Summer is almost here, and if you’ve ever stepped out of an over-air-conditioned building into suffocating July heat and felt your skin go hot, prickly, and uncomfortable, you’re experiencing what I like to call compound dehydration. It can quickly undermine all the good intentions of your regular skincare routine. You need some additional tools to prevent this and keep your skin happily hydrated.

As temperatures climb, your body ramps up perspiration to regulate your body temperature, releasing a higher percentage of your skin’s stored water through your pores and depleting your reserves. Meanwhile, the forced-air cooling that keeps you comfortable indoors does the opposite, by removing moisture from the air and accelerating the dehydration of your skin's surface.
Your barrier is getting hit from inside and out: THAT is compound dehydration.

The smart move is to get ahead of this early with a two-part strategy: fortify your skin barrier, then flood it with additional, stable hydration. Today, I’m offering a few recommendations for mists, essences, and serums you can layer into your existing skincare routine before summer arrives to help protect your skin's moisture level. Many of my favorite targeted hydrators feature polyglutamic acid (PGA), a significant upgrade over hyaluronic acid (HA).
Let’s discuss why…

Hyaluronic Acid Is Sooooooo Yesterday

Many board-certified dermatologists and plastic surgeons, who remain up to date on advances in skincare ingredients, now recommend PGAs over HAs. Particularly because many of their clients have experienced irritation and skin-barrier damage from skincare formulations containing improperly calibrated HA molecule weights.

About HAs:
Hyaluronic Acid (HA) is allegedly capable of absorbing about 1,000 times its weight in water, but it has some nasty side effects. HAs absorbtion rate is determined by molecular weight. Some HAs have medium-to-low molecular weights and penetrate beyond the stratum corneum (skin’s surface) into the epidermis, while others with ultra-low molecular weights can penetrate even deeper into the upper dermis. If you do not apply sufficient moisture (water) on top of HAs, they will absorb your skin’s subcutaneous water reserves, dehydrating it as the molecules swell, disrupting and damaging your skin barrier.

About PGAs:
Polyglutamic Acid (PGA) is a fermented soybean peptide that holds approximately 5,000 times its weight in water, far surpassing the water retention capacity of HAs.
The biggest difference is that PGAs remain safely on the skin's surface, primarily in the stratum corneum, forming an occlusive, hydrating film that locks in moisture and significantly slows water loss throughout the day. For dehydrated skin with a compromised barrier, PGA’s surface-level molecular structure provides immediate hydration while protecting against environmental stress. PGA also stimulates your skin’s natural moisturizing factors, helping it maintain hydration on its own, making it far more effective than HAs for safe, lasting results.

What to Look For

From all the clinical data I’ve researched, the winning combination for dehydrated skin with a compromised skin barrier is:

• Polyglutamic Acid for superior moisture retention

• Ceramides to rebuild your barrier

• Glycerin to draw and bind moisture from the atmosphere to the skin

Products combining these three powerhouse ingredients address both dehydration and compromised skin barrier function, delivering significant hydration that actually lasts rather than evaporating hours after application and cannibalizing your skin’s moisture reserve.

First, An Emergency Treatment:

La Roche Posay - Cicaplast B5 Spray ($25.00 USD) is a relatively new product, but it has already made a BIG impact in the treatment of compromised skin barriers. The targeted barrier-calming and repair spray contains 5% panthenol and madecassoside, a powerful soothing compound derived from the Centella Asiatica (Tiger Grass) plant. Madecassoside is used extensively in K-Beauty skincare and is known for its potent anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, and skin-barrier-strengthening properties.

The Cicaplast B5 Spray also features a mineral complex containing copper and manganese, which are highly anti-inflammatory and reduce redness, swelling, and discomfort on contact while controlling inflammation and accelerating wound healing. Many dermatologists recommend the Cicaplast B5 Spray for patients whose skin has been sensitized by reactions to highly active skincare products (acids, retinoids, etc.) and invasive in-office procedures (lasers, microneedling, peels, etc.). The spray provides immediate soothing relief while initiating barrier repair.

My Recommendations for Advanced Hydration

(listed by price, not ranking)

The INKEY List - Polyglutamic Acid Serum ($16.00 USD) delivers 3% polyglutamic acid and glycerin in a lightweight, silky formula, widely available at Sephora, Ulta, and major US retailers. It holds 5 times more moisture than hyaluronic acid, creating a breathable, protective film that slows moisture evaporation throughout the day.

EXTRA CREDIT: This serum is inexpensive enough to cocktail with your favorite body lotion/cream to SUPERCHARGE its effectiveness at handling dehydrated skin on your body.

Prequel - Multi-Quench Plumping Hydration Serum ($28.00 USD) features dual-weight polyglutamic acid, glycerin, and ectoin, a powerful osmolyte that protects skin from environmental stress while supporting barrier health. The dual-weight PGA formula works at multiple levels to provide both immediate and lasting hydration. The focused formula omits unnecessary ingredients, making it ideal for sensitive or compromised skin.

Then I Met You - The Giving Essence ($53.00) combines polyglutamic acid with galactomyces, niacinamide, and antioxidant-rich berry extracts. The PGA works on the surface to deliver long-lasting moisture retention, while the other ingredients nourish, brighten, and strengthen the skin barrier.

Typology Plumping Serum with 3% PGA + Red Seaweed Extract ($55.00 USD) is a highly concentrated serum that applies more like an essence (very aqueous and fluid), and sets as a moisture-binding film on the skin’s surface, while the red seaweed extract stimulates natural ceramide synthesis. This formula is specifically formulated for significantly dehydrated mature skin.

#MyTwoCents

Over the past few years, an alarming number of licensed skincare “experts” (dermatologists, plastic surgeons) on social media platforms have shifted from peer-reviewed citations to validate their product recommendations, and have discovered the monetization ($$$) enjoyed by beauty influencers. Many of their posts are now motivated by brand sponsorships and affiliate links - not clinical scientific data. They use their licenses as “expert” validation to promote whichever brand is willing to cut them a check, not because the product is purposeful and effective, but because THEY ARE GETTING PAID.
And a disturbing number of them don’t disclose this properly.

If licensed skincare professionals are selling out for cash and clicks, the question becomes: Who do you trust?

THE DATA. PERIOD.
Do what I do and perform some research before you consider making a purchase. If a brand can’t support its marketing claims with peer-reviewed clinical data, walk away. And if you see the words “proprietary blend,” treat that as a red flag. It’s a marketer’s trick to avoid transparency about ingredients.

Trust the data — NOT the marketing.
Since 2005, IN MY KIT® (IMK) has been committed to providing the most factually sound reviews and product recommendations for beauty professionals and enthusiasts.

• IMK posts are not sponsored.

• IMK does not use affiliate codes or links.

• All links have been screened to find the best prices and avoid counterfeits.

Kevin James Bennett is the publisher of In My Kit®. He is an Emmy Award-winning makeup artist, cosmetic developer, educator, and consumer advocate. Learn more at www.kjbennett.com

New NielsenIQ data confirms what many of us suspected: TikTok Shop is EXTREMELY successful.
It generated nearly $1 billion in US beauty sales over the last 52 weeks, making it the eighth largest health and beauty retailer in the country.

Eighth. Largest. Beauty. Retailer.

That puts it ahead of most regional chains, specialty boutiques, and every beauty brand that ever convinced itself a well-designed website counted as a retail strategy.
And TikTok Shop didn’t earn that ranking the way traditional retailers do - through decades of shelf and gondola real estate negotiations, carefully curated end caps, and in-store marketing activations.

It got there through a smartphone screen and an algorithm. You see something, you want it, you buy it …without ever leaving the app.
That’s the whole model, and boy oh boy, does it work!

We’ve already covered what TikTok Shop means for brands and consumers. But this number changes the tone of that conversation. A lot of established beauty brands have been treating TikTok Shop like a marketing experiment - a place to build awareness, not necessarily sell product.
To the brands still waiting to see the impact of TikTok shop, that ship has sailed. Nearly a billion dollars in annual sales doesn’t leave much room for your wait-and-see argument.

The brands that boldly adopted this emerging retail platform early on now have the advantage. And the ones still deliberating? Their caution has caused them to fall behind.

It’s Not Just About TikTok

The bigger picture here is what TikTok Shop represents within a broader pattern. For decades, the beauty industry was built around physical retail - department store counters, specialty chains, and the pharmacy aisle. Then Amazon showed up and rewrote the rules. Now it’s platforms like TikTok where shopping and entertainment happen in the same place at the same time. What you discover, what you buy, and what you think about a brand are all being shaped by the same algorithm - and that algorithm doesn’t care about your brand’s heritage or your relationship with a department or specialty store buyer.

The brands doing well on TikTok Shop aren’t necessarily the biggest or most established brands. They’re the ones who moved fast, kept prices accessible enough to drive impulse purchases, and let creators actually speak about their products — not hand them a marketing script to “control” the messaging. They’ve harnessed the real competitive advantage of TikTok Shop, and it’s showing in the sales numbers.

The Conversation Brands Keep Avoiding

The most common pushback I hear from established brands is the fear of upsetting their retail partners. If they start selling regularly on TikTok Shop, often at discount price points to drive impulse buys, will Sephora or Ulta push back? Will they lose shelf space? It’s a fair concern. Those are important relationships.

But here’s what’s actually happening: Sephora and Ulta are already actively responding. Both are building out their own online selling strategies and creator partnerships so they can compete in an environment that’s moving faster than traditional retail was ever designed to. That tension legacy brands are afraid of creating? It already exists. So, waiting won’t make it go away; it just means sitting on the sidelines while your competitors make sales.

The smarter approach is to build a TikTok Shop presence that is specifically for the platform — smaller size items at a lower entry price to introduce new customers to your brand, rather than competing directly with what’s on the shelf at Sephora. Done well, TikTok Shop attracts new customers, and some of them eventually become loyal buyers who will walk into a store to explore your brand's offerings in person.

The beauty industry has navigated many major retail shifts by adapting — sometimes successfully, sometimes not. TikTok Shop just handed us very clear data on where the industry’s future stands. Fearing or ignoring this retail channel’s viability is a major tactical error. And your competitors willing to take the leap of faith will be the winners.

MyTwoCents

Nearly a billion dollars. I’ve been watching this industry navigate every major retail shift for four decades, and that number stopped me cold.
TikTok Shop isn’t a trend anymore — it’s infrastructure. And the beauty industry has a long, uncomfortable history of ignoring infrastructure changes until their bottom line is affected, and it’s too late to recover completely.

The brands I worry about aren’t the small indies. They’re scrappy by necessity and tend to figure it out because they live in survival mode. It’s the established players - the ones with legacy retail relationships, lengthy approval chains, and quarterly targets that identify bold moves as dangerous. They are most at risk here. Caution is understandable. But caution comes with a cost, and right now that cost is a loss of market share.

I don’t think TikTok Shop is the end of traditional retail. But it is a clear signal that consumer shopping habits have evolved, and brands that refuse to evolve will suffer the consequences.

What do you think? Let’s have a conversation in the comment section.

Let’s talk about something that happens to professional makeup artists with alarming regularity. A photographer, a production, a brand, or a celebrity requests our skills, time, and resources. In exchange, we’re not offered a fair rate, we’re not offered payment at all - we’re offered “exposure” as compensation.

If exposure paid the rent, I would have been living in a luxurious Manhattan penthouse decades ago.

Let’s Define Who We Are

We invest in training and building our first working kit. We build a resume, a portfolio, and a client base. We develop a reputation in the industry. Lawyers, doctors, and other trade workers do the same - they invest in training and the tools required to be paid for their services.
We’re no different.

Yet there’s an interesting disconnect: nobody debates whether someone is a “professional” lawyer or a “professional” doctor. You don’t become a lawyer or doctor by cosplaying one on social media. There’s only one path: education, apprenticeship, and enough experience to justify charging for your services.

But the profession of makeup artist is perceived differently.
Social media changed that.

Beauty influencers and content creators apply makeup to themselves on camera, while identifying as makeup artists without the training, investment, or working experience that qualify someone to charge for these services. They demonstrate makeup application on their own faces, making it look simple and accessible - something anyone can do. But applying makeup to yourself and applying it to paying clients with diverse face shapes, features, skin tones, and skin types requires a completely different skill set.

