurs the line between dupes and fake products, leading naive customers to potentially buy cosmetics produced in unhygienic conditions and sometimes containing harmful ingredients, including lead, arsenic and even animal urine.
The availability of ultra-cheap items on online platforms like Temu also raises additional ethical queries. Can products priced a tenth of an original be produced without resorting to questionable labour practices? While replicated goods such as Dyson air wraps or fragrances may look like a bargain, it’s likely that someone, somewhere, is bearing the real cost.
Elaine Maguire O’Connor is a legal advisor and author operating in the field of fashion law.