Dupes Didn’t Democratize Beauty—They Diluted It
Hate that everything is average? Same, let's explore how dupes have made us all apathetic to protecting innovation.
We’ve known for years that everything is getting... average. Brands chase trends in color, design, and formula, all in hopes of going viral. Fashion, products—even our features—are increasingly molded by the same algorithms. Homogenization isn’t new, especially when profitability is the goal. But today, the speed and ease with which companies can copy each other has changed the game.
In beauty, it’s all the same content, the same trends, the same products. One brand does something new? It’s only a matter of time before someone dupes it. And consumers? All’s fair in love and consumption. Whether it’s a Reel or a 12-step skincare routine, everything starts to feel like uncanny valley—and that’s by design. It’s called risk reduction.
Why invest in original content when more likely than not, a grainy six second video with a clever sentence overlaid is going to skyrocket your EMV (earned media value)? It’s not personal, it’s the algorithm baby! Entire brands now exist just to dupe. Packaging, formulas, even brand voice.
A few weeks ago, I attended Beauty Matter’s Future Fifty conference (last year Dieux was honored with an award), and witnessed what might’ve been the spiciest (and most awkward) panel I’ve seen in seven years in this industry. One of the brands on stage, MC-Beauty, exists to dupe. If you squint, their products are indistinguishable from the originals. Jolie’s founder, Ryan Babenzien, said what I know many founders feel: it’s painful to watch your IP get knocked off. Even more painful to watch the internet debate whether your idea was ever that unique. I know because I’ve lived it.
Worse, I’ve seen product lines, even brands shut down because the dupe killed the original. And before anyone says, “They should’ve just made it cheaper!”—sometimes you can’t. Brands have to recoup R&D, pay fair wages, manufacture in the U.S., or work with retailers. Costs add up pending how you want to run your business. And in some cases, the duper has more money than you. Try to go up against that in court.
But the tragedy of dupe culture isn’t just the heartbreak of “they copied my homework.” It’s the slow death of innovation. Innovation in the U.S. has been in decline, and with rising operating costs—like Trump’s tariffs—it’s only going to get worse. In uncertain times, R&D is the first to go. Not simply because it’s expensive to create, but because it’s sometimes even more expensive to protect.
A clear example: Skinceuticals. Their iconic CE Ferulic serum was knocked off by Drunk Elephant. L’Oréal didn’t sue for fun—they sued because Shiseido (Drunk Elephant’s parent company) was taking real market share. That lawsuit wasn’t about pettiness, it was about survival. And while CE Ferulic is still thriving even post-patent, not every brand has L’Oréal’s legal firepower.
If you aren’t locked and loaded with millions of dollars worth of patents (aka you came up with the idea but don’t own your IP), and someone beats you to market with a knockoff, good luck getting acquired. For many innovative brands, acquisition is the only protection. Because again—it's expensive to not get copied. It wasn’t Skinceuticals suing, it was L’Oréal.
Take the latest dupe: Conair. As a generally jaded consumer, even I was suprised by how blatantly they were inspired by Bouncecurl. And before you say, “Maybe they had the same idea!” or “That’s just an Amazon dupe!”—no. Brands research before they launch. And those Amazon brushes? Also dupes. Bouncecurl launched their brush in 2023. As the kids say: BFFR.
I spoke with Merian Odesho, Bouncecurl’s founder. I know the gut-punch of seeing a bigger brand “take inspiration” from your work—but to watch Conair lift so much from Bouncecurl’s unique design, despite their investment in patents? I’d be upset too. They didn’t just come up with the idea—they paid to protect it. And now, they’re paying again to bring another brand to court and prove the dupe is, in fact, duping. For Bouncecurl, the outcome hinges on two things: how the patent lawsuits play out and whether they can outmarket Conair.
Because having a brilliant idea isn’t enough—you also have to be brilliant at selling it. Conair just launched at Ulta. That’s a big hill to climb. There's been backlash on their pages, but big brands often just wait it out. Conair, by the way, was acquired by American Securities in 2021. That’s private equity money. And having used Bouncecurl’s brush, I can confirm: it’s brilliant. Here’s a non-affiliate link if you're curious.
So if you’re feeling demoralized by the sea of sameness on the internet and in your cart—pause before buying the dupe. Especially when it’s a massive corporation or influencer copying a smaller brand. Then again, as we saw with Drunk Elephant, even the dupers can become the multibillion-dollar brand.
Some further reading on this *subject*
For those who don’t know, Beauty M&A has been “awkward.”
Some data on how immigrants play a large role in US innovation, the decline in US innovation as a whole. Here’s another good review.
Skinceuticals was acquired by L’Oreal in 2005, and while in 2025 the patent is expired, never forget this lawsuit battle.
I think this is interesting, but sometimes when you're looking for new products it's hard to know if something isn't a dupe if you're not devoted to being online/following beauty industry news. any tips on how to figure out if something is a dupe or the original?
I work in food brand management, so my thought-process is likely skewed - would I consider private label to be dupes? Maybe, yet extremely common and normalized. But for many consumers, this lower price (often sacrificing for quality) is what they need to fit their lifestyle. And we accept that as normal.
What do you think the difference is here? Trying to expand my thought process!