Reality Check: Becoming a member of the Makeup Artist profession requires significant financial investment, training, and work experience, so that applying makeup to paying clients can become a primary source of income. PERIOD.

When people without those qualifications use our professional title, it fundamentally weakens the industry’s understanding of what we do. They’ve framed makeup as entertainment or a hobby instead of a skilled trade. And that perception directly impacts our ability to demand fair compensation. Because if applying makeup looks that simple, why should you be paid?

Your Work Is Part of The Vision, And It Has Value

When someone asks you to work for free, they’re asking you to subsidize their project at your expense. They’re asking you to use your professional expertise to create a fundamental part of their final product.

Look at a feature article in a lifestyle magazine (print or online). The photographer and art director set the tone for the story. What’s in it? The model or celebrity’s face, skin, hair, and makeup. Our work is not an inconsequential decoration; it is part of the storytelling. The publication is paying for the creation of this image. And your work helped turn the concept into a reality. You deserve to be paid.

Look at a red carpet. The celebrity is the focus. The makeup is reported on and often emulated. Your contribution is not optional - you are part of the creative process. You deserve to be paid.

Look at a commercial, TV show, or film. Production has a storyboard that maps out a vision, including how the actor(s) look. Makeup isn’t an optional detail; it’s part of what the director and producer have envisioned and approved. You deserve to be paid.

When you’re contacted for a project and told makeup isn’t budgeted for, they’re probably lying. They wouldn’t be requesting your talent on their project if your contribution weren’t an important part of the finished product. They need you, while pretending your contribution is optional.

The Hypocrisy Is Built In

Here’s where the hypocrisy becomes infuriating: the people asking you to work for free are getting paid.

A photographer reaches out to book you for a shoot and says, “We have no budget for makeup, but you’ll get a credit and exposure.” Ask the same photographer if they’re shooting this for “credit and exposure”. Doubtful.

That photographer is charging the client. They’re making money. Yet you’re supposed to work for free?

A celebrity’s manager or publicist requests that you do their client’s makeup for a red-carpet event or press tour - for free. They frame it as though the “honor” of working on their famous client is compensation enough. But aren’t they paid by the celebrity for their work? Yet you’re supposed to work for free?

Ask a lawyer for 40 hours of legal work for free in exchange for “exposure”.
The answer will be NO, followed by a side-eye and an incredulous chuckle. No explanation needed. Professional services cost money. Skilled work requires compensation. And a lawyer, even one who only recently passed the bar exam, is paid as a law clerk while they build their career. They respect their investment and demand compensation for their work.

The person requesting your services is being paid. They’re disrespecting the investment you’ve made to be qualified for this work. Why do they assume you’ll work for free?

The Investment They Intentionally Ignore

A career as a professional makeup artist requires an investment of tens of thousands of dollars just to get started. That investment deserves respect. Your compensation isn’t greed - it’s honoring what you’ve already invested in yourself.

Once your career is in motion, a professional makeup artist is continuously reinvesting.

Products get used up, disposables end up in the trash, tools wear down, break, or become outdated. We as professionals are required to constantly replenish, replace, and update our kits. My two makeup kits, an SFX kit, brushes, tools, ancillary products, disposables, lighting, etc., are insured for $250,000.00 - because that’s what it would cost to replace what I’ve built over decades of work.

When someone asks you to work for free, they’re asking you to absorb the cost of your time, your talent, and your materials. They benefit while you work at a deficit. They’re asking you to disrespect the investment you’ve already made in becoming qualified to do this work.

This Has Become Systemic

This isn’t accidental. Photographers and producers didn’t “forget” to budget for makeup. They’ve coded our work in the spreadsheets as non-essential and less worthy of compensation.

A photographer charges thousands for a single shoot (sometimes tens of thousands). A director negotiates a contract with a substantial payout. But when that same group of creatives has to budget for makeup, suddenly there’s no more money. Suddenly, your contribution is considered optional or of little value.

It’s not because your work is less important. It’s because the industry refuses to categorize it for what it is - integral to creating the finished product. And the “exposure” argument is the industry’s longest-standing scam. They continue to use it because they’ve been getting away with it for far too long.

Typically, when the next paying gig comes up, they hire the person who refused to do the gig you did for free. That person has made it clear that their contribution is valuable. You took the risk, worked for free, hoping for a break, and then the artist who refused to be taken advantage of is rewarded.

It sucks, but that’s reality.

You’re Not Being Difficult, You’re Just Saying NO

This is the part most makeup artists don’t realize - you’re allowed to say no.
There are too many high-profile makeup educators who scare artists into accepting free work, claiming it’s the only way to build a career. Many of these trusted educators have an agenda - but I’ll discuss more about that in another article.

But even more than that, if others on the same project are being paid, you MUST say no to working for free.

Every time a professional accepts free work, knowing others are being compensated, you’re telling the industry that your contribution is worthless. You’re agreeing that your skills, your investment, and your years of experience don’t deserve proper compensation. And when you agree to that, it becomes impossible for every other professional makeup artist to request fair rates.

If they claim they can’t afford to pay you, politely turn them down and tell them you’d love to work with them - when they have a budget. That’s not shady, that’s business.

If they push back, call you difficult, or expect gratitude for offering you the “opportunity”, you know what you’re dealing with: someone who doesn’t respect your skill, doesn’t value your time, and isn’t worth working with.

To the New Professionals

If you’re early in your career and you’ve already said yes to free work (for exposure, for a credit, for the experience), I’m not here to make you feel bad about it. Starting out is hard. You’re building your portfolio, making connections, trying to prove yourself.

You deserve monetary compensation for your work. Not exposure. Not line credits. PAYMENT. Because accepting fair payment isn’t about greed, it’s about respecting the investment you’ve made to become qualified to do this job in the first place.

By insisting on being paid for your work, you’re telling the industry that you understand your own value. And that clarity protects this profession for everyone who comes after you.

#MyTwoCents

When a production company contacts a photographer, a director, or a set designer, they aren’t asked to work for free. Everyone knows: professional work requires payment.

Professional makeup artists deserve the same respect. We’ve spent years building our careers and honing our craft. We provide skills that are necessary, not optional.
The question isn’t about our value. We know our value. The question is: why do people (who know better) feel justified in disrespecting us and devaluing our contribution?

Kevin James Bennett is the publisher of In My Kit®. He is an Emmy Award-winning makeup artist, cosmetic developer, educator, and consumer advocate.
Learn more at www.kjbennett.com

Exosomes are having a moment. They’re trending on social media, major suppliers have launched new exosome ingredients at In-cosmetics Global 2026, and consumers are convinced they’re the next frontier in skincare.

Here’s the thing: the FDA hasn’t approved exosomes for cosmetic use (yet).
Read that again.

The cosmetic marketing machine is moving at breakneck speed. Science is moving slowly. That gap between what’s being promised and what’s actually been proven is the real story—and it’s dangerous.

What’s Happening - Right Now

Google searches for “exosomes” have risen 206% globally over the past 12 months. Exosome treatments in medispas and dermatologists’ offices are up 162%.

Recently, at In-Cosmetics Global 2026 (an annual industry trade show featuring major ingredient suppliers), DSM-Firmenich launched its cosmetic exosome ingredient, Exovive Lift, claiming a 30% boost in elasticity and the equivalent of 8 years of age reversal—both achieved after just two months.
Symrise, another major global ingredient supplier, introduced its own exosomes for deep skin regeneration.

These are major players, making very specific claims.
But here’s the head-scratcher: Cosmetic exosomes are a market that technically doesn’t exist yet, because nothing’s FDA-approved. Yet the category is already projected to hit $26.6 billion by 2035.

Wait, what? 😳

That’s not healthy industry momentum. That’s the cosmetics industry doing what it does best: marketing innovation faster than science can validate it.

Why These Claims Don’t Hold Up (Yet)

The “30% elasticity improvement” claim is based on two months of data. Credible skin elasticity claims typically require at least a 12+ week trial. And we don’t know whether those gains hold beyond two months or revert when you stop using the product, because DSM-Firmenich hasn’t disclosed that information.

The “equivalent to eight years of aging reduction” claim was also measured over the same two month in-house study. Claims of long term skin age reduction require studies of 6 months or longer.

There has been zero independent third-party validation, but DSM-Firmenich still claims this ingredient can boost skin elasticity 30% and reverse 8 years of skin aging in only eight weeks. 🤔
These claims feel vastly overstated without proper independant clinical scientific testing.

There’s also a regulatory gap: DSM-Firmenich is making serious claims of specific percentage improvements and years of age reversal, in a product category the FDA has not yet approved for cosmetic use. They’re saying “trust our in-house data” while regulators are still saying “we haven’t reviewed or cleared this yet.”

Even if DSM-Firmenich’s exosomes work, that doesn’t mean we understand how exosomes function in skincare broadly or what the long-term effects they have. One company’s internal study doesn’t validate a whole ingredient category that lacks independent clinical evidence and FDA approval.

I understand the market incentive - DSM-Firmenich just launched Exovive Lift, and there’s enormous pressure to make your mark within a new ingredient category before competitors enter and flood the space. If you want to secure your advantage, you have to make aggressive marketing claims, even if they aren’t properly validated.

Exosomes Have Already Hit The Market

Meet SickScience Labs.
They’ve built an entire skincare brand around proprietary exosome technology called NX35, and they’re selling it at Ulta Beauty, a mainstream retailer, without basic FDA oversight. They claim clinical validation from 8-week studies (there’s that 2-month thing again 🤨) involving 50 volunteers. Sounds solid, right? Except that those studies live only on their website. Not in peer-reviewed journals. Not anywhere you can actually dig into them, replicate them, or have someone independent verify them. And they’re marketing exosomes for topical skincare with zero FDA approval, zero long-term safety data, and zero established protocols.

So basically, they’ve built a brand around an evolving technology and decided to sell it before the FDA or any third-party scientific data validates its safety.

I say this as someone who deeply cares about consumer protection - SickScience isn’t nessesarily hiding anything. They’re just not being transparent. They call it “proprietary technology,” which is industry code for, “we’re not going to be clear about actual ingredients or percentages”, and , “we’re not letting anyone outside our company look at the data.”

If you’re thinking about buying an exosome product, understand you’re not just trying something new. You’re paying to become a test subject. There’s no oversight, no standard protocols - just a slick marketing story moving faster than science can validate its safety.

SickScience might have some solid in-house data, but they’re making a lot of specific claims based on those preliminary results. They’ve bet a whole brand on being first to market with a new ingredient category before regulators and independent scientists can catch up.
That’s a problem.

Facts Worth Knowing

No FDA approval. Zero. And the FDA has issued warning letters to companies making exosome claims. Despite this, products are flooding the market.

Exosomes are highly unstable. Without standardized manufacturing guidelines, the exosomes in one batch might not match the next. You could be buying a product with inconsistent or unstable active ingredients every time you repurchase.

The science behind exosomes is real, but it’s early. Exosomes have been proven to mediate cell-to-cell communication - that’s not hype. But an ingredient that shows “compelling scientific possibilities” and one that is “clinically proven for skincare” are two entirely different things. The claims lack rigorous, long-term testing for cosmetic applications.

The professional-versus-consumer divide is also quite blurry. In-office exosome treatments applied by trained practitioners are gatekept because they understand that the technology is still evolving. Consumer products are not. Regulatory clarity on the use of exosomes in topical skin treatments hasn’t been established.

How to Navigate This

If you’re a professional:

• Don’t take the brand’s word for it. Ask for third-party clinical data—not just supplier studies.

• Understand your liability here: if something goes sideways with an exosome treatment because the scientific data was questionable, you’re the one answering to the client complaint (or legal action), not the brand’s marketing department.

• Your job is to be skeptical of non-validated technology on your client’s behalf. That skepticism is what protects you AND them.

If you’re a consumer look for these red flags:

• Overtly dramatic before-and-afters (usually digitally manipulated).

• Influencers who mysteriously forget to mention they’re being paid for their glowing review.

• Claims about “cellular-level regeneration” with zero independant clinical evidence to back them up.

• Ask where the exosomes come from—plant, human, lab-grown? The source should be clearly stated in the marketing copy.

• See the term “proprietary formula”? Step away. That usually means the brand won’t be transparent about sources or percentages.

• If the brand’s clinical studies exist only in-house and are not published in journals, that’s a warning sign. Important breakthroughs get published in scientific journals so that everyone can see them.

#MyTwoCents

Exosomes aren’t going anywhere. The science is promising, the market demand is real, and there’s genuine potential here. But right now, people are adopting this faster than we have answers. Some of what’s on the market will turn out to be overpromising. Some might actually deliver. We won’t know until there’s FDA approval for the category and actual clinical third-party scientific data to back it up.

What concerns me isn’t exosomes themselves. It’s the pace. We’re watching major suppliers launch ingredients with specific claims while the regulatory framework is still being written. The gap between what’s being promised and what’s been proven is dangerously wide.

Patience is a feature, not a limitation. This story will keep unfolding. Your skin can wait. The smart play? Stay curious, stay skeptical, and don’t let slick marketing stop your critical thinking.

Kevin James Bennett is the publisher of In My Kit®. He is an Emmy Award-winning makeup artist, cosmetic developer, educator, and consumer advocate.
Learn more at www.kjbennett.com

Conglomerates Built Their Empire

For decades, the cosmetic industry operated like a fortress controlled by a handful of absolutely massive corporations. We’re talking about companies so big they don’t just own a few brands—they own entire portfolios of brands (makeup, skincare, haircare, fragrance, beauty tools).

L’Oréal alone owns Maybelline, Urban Decay, NYX, Lancôme, Giorgio Armani Beauty, Yves Saint Laurent Beauty, and dozens more. Estée Lauder owns Estée Lauder, Clinique, MAC, Bobbi Brown, La Mer, Aveda, Smashbox, Too Faced, Origins, and on and on. LVMH—the luxury conglomerate that owns Louis Vuitton and Dior—also owns massive beauty portfolios including Dior, Givenchy, Fenty, and more. Even Coty, the company most people have never heard of, owns Kylie Cosmetics, Rimmel, Covergirl, Sally Hansen, and a bunch of other household names.

Each brand had its own positioning, its own customer base, its own identity (sort of). But they all fed into the same massive distribution machine owned by the parent company.

That distribution machine was the real power. These conglomerates owned relationships with every major retailer - department stores, specialty retailers like Sephora, Ulta, Blue Mercury, and Space NK. They controlled what got shelf space, what got promotion…what got seen.
Most don’t have manufacturing capability, although the global giants like L’Oréal and Coty do have some in-house production. Instead, they used their massive purchasing power with contract manufacturers to negotiate prices that indie brands couldn’t compete with. When you’re ordering millions of units across dozens of brands, you have leverage. You could negotiate prices with suppliers that indie brands couldn’t even dream of.

This system worked because retail was the only real battlefield. Whoever controlled shelf space controlled the market. And the conglomerates controlled most of it.

“If You Can’t Beat Them, Buy Them”

But conglomerates didn’t just maintain dominance through infrastructure. They did it through acquisition. When an indie beauty brand would suddenly take off, when some founder’s skincare line or new makeup product started gaining traction, the conglomerates had a simple response: buy them.

This became an inside joke in the industry. Estée Lauder Companies essentially made it their unofficial motto: “If you can’t beat them, buy them.”
When an indie brand appears to have solid momentum and its valuation is rising steadily, corporations come knocking with acquisition offers. Sometimes it was generous. Sometimes it was take-it-or-we’ll-muscle-you-out. Either way, the threat got neutralized. The brand either became part of the portfolio or disappeared.

It was actually a brilliant strategy. Why let a disruptive new brand steal a portion of your market share when you could simply acquire it, fold the brand into your portfolio, and control its growth? The acquisition strategy meant that successful indie brands had a very short window of independence. You’d either get acquired or you’d get out-marketed by corporate budgets.

This worked for more than three decades. It kept the conglomerates on top. It made them seem invincible. It meant that innovation and disruption in cosmetics were always, eventually, absorbed by corporations.

Then TikTok Shop changed everything.

The Disruption Nobody Saw Coming

TikTok Shop made it possible to build a multimillion-dollar indie beauty brand without needing to convince a Sephora buyer to stock your product. Suddenly, the entire system that gave conglomerates their power became irrelevant.

You didn’t need to develop retail relationships anymore. You didn’t need massive capital. You needed a product, praised by a popular beauty influencer, on a platform where millions of people could discover and buy it without ever leaving the app.

For the first time, an indie brand could build scale without being dependent on the conglomerate retail ecosystem. And more importantly, the acquisition strategy stopped working. Why would an indie founder sell their DTC brand to a conglomerate when they could grow it independently on TikTok Shop, keep the full margin, and maintain creative control? The leverage flipped.

Numbers Don’t Lie

NielsenIQ dropped its 2025 report, and the numbers were pretty wild.
Indie beauty grew 22.3% last year. The big players? 6.1%, actually down from 7.4% the year before. And that gap is only getting wider.

Fragrance is where you really see it happening. Indie fragrances jumped 46.3% while the conglomerate-owned houses grew just 11.4%. That’s not a small difference. Indie skincare, makeup, haircare, and fragrance are growing at double-digit rates, while legacy brands are barely hitting 5%.
Now, I don’t want to mislead you - the big conglomerates still own about 64% of the color cosmetic market and 60% of the skincare market, which sounds huge. But controlling the majority of sales doesn’t mean you’ve got the culture on your side anymore.

When you dig into where these sales are actually happening, the picture gets even clearer. Online beauty sales are growing 9x faster than in-store, and indie brands have figured out how to win there. Amazon has gained 7.3 points of market share since 2021.
But TikTok Shop? That’s the real game-changer. It’s now the fastest-growing beauty retailer NielsenIQ has ever tracked - with beauty representing nearly 80% of its U.S. sales.
Read that again - nearly 80% of TikTok Shop U.S. sales are cosmetic adjacent.

Here’s why TikTok Shop matters so much: you see a product in a TikTok video, you like it, and you can literally buy it in the same app without ever leaving. For indie brands, this is perfect. A beauty influencer demos your product, gives it a glowing review, and a consumer sees it and can buy it instantly without leaving the app. No retail relationships needed. No distributor in the middle. No corporate approval required.

For the big brands? They’re trapped. They can do social media marketing, sure. But they still have distributors and retail partners who control how their products reach stores. A conglomerate brand can’t cannibalize its Sephora sales by pushing too hard on TikTok Shop—that would upset its retail partners. They’re playing on both boards at once, which means they can’t go all-in on the channels where indie brands are winning.

The Constraint on Big Brands

Here’s what I find most interesting about this: conglomerates could compete with indies on DTC and TikTok Shop. They have the budget, the expertise, ALL the tools. But they can’t, because their retail partners - Sephora, Ulta, department stores - are too valuable to lose. Push too hard on TikTok Shop, and those retailers will retaliate. They’ll cut shelf space, stop promoting your brand, or drop it entirely.

Indies don’t have that problem. They have no retail relationships to protect, no retail partners to keep happy. They can put 100% of their energy into TikTok Shop and move at lightning speed. Conglomerates have to play it safe because they’re answerable to retailers and distributors.

Corporate cosmetics painted themselves into a corner. Their biggest advantage, retail control, has become their biggest constraint.

What People Actually Want From Brands Now

The market share numbers are one thing, but here’s the part that actually explains what’s happening: how people think about brands has genuinely shifted, and it’s not going back.

Beauty used to be about wanting something you couldn’t have. You bought Dior makeup because it was aspirational, expensive, and owning it meant you had status (genuine or perceived). You trusted Skinceuticals because it sounded scientific. The whole industry was built on prestige and slick marketing—the brand told you who you wanted to be, and you bought in.

But somewhere along the way, that stopped being enough for many people. Now, cosmetic consumers - and this cuts across every age group - want to know how a product will enrich their life or make it easier, and they want to know who’s actually behind the brand. They want authenticity. They want to feel like the person who created it actually uses it and believes in it. They want to support the founders of indie brands they’ve discovered and gotten to know on social platforms, rather than giving their money to faceless corporations that flood retail shelves with an endless sea of redundancy.

It’s about developing a parasocial relationship with the founder(s) and the influencers who promote them. It’s about joining that brand’s online community, not just buying more products. It’s a potent formula that is driving massive sales.

When you see an influencer test a skincare product on their actual face in their actual bathroom, that reads as real in a way a multi-million dollar ad campaign in a lifestyle magazine never will. When a founder jumps into the comments to respond to questions or concerns, it feels like they’re “friends” who really care. When an indie brand says, “we’re a small team solving a specific challenge brought to our attention by the community,” it hits differently than a corporate marketing machine pushing that their product is “trusted by dermatologists worldwide.” <insert yawn>

The big brands know this is happening, and some of them are trying to keep up by creating indie-looking marketing or investing in influencer partnerships. But here’s the thing: today’s educated consumer can smell the cosplay a mile away. They know when a brand is owned by a huge conglomerate, but “acting” indie. And for more and more people, that knowledge is what drives their purchasing decisions to legit indie brands.

The conglomerates built loyalty by making you aspire to something. The indie brands are building loyalty by making you feel something.

What This Means

For legacy brands: growth is stuck. Margins are still healthy, but that growth trajectory everyone’s been riding? Gone. Right now, money is flowing away from them.

The conglomerate response has been acquisition - buy the threat. But the problem is this: the moment you add corporate infrastructure to an indie brand, you kill what made it valuable. The founder leaves. The authenticity evaporates.

For indie founders: building a brand on a DTC sales model, selling exclusively through a social platform (and your website), could be incredibly lucrative, given the excellent margins. But can you cut through the noise on TikTok Shop and be seen?

For beauty consumers: you’re winning, for now. More choices, more (perceived) authentic voices, more products that might actually enrich your life. The tradeoff: some viral indie brands are waaaaaaaaay overhyped, and the line between actual authenticity and performative authenticity gets blurrier all the time.

#MyTwoCents

This shift is permanent.
We’re watching the power of a $650+ billion global beauty and personal care industry be redistributed, in real time. The “If you can’t beat them, buy them” strategy worked for thirty years, but not anymore.

What made conglomerates powerful—their scale, their retail relationships, their ability to eliminate threats—now works against them. It slows them down. It constrains them.

The brands that will actually thrive in the next five years are the ones that offer solutions and build authentic relationships with their customers. Conglomerates could win if they let acquired brands stay independent. Most won’t. They’ll optimize and integrate away the authenticity that made the acquisition valuable in the first place (looking right at you, Estee Lauder).

So yeah, the indie insurgency we’re witnessing through TikTok Shop? It’s not slowing down any time soon.

Kevin James Bennett is the publisher of In My Kit®. He is an Emmy Award-winning makeup artist, cosmetic developer, educator, and consumer advocate. Learn more at www.kjbennett.com

A few weeks ago, I was benchmarking some premium skincare for a development project, and something struck me: some brands spend years perfecting their most active formulations, then package them cheaply, which pretty much guarantees those actives will degrade before the consumer gets their money’s worth.

Example: You’re selling a $185-per-ounce Vitamin C serum in an inexpensive, generic amber glass dropper bottle that begins to oxidize and lose potency the moment it’s opened and exposed to air? And don’t get me started on the contamination issues with the dropper (pipette) being exposed to bacteria with every application, then put back in the bottle.

The thing that infuriates me most? It’s not accidental. It’s deliberate.

The Chemistry Aspect

If you work in product development, you already know this part. Retinoids (vitamin A derivatives), vitamin C, high-concentration peptides, antioxidant plant extracts, fermented complexes, enzymes—these ingredients don’t sit still. They’re active. Light-sensitive. Oxygen-reactive. Air-reactive. They degrade. They oxidize. They break down.

Most premium skincare relies on at least one of these actives, often a carefully calibrated cocktail of a few. And when you’re formulating with them, you’re not just mixing ingredients; you're making a commitment to stability. Your mindset should be, “This formula needs to remain potent and effective from the moment it leaves our facility to the moment a consumer uses the last drop.”
That should be the implicit promise to justify the premium price point.

So you put it in a dropper bottle? 😠
Every time you open a dropper bottle and remove the pipette (the glass dropper), you’re introducing air into the bottle, causing oxidation, and then returning that pipette to the bottle after it has come into contact with your skin (fingers, palm, face).
So you put it in an open-mouth jar? 😠
That jar of premium moisturizer on the bathroom shelf, which you open twice a day, is exposed to light and humidity. Then there’s the bacteria from your fingers scooping out the product, and environmental particles going straight into the open, exposed jar. So you end up with a product that’s actively degrading the first time you open it, and every single time you use it.

Why Brands Make This Choice

Look, I get the business side of this. Opaque UV-protective and airless containers are more expensive. But when you’re already positioned at a premium price point, more protective packaging choices should be the standard, not optional.
But those additional manufacturing dollars spent on better protective packaging reduce profit margins. And that’s where brands cut corners.

But there’s also the aesthetic disconnect, which I find amusing - well, annoying.
Since when has a generic glass dropper bottle or basic jar you can pick up through LotionCrafters or MakingCosmetics evoke feelings of a premium product experience? But brands are charging upwards of $200 for an active serum or moisturizer in a generic package that does very little to preserve the product's stability or efficacy.
Yes, I’m looking at you, Skinceuticals, and don’t get me started about the Dr. Sturm bullsh*t - a wildly over-priced $350 HA serum (one ounce) in a generic glass dropper bottle with a cheap white plastic top.

Then there’s the accountability angle.
A consumer starts using an expensive skincare product in compromised packaging and, within weeks, notices diminishing results. Most brands will deny accountability, even though they know their packaging wasn’t ideal for the formula.
They blame the consumer: maybe you didn’t store it correctly, maybe your skin type doesn’t respond to these actives, maybe it’s just not the right formula for you…
Blah, blah, blah. 🙄
The brand’s packaging choice never seems to enter the conversation. Which is convenient for them, but frustrating AF for those of us forking over lots of $$$ for an allegedly stable, premium formula.

What Actually Works

A bottle or jar made of opaque UV protective glass, an aluminum bottle or tube, airless pump bottles, jars, and tubes - these options are not only functional in preserving product efficacy but can also be decorated to look premium while protecting the formula inside. Yes, this packaging costs more, but it says: we care about the stability of our formula and the investment you’ve made in our product.

Allies of Skin get this right.
Sophisticated, highly active formulations at a premium price point. BUT… their highly active serums are packaged in beautifully decorated, mirror-finish, opaque glass bottles with pumps - not cheap dropper bottles. Even their daily moisturizer comes in a tube with an airless pump, because they decided the formula’s integrity matters more than saving $$$ by putting it in a generic glass jar with an open mouth.

It’s a business choice that says: We spent time making sure this formulation met our standards. We’re going to spend the additional manufacturing dollars to ensure it survives the journey to the consumer intact and remains efficacious to the last drop. That’s the proper way to position premium-priced active skincare.
Not “We know it looks basic because we spent all the money on what’s inside, not the packaging”, which is a cop-out and a bunch of marketing bullsh*t to justify better margins and higher profits.

Allies of Skin’s packaging tells us, “This formula will remain intact at full efficacy from first use to last, because we designed it correctly.” Premium brands, like Allies, understand that protective packaging isn’t an add-on. It’s part of the formulation promise. And they’re STILL profitable. They’re STILL successful. So, that argument about cost-cutting being necessary for margins? I’m not sure it holds up when you look at brands that refuse to make that trade-off.

The Thing About Formulation

Here’s what I keep coming back to: when you’re a product developer working with unstable actives, the packaging isn’t a separate or secondary consideration. It’s part of the process. You develop the formula, then package it in a component that keeps the ingredients protected and active.

A dropper bottle and an open jar are poor development choices for highly active premium skincare. They’re choices that accept ingredient degradation as acceptable collateral damage. That might be acceptable if you’re selling a product at a much lower price point. But when you’re asking someone to spend $200 on one ounce of La Mer moisturizing cream - in an open jar - the question becomes: are you choosing packaging for stability or for margins? Because at that price point, the ethical choice should be pretty clear.

#MyTwoCents

I think there’s a fundamental contradiction in premium skincare right now. Brands are charging top dollar for formulations with highly potent, but unstable actives, then using packaging that pretty much guarantees those actives will begin degrading as soon as the consumer opens them. And they’re not really talking about that trade-off.

If you’re formulating premium skincare with retinoids, vitamin C, certain peptides, or other highly active oxidative ingredients, you’ve elected to play a high-stakes efficacy and stability game. So commit to it. Spend a portion of your development dollars on protective containers, airless bottles, jars, or tubes. Own the decision to formulate premium products and charge top dollar for them by protecting them.

Or don’t, and be dishonest. Because right now, a lot of very expensive skincare is packaged poorly, and the brands don’t seem to care about the end user’s experience.

What are your thoughts? Let’s have a conversation in the comment section.

Kevin James Bennett is the publisher of In My Kit. He is an Emmy Award-winning makeup artist, cosmetic developer, educator, and consumer advocate.
Learn more at www.kjbennett.com

A few months ago, I wrote about the evolving international cosmetic industry clusterf*ck created by the Trump tariffs. That was chapter one. This is chapter two, a critical update on tariffs, consumer price hikes, and why it’s going to get worse before it gets better.

The Numbers Nobody Is Explaining to You

Since Donald Trump’s April 2, 2025, “Liberation Day” tariff rollout, U.S. tariff rates have climbed to over 20% - the highest level in a century.
Let that sink in. We’re operating in a trade environment not seen since before we were born. And the US beauty industry, which imports a vast majority of its printed packaging, components, raw materials, and finished cosmetic goods, is fully exposed.

Here’s where the math gets uncomfortable:

• China, which manufactures an enormous percentage of the cosmetics on US retail shelves, is now subject to tariffs of up to 55%.

• South Korea, another top source of beauty imports into the U.S. and the engine behind the K-Beauty market here, faces tariffs of 25% or higher.

• France and Italy, our main resource for fine fragrance and prestige skincare, both face tariffs of over 20%.

• And BASF, one of the world’s largest ingredient suppliers, just announced price increases on amines used in personal care formulations across North America, effective today, April 6th. NOTE: Amines are organic compounds derived from ammonia and are primarily used as pH adjusters, emulsifiers, surfactants, and foaming agents in products such as shampoos, conditioners, and lotions.

Packaging costs alone are projected to rise by 5%-10% industry-wide. In aluminum-heavy categories - aerosols, tubes, closures - the exposure is significantly higher. And these cost increases don’t happen in isolation; they stack up. Raw materials (ingredients), components, secondary packaging, freight, and now legal fees (more on that later) are all rising simultaneously.

Industry analysts now project that retail prices on cosmetics and personal care products will increase by at least 10% to 15% across ALL categories. And a meaningful portion of that increase has already begun to hit the market.
I’ve used Haus Labs as an example of the price increases in the image at the top of the article. There’s been a $7.00 increase in the price of their bestselling Triclone foundation since April 2025. That’s a 15% price increase for one (1) ounce of foundation in less than 12 months!

It’s Not Just Indie Brands Anymore

In my original piece, I focused heavily on independent and emerging brands with no hedging strategies, alternative supply chains, or corporate treasuries to buffer the tariff shock. That story is still true and still urgent. But if you thought the cosmetic conglomerates were immune, I have some news for you.

Procter & Gamble has already raised prices. And Estée Lauder Cos. has publicly disclosed $100 million in profitability headwinds attributable to tariffs. Their “Profit Recovery Plan” includes cutting up to 7,000 jobs and a full reevaluation of pricing across their brand portfolio. That’s not a niche brand making hard choices. That’s one of the most powerful beauty conglomerates, restructuring its business model in real time in response to the tariffs.

E.l.f. Beauty, the brand that built its entire identity on accessible price points to a mass market, raised prices by $1 per SKU starting in August 2025.
On a product that retailed for $10, it’s only a 10% increase, but on a $3 product, that’s a 33% increase. The CEO, to his credit, was remarkably transparent about the reason, and the brand communicated directly with consumers via social media.
The result? About 98% positive sentiment (according to the company), suggesting that consumers are aware of the impact of these tariffs and aren’t necessarily opposed to price increases. They’re opposed to price increases from companies that aren’t being transparent about what’s happening.

The Lip Bar’s founder, Melissa Butler, was candid about the brand’s vulnerability. She shared that 85% of their products are manufactured in Taiwan, with much of the packaging sourced from China and some manufacturing done in Italy. They’ve been hit with a tariff exposure trifecta. Ouch.

The brands being hit in a fundamentally different way are the mid-tier. Established indie brands that have scaled up but are not at a level to absorb these costs as easily as multinational corporations are now stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Meanwhile, Conglomerates Are Suing

Here’s the detail that didn’t make many consumer headlines but absolutely should: L’Oréal, Sol de Janeiro, and Dyson filed lawsuits in February 2026 against the U.S. government, seeking refunds on tariffs already paid.
They’re not alone. More than 1,400 importers have now filed similar suits, following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that found Trump overstepped his authority by using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose the tariffs in the first place.

Economists at Penn Wharton estimate that reversing the IEEPA tariffs could generate up to $175 billion in refunds across all industries.

So let’s be clear about what’s happening:
Major cosmetic corporations are pursuing legal action to recoup costs they have already passed along, or are in the process of passing along to consumers.
The consumer pays higher prices now. The brand will potentially recover the cost later.
BUT (there’s always a BUT) the consumer, who is being asked to pay $38 for a foundation that used to cost $30 just months ago, will not receive a refund.
Oh, and don’t hold your breath waiting for these brands to reduce prices once they’ve been reimbursed.

The Consumer Backlash Is Building

Consumers are quite aware of the price increases, and they are not amused. A CivicScience survey found that nearly 3 in 10 beauty shoppers (29%) are already planning to cut back on their product purchases if tariff-driven price increases continue. More strikingly, 60% of U.S. consumers said they would stop buying their favorite cosmetics if prices rose more than 10%.

That’s not a fringe group of disgruntled consumers. That’s a majority of your customer base telling you, in plain language, that even brand loyalty has a price ceiling.

The behavioral shift is already visible in purchase data. Some 38% of beauty consumers say they’re buying fewer products due to inflation. Another 37% say they will only purchase with coupons and discount codes. And 35% have traded down to cheaper brands.
Dupe culture, which I’ve written about as a consumer trend, is looking less like a Gen Z phenomenon and more like an economic survival strategy.

What’s making the backlash grow faster is the transparency gap. Most brands have not communicated clearly with their customers about why prices have gone up. A quiet $4 increase at checkout, with no explanation, breeds resentment.
E.l.f.’s transparency about their price increases demonstrated that honesty - even about unwelcome news - can actually strengthen brand loyalty. Unfortunately, that mindset has not been widely adopted across the cosmetic industry, and consumer resentment is growing quickly.

Which Categories Are Most Exposed

Not all products face the same risks, and if you’re a professional advising clients or a consumer trying to protect your budget, it helps to know where the pressure is most concentrated.

Color Cosmetics: Faces significant exposure because of heavy reliance on Chinese raw materials, manufacturing, and packaging.

K-Beauty: This is deeply ironic given that K-Beauty has spent a decade positioning itself as high-quality skincare at an accessible price point. That positioning becomes impossible to maintain when you’re faced with import costs of 25% or more.

Aerosols: Hair sprays, setting sprays, dry shampoos, body mists, etc., are particularly vulnerable because aluminum tariffs compound the already increasing materials and manufacturing costs.

Fragrance: France and Italy, two of the world’s premier sources of fine fragrance components, are now both subject to tariffs of 20% or more. Expect some of the sharpest price increases to hit prestige fragrances.

What Happens Next

The honest answer is: we don’t fully know. The tariff landscape is still in legal limbo, with multiple court challenges proceeding simultaneously. If the IEEPA tariffs are ultimately struck down, there will be refunds to brands - but the likelihood that those refunds reach consumers is slim to none.

It’s pretty clear that in 2026, we will continue to see price increases. The brands that haven’t raised prices yet are likely to do so before year-end, particularly in Q3 and Q4, as new inventory cycles through at post-tariff costs.

The brands that will navigate this best are those with diversified manufacturing and those with genuine consumer trust built through consistent communication.
The brands that will struggle are those that relied on marketing price point as their primary value. They are now being forced to pivot their marketing strategy toward product efficacy rather than affordability.

#MyTwoCents

Let’s call this what it is: a slow-moving price crisis that the industry knew was coming and is handling with wildly inconsistent levels of honesty.
The tariffs aren’t a surprise. The supply chain exposure wasn’t a secret. What is surprising is how many brands assumed they could quietly pass along cost increases without a single word to the consumers who’ve been loyal to them.

The e.l.f. strategy is illuminating. They told their customers what was happening, why it was happening, and what it meant for prices. They were rewarded with 98% positive sentiment. That’s not an anomaly; that’s what happens when you respect your customer’s intelligence and are transparent.

The truth underneath all of this?

• Indie brands can’t build and scale their businesses without capital, which will be scarce if their products become unaffordable.

• Prestige and Luxury cosmetic conglomerates can’t hide behind their sheer size or legacy status. Price increases could prompt consumers to trade down to mass market products or dupes…and they might not return.

• And today’s cosmetic consumer, who has more information and more options, has run out of tolerance for the industry’s lack of transparency.

The brands that come out of this strongest won’t just be the ones with the savviest supply chain strategies. They’ll be the ones whose transparency allowed customers to trust them enough to stick it out through this difficult stretch.

What are your thoughts? Will you continue to purchase your favorite cosmetic products at higher prices, or downgrade to less expensive options?

Kevin James Bennett is the publisher of In My Kit®. He is an Emmy Award-winning makeup artist, cosmetic developer, educator, and consumer advocate. Learn more at www.kjbennett.com

Hairstory just made its first move into brick-and-mortar retail.
As of April 5, the cult-favorite New Wash conditioning shampoo (co-wash) is on shelves at 370 Ulta Beauty stores and Ulta.com. For a brand that spent twelve years selling almost exclusively through salons and its own website, this is a big deal.

I’ve not only tracked Hairstory since its launch, but I was also a New Wash customer for a while. There’s a lot to like. But some of its marketing needs a reality check and some clarification, especially for folks with specific hair concerns.

Now that the brand is about to reach a much wider audience, let’s dive into exactly who should use New Wash and who should stay away.

Where This Brand Came From

The founder, Michael Gordon, isn’t some beauty influencer or celebrity who decided to launch a hair line. He’s the guy who built Bumble & Bumble from the ground up before selling it to Estée Lauder in 2006. He knows this industry inside and out. And after the sale, instead of cashing out and disappearing into the sunset, he spent years trying to solve a problem that had been bothering him for decades.

That problem? Shampoo.

Most traditional shampoos are built around a detergent called sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS). It’s what makes your shampoo lather, and it’s effective at cleaning. Maybe a little too effective. For many people, especially those with dry, color-treated, curly, or coarse hair, it strips the scalp of everything, including the natural oils your hair actually needs. Then you buy conditioner to restore moisture. Then, a targeted treatment to repair the damage (caused by the shampoo). It’s an endless loop, and it’s a loop the industry is quite happy to keep you in.

Now, to be fair, the industry has already moved on from the harshest formulas. Most mainstream shampoos today use Sodium Laureth Sulfate (SLES), a milder cousin of SLS that’s considerably gentler. And there’s a whole range of other mild modern cleansers that have become standard in more refined formulas. Cocamidopropyl Betaine, derived from coconut oil, is one of the most common secondary surfactants and is significantly gentler than SLS. Sodium Cocoyl Isethionate gives a creamy, gentle lather with minimal stripping. The glucosides, Coco Glucoside, Decyl Glucoside, and Lauryl Glucoside, are sugar and coconut-derived, very mild, and common in baby shampoo and sensitive-scalp formulas. Amino acid-based cleansers like Sodium Lauroyl Glutamate and Sodium Lauroyl Sarcosinate are appearing more frequently in prestige formulas and are very gentle yet effective at cleansing.

There’s also one worth flagging as a marketing sleight of hand: Sodium Coco Sulfate (SCS). You’ll see it on labels of brands that advertise themselves as SLS-free and coconut-derived. The catch? It’s a coconut oil sulfate that still contains the same lauryl sulfate chains as SLS, just dressed up in more natural-sounding language. Functionally, it’s nearly identical.
”SLS-free” doesn’t always mean what it sounds like.

Gordon’s answer to all of this was New Wash: a hair cleansing cream with no detergent at all. It cleans with natural oils and fatty acids rather than a lather. And one product does the job of both shampoo and conditioner.
The concept isn’t new; it’s called co-washing, and it’s been a staple in curly/coily hair care for years. But Gordon cleverly repackaged the technology for a broader audience, backed it with real salon development, and built a devoted following.

Over two million units sold before landing in a national retailer.
That’s genuinely impressive.

The binary he built the brand around, harsh detergent shampoo versus no detergent shampoo, made perfect sense - a decade ago. That doesn’t mean New Wash is irrelevant. It just means the conversation about co-washing hair has become more nuanced than their marketing suggests.

What the Brand Gets Right

For the right hair type, New Wash is legitimately excellent.

If your hair is naturally dry, coarse, curly, or fried from aggressive color-treatment, this product was designed for you. Skipping harsh detergents and conditioning while you cleanse makes real sense. Less stripping, less damage, better color retention. Many people who’ve switched report softer, healthier hair, and they’re not wrong.

The brand’s original commitment to sell through salons also matters. Hairstory’s history (and credibility) was built on its reliance on salon professionals, who can tell you honestly whether a product is right for you. That’s a very different model from most brands, which just want to move more product and let consumers figure out what works for them at their own expense ($$$).

The refillable packaging is grounded in genuine sustainability; it’s not a PR stunt. And the “fewer, better products” philosophy is consistent with what they offer - right now.
NOTE: The “fewer, better” philosophy often changes abruptly because some national retailers demand that a brand regularly offer new products to drive sales (this is how Sephora has destroyed sooooooo many brands).

Now Let’s Talk About the Part They’re Getting Wrong

The “all hair types” claim.

When you look at the description of New Wash “Original” Formula, it clearly states on both the Amazon shop and the Hairstory website that it’s a “Cleansing & Conditioning Cream FOR ALL HAIR TYPES”.
And yet, Hairstory also sells three (3) other versions - Rich, Deep, and Fragrance-Free. You can’t say one of your formulas works for everyone while also offering additional versions to address different needs. That’s contradictory marketing and deserves to be called out.
And if this co-washing system is so effective, why does Hairstory also offer a PRE-WASH Prebiotic Micellar Scalp Rinse to remove build-up before you use New Wash?

Here’s the reality: Co-washing is not for everyone. If your hair is fine, bone straight, or tends toward oiliness, adding lots of oils and creamy conditioning agents to your scalp won’t clean it. It’s going to coat it. And product buildup on the scalp can cause inflammation, clog follicles, and, over time, contribute to thinning. That’s not a scare tactic, it’s basic scalp biology backed by published research and documented by the American Hair Loss Association.

The “your scalp will stop overproducing oil” promise.

This one really bothers me. Hairstory claims that once you switch to New Wash, your scalp will eventually stop overproducing oil. The idea is that years of harsh shampooing have trained your scalp to overproduce, and now it can relax.

Here’s the reality: Your scalp’s oil production is controlled by hormones, not by your choice of cleanser. There’s a modest argument that extremely aggressive shampooing could contribute to some reactive oil production in certain people. But the broad promise that New Wash will regulate your sebum? That claim runs well ahead of the science.

The “transition period” bullsh*t.

When people with fine or oily hair try New Wash and report greasy, heavy, flat results (an issue which reviews verify happens consistently), the brand’s default response is: "You're in a transition period. Your scalp is adjusting. Try using more product, or rinse longer.”

Telling a customer that their bad experience with your product proves it's working is gaslighting them and avoiding accountability. They aren’t experiencing a “transition period” - the reality is that this product is a mismatch for their hair and scalp needs.

If this “transition period” dialogue sounds familiar, it should. The skincare industry has been gaslighting consumers for years under the term “skin purging.”
To be fair, purging is a real thing, but only with specific ingredients, like prescription retinoids or certain exfoliants, that accelerate cell turnover and briefly uncover underlying congestion. That’s a legitimate response to a legitimate mechanism.

But somewhere along the way, the industry stretched that logic to avoid accountability for people’s reactions to skincare:

• New Cleanser breaking you out or causing irritation? It’s Purging.

• New Serum or Essence breaking you out or causing irritation? It’s Purging.

• New Moisturizer breaking you out or causing irritation? It’s Purging.

“Skin purging” became a catch-all excuse for products that were simply wrong for someone’s skin. “Transition period” is the Hairstory version of the same bullsh*t excuse.

So What Happens at Ulta?

For most of its life, Hairstory had a built-in filter: the salon professional. A good stylist would look at your hair, assess your scalp, and tell you honestly whether New Wash made sense for you. That filter doesn’t exist in Ulta.

The typical Ulta shopper who picks up a premium “shampoo alternative” is completely unaware that co-washing may not be the right call for them because New Wash Original Formula makes the misleading “All Hair Types” claim.
The brand says it plans to use Ulta’s in-store salon space for consumer education, which is a great idea - but those salons reach only a fraction of the foot traffic in Ulta.

New Wash has the potential to convert the right customers into lifelong fans. My question is, what happens when a significant number of Ulta customers have a bad experience with New Wash and don’t understand why, because the brand's marketing tells them it’s their fault?

#MyTwoCents

Michael Gordon built something real here. A brand with actual roots in professional expertise, a genuine formulation philosophy, and the patience to grow slowly and do it right. That deserves credit.

But I’d be doing you a disservice if I just told you that part and left out the rest.

If you have dry, coarse, curly, or color-treated hair, New Wash is absolutely worth trying. It might genuinely change your hair.

If you have fine hair, an oily scalp, or you’re concerned about thinning, skip it. Not because it’s a bad product, but because it’s the wrong product for your hair. No transition period is going to change that.

And if a brand has the audacity to tell you your dissatisfaction is actually progress? That’s usually a sign they know the fit isn’t right for everyone, and they’d rather not say it out loud.

So, now you know the whole story, and I hope it helps you make an informed decision if you're considering trying New Wash by Hairstory.

Kevin James Bennett is the publisher of In My Kit®. He is an Emmy Award-winning makeup artist, cosmetic developer, educator, and consumer advocate. Learn more at www.kjbennett.com

There are many alleged “skincare experts” on social media who claim there’s no difference between facial moisturizers and eye creams. So why “waste” money on a dedicated eye cream?
They’re WRONG.
This is not my opinion; this is based on SCIENTIFIC FACT.

Will applying a facial moisturizer around the eye area hurt you?
Of course not, as long as it doesn’t contain strong exfoliating acids or a high-level retinoid.

Will a dedicated eye cream be better at addressing specific concerns?
Of course. The anatomy (structure) and physiology (function) of the skin around the eye area is structurally different, ages differently, and responds to treatment differently from the skin on the rest of your face. So a properly formulated eye cream will provide targeted results.

Let’s begin with science.

Why the Eye Area Ages Faster Than the Rest of Your Face

To understand why eye creams exist as a category, you have to start with anatomy. The skin around your eyes - the periorbital zone - is about 40% thinner than the skin on your cheeks or forehead (think of the difference between tissue paper and poster board). It has far fewer sebaceous glands, which means it produces almost no natural oil to help maintain skin elasticity and protect the moisture barrier. And unlike much of the other skin on your face, it moves constantly. Did you realize you blink an average of 10,000 to 15,000 times a day? Every one of those blinks is a tiny mechanical stress event on delicate thin skin, which has a very limited ability to protect and repair itself.

Because of its structure, the eye area typically shows the first visible signs of aging on the face, and in very specific ways:

• fine lines at the outer corners (crow’s feet)

• crepiness and thinning of the upper lid

• puffiness from lymphatic fluid accumulation

• dark circles that can stem from vascular pooling or structural shadowing from volume loss (which is what I have).

A well-formulated facial moisturizer is built to support barrier function and hydration on a much denser, more resilient surface. Using it around the eyes isn’t harmful. It just won’t effectively address the specific needs of that delicate skin.

What Does a Well-Formulated Eye Cream Look Like?

Let me begin by acknowledging that thanks to unscrupulous cosmetic marketers, the eye cream category has developed a credibility problem. They’ve flooded the market with products labeled as eye creams that are simply moisturizers repackaged in smaller jars or tubes, accompanied by exaggerated marketing claims and higher price tags.
Well-formulated eye creams are specific - they deliver specific actives, calibrated to address specific concerns, in a texture designed for a specific part of the anatomy.

Let’s match the most common concerns with the correct ingredients:

For fine lines and loss of firmness:
Peptides are the workhorses of this concern. Ingredients like acetyl hexapeptide (sometimes called Argireline) work by subtly relaxing the repetitive muscle contractions that etch expression lines into the skin over time. Palmitoyl peptides (you’ll see names like Matrixyl) signal the skin to produce more collagen and elastin, helping to firm and thicken the thin, delicate tissue around the eye.
Peptides aren’t an overnight miracle, but with consistent use over weeks and months, the cumulative effect is real and clinically documented.

For puffiness:
Caffeine is the gold standard, and for good reason. It can stimulate lymphatic drainage, reducing fluid accumulation that causes morning puffiness. The key here is the formula's caffeine concentration.
A product needs to deliver enough caffeine to the tissue to actually do anything. A token amount buried in the tail end of the ingredient list (INCI) for a marketing call-out on packaging and in ads won’t do much. Make sure caffeine is listed in the first quarter of the INCI.

For dark circles:
This one is more complex because dark circles aren’t all the same, so let’s break it down by concern:

• If your under-eye area has a bluish or purplish tint, the cause is vascular, meaning blood has leaked and pooled near the surface of the thin skin. Ingredients like vitamin K are considered a vasoconstrictor, which causes blood vessels to narrow, or “constrict,” by tightening the muscular walls of the capillaries. Now add a meaningful dose of caffeine to the formula, and it will strengthen capillary walls and improve microcirculation, alleviating the pooling.

• If your dark circles are brownish, you’re dealing with pigmentation, which means your system is triggering too much melanin to be transferred to the skin’s surface. This is where niacinamide and/or tranexamic acid come into play. Both inhibit melanin transfer to the skin’s surface and will brighten the area over time.

• If your darkness is a shadow created by volume (fat) loss and under-eye hollowing, no topical ingredient can fix that structurally. It’s time to have a conversation with a dermatologist.

For hydration and barrier support:

First, Let’s Talk About Hyaluronic Acid:
We’ve all heard the marketing - Hyaluronic Acid (HA) can absorb up to 1000x it’s weight in water. Amazing, right?
So amazing that the relentless buzz around this trendy ingredient has unfortunately prompted cosmetic marketers to add it into EVERY product imaginable…but more of something is not nessesary better, especially if it has the potential to cause damage.

I’m purposely omitting HAs as an ingredient option due to rising concerns over skin dehydration and barrier damage. There’s legitimate concern, especially over the use of low molecular weight HAs, some of which are small enough to penetrate deeply into the stratum corneum, and act like a tiny, aggressive sponges inside your skin. If these low weight HA molecules aren’t "fed" enough moisture from the outside, they will pull subcutaneous water from the deeper dermis, causing serious dehydration, which triggers inflammation that further degrades your skin’s barrier health.

Reality: If you haven’t applied a sufficiently hydrating moisturizer over the HA to feed it, or you’re in a dry environment (forced air heating, air conditioning, long flights) there is no moisture for the HA to absorb and it will cause irritation and damage.

• Glycerin is the OG and a near-universal hydrating ingredient, and with good reason: unlike HAs, it is inert, non-reactive, and incredibly gentle on skin, while attracting moisture to plump fine lines so they look less noticeable.

• Polyglutamic Acid (PGA) is slowly replacing HAs because it is 5x more effective at attracting and binding moisture to the skin, and its molecular structure is too large to penetrate the stratum corneum, so it won’t dehydrate your skin if it’s not fed enough moisture, and it won’t disrupt barrier function.

• Ceramides are another important ingredient. They are a family of waxy lipid molecules that make up roughly 50% of your skin’s barrier, and act as the structural “mortar” that holds your skin cells together. Because the skin around the eyes is significantly thinner and contains fewer oil glands, it has much lower natural ceramide levels, so adding ceramides to an eye cream is a no-brainer.

When formulated properly, these ingredients provide crucial hydration and resiliency to the delicate, thin skin around the eye.

For antioxidant protection:
The eye area is constantly exposed to UV radiation and environmental oxidants, both of which accelerate the breakdown of collagen and elastin. Vitamin C (in its more stable forms, such as ascorbyl glucoside or 3-O-ethyl ascorbic acid), vitamin E, and resveratrol all provide meaningful antioxidant protection against environmental stressors to this delicate skin.

Texture Isn’t a Marketing Story, It’s a Formulation Requirement

Properly formulated eye creams feel different from facial moisturizers, and that difference is intentional. The periorbital area needs hydration and emollience without weight. Heavy occlusives, like dense butters or high concentrations of petrolatum, can weigh down this delicate skin and physically block the tiny meibomian glands along the lash line, contributing to milia (those small white bumps that look like tiny pimples).
Properly formulated eye creams are designed to deliver moisture and emollience without an overtly occlusive texture.

Texture is also a practical concern for makeup wearers. An eye cream that doesn’t fully absorb and remains emollient (oily) on the surface will break down concealer, cause mascara to run, and generally undermine everything you apply on top of it. A well-formulated eye cream absorbs cleanly and should actually improve makeup adhesion by creating a smooth, hydrated surface.

Do You Need an Eye Cream? Let’s Look at the Checklist.

You can probably skip a dedicated eye cream (for now) if:

• You are in your late teens or early twenties with no specific eye area concerns.

• Your facial moisturizer is a gentle, lightweight formula without retinoids or strong exfoliating acids that can irritate and damage the delicate skin around your eyes.

• Your skin is generally well-hydrated, and you have no consistent puffiness, dark circles, or fine lines around the eyes.

It’s time to invest in a dedicated eye cream if:

• You wake up with consistent puffiness that takes hours to dissipate.

• You have visible dark circles, regardless of how much sleep you get.

• You’re starting to see fine lines at the outer corners of your eyes or crepiness on the upper lid.

• You’re in your late twenties or older and want to be proactive about prevention.

• Your current moisturizer contains retinol, AHAs, BHAs, or other actives that are too strong for the eye area.

• You wear makeup daily and need a product that works with your concealer, not against it.

#MyTwoCents

Eye cream is one of those skincare categories where skepticism is understandable, thanks to questionable marketing and misinformation promoted by alleged “experts”.
Yes, there are products that are nothing more than facial moisturizers with a prestige price tag.
But the category itself is legitimate - the anatomy is real, the aging patterns are distinct, and the active ingredients that address those patterns are well-documented and clinically validated.

Your eye area ages first, ages fastest, and ages most visibly.

You don’t need a chemistry degree to find the correct product; you just need to know what ingredients to look for. My suggestion is to focus on your main concerns, learn the two or three ingredient names that address those concerns, and look for their prominence in the eye cream’s INCI.

Let’s do a quick review of how to match your eye area concern to what you should be looking for on the eye cream’s ingredient list (INCI):

Puffiness: Look for caffeine, prominently listed. The higher it is on the INCI, the better the chance that the concentration is meaningful.

Dark circles (bluish or purplish): Vitamin K and caffeine for vascular constriction and augmenting micro-circulation.

Dark circles (brownish or pigment-based): Niacinamide or tranexamic acid.

Fine lines and crow’s feet: Peptides. Look for Argireline, Matrixyl, or any Palmitoyl peptide on the label.

Overall thinning and loss of firmness: Peptides combined with ceramides.

Dryness and dehydration: Glycerin, polyglutamic acid, and ceramides.

Kevin James Bennett is the publisher of In My Kit®. He is an Emmy Award-winning makeup artist, cosmetic developer, educator, and consumer advocate.
Learn more at www.kjbennett.com

When you see “parfum” or “fragrance” on an ingredient list, have you been trained to run in the other direction?
Please stop running; you’ve probably been misinformed.
Organizations like the Environmental Working Group (EWG) and their “Skin Deep” Cosmetic Database have spent decades fear-mongering about synthetic fragrance while promoting “natural” alternatives. But here’s what they’re intentionally not telling you: for many, that lavender essential oil in your moisturizer is more likely to trigger a dermal reaction like contact dermatitis (redness, burning, stinging) or allergic contact dermatitis (itching, rash, blisters) than a synthetic fragrance.

There’s a reason for that silence. EWG isn’t an unbiased consumer advocacy group; it’s a lobbying organization whose donor base includes suppliers of organic and natural products that profit when you’re afraid of synthetic anything and reach for “natural” instead.

Let me walk you through what the research actually shows.

The Essential Oil Problem Nobody Wants to Talk About

Essential oils sound harmless; they’re from plants, after all. But lavender oil contains over 450 different chemicals, many of which are known allergens. When you use a product with lavender essential oil, you’re getting all of those compounds, whether your skin can handle them or not.

The scientific data is clear. There are nearly 80 essential oils that have been shown to cause contact or allergic dermatitis. 9 of the 80 showed patch test reactions in more than 2% of the test groups. Those 9 include tea tree, peppermint, sandalwood, and yes, lavender essential oils. Lavender reactions were so common that the American Contact Dermatitis Society (ACDS) added it to their core patch testing series.

Just to be clear, ACDS does not conduct small “study groups” like those used in a clinical trial for a new product. Instead, they focus on diagnostic patch testing, and their data comes from large-scale retrospective analyses of those clinical results.

But tea tree oil?!? 😲
It’s supposed to be therapeutic, antimicrobial….
Agreed, yet studies show it has caused more allergic contact dermatitis than most other essential oils, with up to 3.5% positive patch-test reactions in core study groups.

The Oxidation Factor

Here’s where things get really interesting. Two of the most common fragrance ingredients are limonene (a synthetic citrus scent) and linalool (a synthetic lavender scent). In their pure, synthetic forms, they rarely cause reactions. But when they’re blended with essential oils and exposed to air, they oxidize into hydroperoxides, which are potent allergens.

Limonene and linalool have been identified in up to 80% of OTC personal care products, and oxidation transforms these compounds into far more potent allergens than their non-oxidized forms. In a large UK study of over 4,700 dermatology patients, 5% showed positive reactions to oxidized limonene and 5.9% to oxidized linalool.

You know that “natural” lavender essential oil in your cleanser? They don’t bother telling you it’s probably blended with about 50% linalool, and every time you open that bottle, oxidation creates more allergens that could irritate and/or damage sensitive skin. Meanwhile, a product containing only pure synthetic linalool fragrance can be stabilized with antioxidants to prevent oxidation and significantly reduce the risk of a dermal reaction.

What “Clean🤬Beauty” Gets Wrong About Synthetic Fragrance

The unregulated, fear-mongering clean beauty movement loves to claim that synthetic fragrances are “toxic” or full of “harmful chemicals.” But they’re merging two very different issues, allergens and toxicity, for maximum dramatic effect.

I’m aware that some people are allergic to fragrance compounds, whether natural or synthetic. But allergies are individual responses, not an example of toxicity. Some synthetic ingredients are safe, stable, and effective, and can reduce the allergenic potential present in the natural fragrance compounds that the clean beauty folks praise.

When I formulate with synthetic fragrance, I can:

• Choose specific molecules that smell beautiful without including known allergens

• Control exact concentrations to minimize irritation risk

• Add stabilizers to prevent oxidation

• Ensure batch-to-batch consistency so your skin gets the same experience every time

With essential oils, I get none of that control.

The Airborne Allergy Risk

Here’s something that surprised me while I was researching this article: there’s been a significant uptick in airborne allergic contact dermatitis from essential oils used in aromatherapy. It’s being reported that more patients are developing eczema on exposed skin simply from aroma diffusers that either heat or nebulize essential oils into the atmosphere. And with the explosion of “natural” fragrance oil diffusers (Pura, Aera, AromaTech, etc.) being marketed so aggressively, cases of airborne contact dermatitis have been rising sharply.

The Marketing vs. The Money

Here’s where it gets interesting. The Environmental Working Group positions itself as a consumer protection organization, but it’s actually a lobbying group funded by organic and natural product companies. When EWG publishes its “recommendations based on scientific studies” (cough, cough), and they label synthetic fragrances as high-risk while giving essential oils a pass, they’re willfully deceiving (lying to) their followers, because they’re not following the CLINICAL science; they’re serving their donors’ financial interests with pseudo-science.

These organizations have built their empires on fear. They’ve convinced consumers that “chemical-free” is their ONLY safe possibility.
Realty Check: IT IS NOT.
Everything is made of chemicals, even WATER (H₂O). They want you to believe that “natural” means safe… but poison ivy is natural - is it safe? Arsenic is natural - is it safe? They’ve brainwashed and gaslighted people into believing that anything synthetic is automatically dangerous. It’s brilliant marketing for their donors’ products. But it’s not supported by clinical scientific data or dermatological evidence.

Meanwhile, “natural” essential oils, many of which are known irritants, can cause significant damage to a compromised skin barrier, especially in individuals with atopic dermatitis. The very people who need the gentlest, safest products are being lied to and steered toward ingredients with a high likelihood of HURTING THEM…
because it’s profitable for the organic and natural product industry.

What This Means for Your Routine

I’m not saying all essential oils are bad or that all synthetic fragrances are good. What I’m saying is that the narrative you’ve been sold is backwards.

If you have sensitive skin, reactive skin, or atopic dermatitis:

• Question any product that markets “natural fragrance” or essential oils as a selling point.

• If you prefer scented products over non-fragranced (which smell like their ingredients), well-formulated synthetic fragrances are generally a gentler choice.

• Pay attention to how long products have been sitting on the shelf after you opened them; oxidation makes natural fragrances more irritating over time.

#MyTwoCents

Organizations like EWG have done real damage by teaching people to fear the wrong things - not because they made an innocent mistake, but because their business model depends on it. When your donors are selling essential oils and organic ingredients, you have a financial incentive to demonize synthetic alternatives, regardless of what the science actually says.

As someone who formulates for sensitive skin, I can create gentler, more predictable, more skin-compatible products with synthetic fragrance than I ever could with essential oils. The data backs this up. The patch testing results back this up. The dermatology literature backs this up.

It’s time to stop letting lobbying groups disguised as consumer advocates override actual clinical science. Your skin’s health deserves better than a fear-based formulation that serves someone else’s bottom line.

Kevin James Bennett is the publisher of In My Kit®. He is an Emmy Award-winning makeup artist, cosmetic developer, educator, and consumer advocate.
Learn more at www.kjbennett.com

If you follow the beauty community on social media, you’ve seen the Lipstick Lesbians’ Leaked Labs controversy - the launch, the product selling out, the backlash, and the (fake) press conference to address all the questions and confusion, which ended up causing more confusion and pissing off a lot of people.

I’ve been flooded with texts, emails, and DMs from folks asking why I’ve been so quiet about this controversy. I’ve been carefully watching this unfold, and I’ve waited to voice my POV because I want to give this controversy the honest, balanced conversation it deserves, because there’s a lot to unpack here. Most of the online narrative has been either too much praise or too much outrage, which is polarizing and prevents us from understanding what’s actually happening.

Now that I’ve done the research and looked at the information through multiple lenses, I’m ready to talk about Leaked Labs.

First, Who Are the Lipstick Lesbians?

If you’re not already following Alexis Androulakis and Dr. Christina Basias, they are known to their 1.75 million combined social media followers as the Lipstick Lesbians.

Here’s the short version:
Alexis spent years in the cosmetic industry, working as a retail makeup artist for NARS (for 9 yrs) before moving into product development. Christina holds a PhD in education technology. Together, they built one of the most genuinely educational beauty platforms on social media. Alexis walks into a Sephora, Ulta, or a high-end department store, picks up a product, swatches it on her hand, and correctly identifies key ingredients and their contributions to a product’s formula. She’s also known for correctly guessing a product’s country of origin (without looking at the label). Many times, she even recognizes the contract manufacturer behind the product.
She has offered all of this premium cosmetic education…for free.

That content has legitimate value. The Lipstick Lesbians occupied a niche that hadn’t been explored very deeply, breaking down the wall between brand, manufacturer, and consumer. People were entertained, engaged, and learned things. That matters. This generous sharing of “insider” cosmetic knowledge laid a foundation of trust, which made what came next so complicated (and messy).

Worth noting:
Before Leaked Labs, Alexis and Christina founded Fem Power Beauty, a lipstick brand they launched in 2019 that, by their own admission, nearly bankrupted them. They self-funded it, it didn’t work out, and they moved on. They’ve been candid about how painful that experience was. Which is exactly why people expected that their next brand would be, as YouTube creator Kiki Chanel put it, “ironclad” - bulletproof, built on everything they’d learned from their previous failure. That expectation matters and is why the reaction to Leaked Lab’s debut product was so intense.

So What is Leaked Labs?

In March 2026, the Lipstick Lesbians launched Leaked Labs, a cosmetic product incubator that sources innovative cosmetic products directly from manufacturers’ in-house R&D libraries. These innovations have been presented by the manufacturers at trade shows and in product development meetings, but were passed over by cosmetic brands, for whatever reason(s).

The Leaked Labs debut product, Leak 001: Amplify Flexi Powder, is a pigment disc built on a carrageenan-based flexible membrane technology that reactivates when dampened with water or setting spray. Amplify Flexi Powder was retailed as a set of four of these flexible discs in metallic shades, housed in a small generic tin with sticker labeling, for $34.00 USD ($40 with shipping).
The product sold out the day it launched.

The brand premise:
Instead of waiting the typical 12 to 36 months for product innovations to wind through development timelines, Leaked Labs sources existing lab-stage formulas, what Alexis called “innovation orphans”, because nobody wanted them, and releases them directly to consumers in limited quantities.
You’re not really buying a retail-ready product (although the marketing makes it sound that way). You’re buying into the development process. Your feedback, as a verified purchaser, determines whether the product becomes a permanent offering or rides off into the archival sunset.

The concept has genuine intellectual appeal on paper, especially for anyone who’s ever seen a disruptive, stand-out formula at a trade show, only to watch it get shelved because no brand saw the value in developing it further for consumers.
I’ve been a brand and product development consultant for almost three decades, and I’ve often been frustrated by a client’s lack of motivation to pursue genuine innovation. They default to imitating successful products from competitors because it’s a “safer” investment.

What Went Wrong (And It’s Not What You Think)

I realize the brand founders don’t agree, but the criticism of the product was real and fair.

• Consumers documented inconsistent disc thickness across shades, with some paper-thin and others substantially thicker.

• A common complaint was the discs ripping on first use, possibly because the user made it too wet or didn’t handle it gently enough.

• One reviewer noted the product had degraded into what she described as a “gelatinous blob” within a week of leaving it in open air, indicating that Flexi Powder absorbs moisture from the atmosphere and must be stored in an airtight container when not in use to preserve its stability. BUT you have to make sure each disc is completely bone dry before you store it back in the tin, or the residual moisture in the closed tin will dissolve the discs and could become a breeding ground for bacteria.

  Flexi Powder, in its current form, has the potential to create a sanitation nightmare in a professional makeup artist’s kit.

• The swatches, even in the brand’s own promotional videos, were inconsistent. So the product has a distinct learning curve, which is not presented clearly in the marketing. Comparable liquid, cream, and gel eyeshadow formats already exist in the market in more user-friendly delivery systems.
  This raised an obvious consumer question: If there are existing products that offer the same results, in a far more user-friendly format, what problem is this product solving?

But here’s where it gets more interesting than a bad product launch. The core issue wasn’t the Flexi Powder itself. It was the business model, and what it asks of consumers.

Kiki Chanel, whose nearly hour-long breakdown of the launch has racked up almost a million views, put the structural argument most clearly. Leaked Labs has found a way to transfer all of the risk onto the consumer. In a traditional focus group, the brand either pays participants or, at a minimum, compensates them in some way, because consumer feedback has real economic value.
Leaked Labs inverts that concept entirely. Consumers pay $34 plus shipping ($40 total) to receive lab samples, provide feedback, and essentially conduct the market research for them.

As one commenter framed it with uncomfortable clarity: “Collecting data from people while charging them to participate in a focus group isn’t user research—it’s exploitation.”

And then came the detail that, for me, tips this from a controversial business model into something that genuinely needs to be called out.
In a clip circulating on social media, recorded during the launch window while consumers were waiting for their shipments to arrive, Alexis mentioned she was already reformulating the Flexi Powder. Let that sink in for a moment.
The brand’s explicit promise was that these products are finished, safety-tested, and ready for consumer hands. Not prototypes. Not works in progress. Not lab samples. Finished goods. And yet, before the product had even landed on many customers’ doorsteps, the founder was already on record saying she was reworking it.

If the product was truly finished and ready, what exactly is being reformulated?

The reviews documented a product that ripped apart easily during use, or degraded into a gelatinous blob within a week of exposure to air, with wildly inconsistent disc thickness across shades. That is not aesthetic nitpicking. Those are stability issues. The kind that gets flagged and corrected during a PROPER development process.

That clip where Alexis makes the reformulation statement shouldn’t be considered a footnote. It’s the thread that unravels their whole narrative. You cannot simultaneously tell consumers they purchased a finished product and tell a social media audience you’re not satisfied with its performance and are already fixing it. That’s not a communication problem. That’s a credibility problem that damages trust.

The ‘State of the Union’ Made It Worse

When the backlash hit, the Lipstick Lesbians addressed the criticism by posting a response video that felt like a staged FAQ briefing - they called it a Leaked Labs’ “State of the Union”. The intent was transparency, but the delivery read as condescending and combative.

The State of the Union video’s central claim, “you’re not paying to do the work for us,” was in direct conflict with their earlier Leaked Labs messaging.

They had used the words “lab sample.” They had described customers as part of “beauty’s largest public focus group that’s being documented.” A founder publicly stated that they were reworking the product while some customers were just receiving the version she no longer considered good enough. And when negative reviews came in, the brand responded by liking a comment that said people who don’t work in the industry “just don’t get it,” - which is a strange message from two people who built their entire platform on the promise of making the industry transparent and understandable to everyone.

The feedback survey, when it arrived, asked customers to write in their own words how the product could be improved and what would make it stand out more. That is, functionally, asking paying customers to do the product development for you. The survey came weeks after the launch, after the brand stated they were reworking the formula. A little too late to feel like genuine engagement rather than damage control.

Days after the State of the Union, they pinned a comment acknowledging the video “missed the mark on tone,” while noting they were traveling and would respond to concerns when they returned. That timing, for a brand in active crisis communication mode, did not help.

What the Industry Actually Thinks

The professional consensus is more nuanced than the consumer outcry. The underlying concept, using consumer response to validate formulas before committing to full commercial production, has merit. It flips a process that usually requires manufacturers to convince brands to invest in new technology, without knowing if consumers actually want it. That’s legitimately smart.

The concern from industry professionals wasn’t the feedback loop itself. It was the framing. The narrative that these formulas are hidden treasures that the industry has been keeping from you misrepresents why most lab-stage formulas don’t make it to market. Sometimes it’s corporate inertia. Sometimes it’s a timeline. And sometimes it’s because the formula had unsolved problems that made it commercially unviable. One developer noted it plainly: a lab sample and a finished product are not the same thing, and the distance between them is where most of the actual science happens.

What I Think They Got Right

I want to be careful here, because I think Alexis and Christina are genuinely talented, and I think the instinct behind Leaked Labs came from a real place. Alexis has decades of cosmetic experience. She knows this world. The frustration of watching innovative formulas gather dust in the “frustration drawer” (her phrase) is real and industry-wide. The desire to close the gap between discovery and consumer access is legitimate.

The sustainability angle is genuinely interesting. A business model that only scales what consumers actually want, using sustainable formats that don’t contribute to packaging waste, has real environmental merit. Very few reviews addressed that, which suggests the launch communication prioritized concept over consumer benefit.

The seed of the idea, that the wall between consumer and manufacturer could come down, that people could engage with beauty innovation before it gets focus-grouped into mediocrity, is worth pursuing. Just not like this.

The Precedent Problem

Here’s what keeps me up at night about this whole situation, and it’s the point Kiki Chanel makes most forcefully in her breakdown: this is a precedent conversation, not just a product conversation.

If Leaked Labs succeeds, if this model gets normalized, the beauty industry will notice. Brands are already watching their margins and looking for ways to reduce the cost and risk of innovation. A model in which consumers fund the market research, generate the content, provide the feedback, and absorb the financial risk of an underperforming product is extremely attractive from a business logic standpoint.
That’s the danger.
Not that one brand tried something unconventional, but that an unconventional model gets copy-pasted industry-wide before anyone has seriously interrogated what it costs consumers.

Consumer feedback has always had economic value. The beauty industry has always paid for it, through focus groups, paid panels, seeding programs, and product sampling. The moment we accept paying for that privilege ourselves, we’ve handed something real away. And once a precedent is set in this industry, it tends to stick.

#MyTwoCents

I’ll be honest: I root for Alexis and Christina. They built something real before they built a brand, and that foundation matters. But trust isn’t just about transparency. It’s about what you do with the trust people have already extended to you. Their audience showed up with years of goodwill, genuine belief in their expertise, and real money. That deserves a product that’s been finished, tested, and packaged with the same care they’ve always told us to demand from other brands.

The concept of consumer participation in innovation is not the problem. The problem is asking people to pay for the privilege of doing your work, then framing their reasonable questions as a failure of comprehension. The audience understood exactly what was happening. They realized they were being taken advantage of, and they were upset.

But I keep coming back to the reformulation. That’s the detail I can’t get past. Because everything else, the messy launch, the defensive State of the Union, the late survey, the condescending liked comment, could in theory be chalked up to first-brand growing pains. Miscalculated messaging. Underestimating the audience’s reaction. We’ve all seen founders stumble on their communication and recover.

Reformulating a product you just charged $34 for, while customers are still opening their packages, is different. That’s not a communication problem. That’s a product problem. If the product wasn’t ready, it shouldn’t have shipped. Full stop.

Product development is exciting and very fulfilling - if you follow the correct steps.

1. Develop innovative products with the end user in mind. If the innovation doesn’t enrich or simplify the user’s life, it’s not viable in the current marketplace.

2. Finish and stability test the product properly, and only bring it to market when it’s ready.

3. Present your product in consumer-friendly retail packaging.

4. Charge a fair price.

5. Learn from your reviews and consumer feedback, and don’t become defensive or combative if the product isn't well-received.

That’s not a revolutionary business model; it’s the foundation of building consumer trust. And trust, once lost, is difficult to rebuild.
Leaked Labs “Leak 002” will tell us everything we need to know about whether the Lipstick Lesbians are listening rather than reacting.

What do you think?

Kevin James Bennett is the publisher of In My Kit®. He is an Emmy Award-winning makeup artist, cosmetic developer, educator, and consumer advocate. Learn more at www.kjbennett.com

Skinification is a beauty trend that applies advanced skincare principles and ingredients to cosmetic categories beyond facial skincare. It emphasizes treating the body, hair, scalp, and nails, as well as color cosmetics, with the same active ingredients used in facial skincare.

I spoke with BeautyMatter editor, Sophie Pitt, about the overwhelming impact of “skinification” on the cosmetic industry - product development, formulation, marketing, and potential consumer danger.

Read the article HERE.

There’s a sentence sitting inside a recent Skin Inc. article discussing a brand founder’s “Considerations in Private Label” that should not have survived an editorial review. It was written by the publication’s managing editor, Kitty Lin, and it reads:

“...only to discover that many of the waxing products available contained mineral oil or talcum powder, both of which are known carcinogens.”

That claim is factually incorrect. Not edgy. Not provocative. Not a matter of ongoing scientific debate. Incorrect.
And the reason I’m alarmed - genuinely alarmed - is that Skin Inc. isn’t a wellness influencer’s Instagram page or a TikTok account. It’s a professional trade magazine. The estheticians and spa directors who read Skin Inc. trust it to provide accurate information they can carry into their treatment rooms and share with their clients. That trust has been violated. And printing this article without correction is a failure of professional journalism.

Right now, somewhere, a spa owner or esthetician who trusted this trade publication to fact-check properly could be passing misinformation to their clients. Or they’re quietly second-guessing all the products they’ve used safely for years.
That is the real-world cost of getting information wrong in print.
So let’s dive into it.

First of all, I’d like to clarify that I did not discover this article or its misinformation randomly. This article was featured in the Skin Inc. March newsletter. (see image below)
Think about it, Skin Inc., a trusted information resource to the spa industry, directed its subscribers to this article, which means they knowingly promoted misinformation. That’s NOT OK. 🤬

Mineral Oil Is Not a Known Carcinogen. Full Stop.

Cosmetic-grade white mineral oil — listed on ingredient labels as Mineral Oil, and regulated under USP and NF monographs — is classified by the FDA as Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) for direct food applications under 21 CFR 172.878, and is fully approved for cosmetic and pharmaceutical use. It is used in food, drugs, and cosmetics across the U.S., EU, Canada, Japan, and virtually every other major regulatory market on earth. It is an ingredient in pharmaceutical-grade skin protectants, laxatives, and pediatric formulations.

There is an IARC classification that applies to certain mineral oils — but context is everything. IARC Group 1 ("known human carcinogen”) applies to untreated and mildly treated mineral oils used in industrial metalworking fluids and occupational settings, where workers experience chronic, direct skin exposure to impure, unrefined product. That classification is based on evidence of scrotal and skin cancers in industrial workers — not cosmetic users, not waxing clients, not anyone in a treatment room.

Cosmetic-grade white mineral oil is a different material. The refining process that produces it - removing polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and other impurities to meet pharmacopoeia purity standards - creates a substance that no regulatory authority classifies as a carcinogen for cosmetic use. Not the FDA. Not the EU’s Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety. Not IARC. Not Health Canada.

Conflating industrial mineral oil with cosmetic-grade white mineral oil because they share a name is the kind of error you’d expect from a random wellness blog optimized for clicks. It is not what you expect, or should accept, from the leading trade publication for professional estheticians.

The Talc Conversation Is Complicated. That’s Exactly Why Precision Matters.

Talc deserves more careful handling precisely because the science is genuinely evolving — and sloppy language obscures the real story rather than telling it.

In July 2024, the International Agency for Research on Cancer reclassified talc (not containing asbestos) from Group 2B — “possibly carcinogenic” — to Group 2A — “probably carcinogenic to humans.”
That is a meaningful development. It reflects limited human evidence for ovarian cancer risk and sufficient animal study data, and it is driving real regulatory action: the EU’s Committee for Risk Assessment classified talc as a Category 1B carcinogen in September 2024, separate from the asbestos contamination question, and the EU is moving toward a 2027 ban on talc in cosmetics. These are consequential developments that professionals absolutely need to know about.

But here is what IARC Group 2A means: probably carcinogenic, with limited human evidence. It is the same classification as that of red meat, aloe vera extract, and the herbicide glyphosate.
It is not a Group 1 “known carcinogen”, which requires strong, consistent, replicated human evidence.
That distinction is not a technicality — it is the difference between a serious precautionary concern and a settled verdict. Remember, the same “probably” classification applies to red meat.
I’m not trying to be dramatic, but Skin Inc. calling these ingredients “known carcinogens” is no different than the Nation's Restaurant News (NRN), known for comprehensive coverage of the food industry, calling red meat a “known carcinogen”. Words mean things, especially in professional education.

When you replace a nuanced, important story with an inaccurate label, you don’t protect people — you frighten them. And frightened, ill-informed clients are harder to help, not easier.

Furthermore, the FDA has not banned talc in cosmetics. It proposed a rule in December 2024 that would require standardized asbestos testing for talc-containing cosmetics. This rule was subsequently withdrawn under political pressure by that idiot RFK Jr. in November 2025, not due to scientific reassessment. The FDA’s own 2024 testing of 50 talc-containing cosmetic samples found no asbestos. The agency has stated it will issue a new proposed rule, though no timeline has been announced.

A trade publication covering this space has a genuine, important story to tell about talc - the EU’s trajectory, about supply chain contamination risk, about what brand reformulation timelines should look like. Telling these stories requires precision. Dropping a bomb like “known carcinogen” doesn’t inform professionals. It adds more noise to an industry already drowning in unfounded ingredient hysteria.

This Is What Happens When Fear Culture Infiltrates the Trade

Special interest groups and lobbyists like EWG have built enormously powerful platforms on ingredient fear-mongering to promote their donors’ agendas and hurt their donors’ competitors. They found a formula that works: take a complex scientific classification, strip out every qualifier, cherry-pick phrases, add words like “toxic”, “carcinogen,“” endocrine disruptor,” and let anxiety do the rest.
Drama drives engagement. It has very little to do with helping people understand actual risk.

That vocabulary has now saturated wellness media so completely that it bleeds into professional coverage without anyone stopping to ask if the information is factual.
I don’t know whether Kitty Lin was leaning into information gleaned from the EWG misinformation ecosystem when she wrote this piece. What I know is that Skin Inc.’s editorial process should have caught this mistake before it went to print. The fact that it made it to print and then was FEATURED is a failure of the institution.

The trade press is supposed to be where professionals come to escape the noise, where the information has been fact-checked, contextualized, and held to a standard that respects the intelligence and professional responsibility of the people reading it. When it stops doing that job, the consequences aren’t abstract. They show up in treatment rooms, in client conversations, in purchasing decisions made on bad information.

The Professionals Reading This Deserved Better

I keep coming back to the estheticians. The spa directors. The waxing specialists who opened Skin Inc. read that sentence and had no reason to question it because it came from their trusted trade magazine. They are good at their jobs, care deeply about their clients, and do exactly what professionals are supposed to do - stay current, read the trades, and bring that information to work.

Unfortunately, they were handed information that wasn’t true.

That’s what upsets me most about this. Not the regulatory nuance. Not the classification terminology. The fact that real professionals were misled by a source they had every reason to trust, and real clients are now on the receiving end of that misinformation.
A clear, explicit correction from Skin Inc. is not optional. It’s owed.

#MyTwoCents

Cosmetic-grade mineral oil is not a carcinogen - not by any scientific or regulatory standard, anywhere, period. Calling it one in a professional trade publication is not an editorial choice; it’s a factual error with real consequences for the professionals who read it and pass the misinformation to their clients.
Talc deserves more serious, accurate coverage, and genuinely important information is evolving all the time. I published an article about it earlier this week.
The accurate version of the current talc story is complicated and nuanced. Labeling an ingredient as “carcinogenic” without proper citation is fear-mongering.

Our industry is already fighting a losing battle against the flood of ingredient misinformation from special-interest groups and consumer media. The trade press is supposed to be the place where we get it right. Skin Inc. got this one wrong, and the people sitting in treatment rooms right now are paying the price. That’s not okay and shouldn’t be allowed to stand without correction. PERIOD.

Kevin James Bennett is the publisher of In My Kit®. He is an Emmy Award-winning makeup artist, cosmetic developer, educator, and consumer advocate. Learn more at www.kjbennett.com

1. Venture capitalists (VCs) invest in high-growth, early-stage startups, usually taking minority stakes. They focus on long-term growth.

2. Private equity (PE) investors target mature, established companies, often buying a controlling interest (50-100%) to improve operations and profitability. PE firms focus on short-term optimization and a quick exit.

Before you sign anything, let’s have a conversation your accountant won’t have with you, but I will.
Raising capital can be transformative. It can also be the beginning of the end - not because the money was bad, but because the relationship was. Here’s what you need to know before that wire transfer lands at your bank.

More Money = More Problems

Let’s start with the obvious thing nobody wants to say out loud: you don’t need as much money as they’re offering.

Private equity and venture capital firms operate at scale. Their business model depends on deploying substantial capital and generating returns that justify their investment. That means they’re often incentivized to write bigger checks than your business actually needs because bigger checks create bigger ownership stakes, bigger oversight roles, and more pressure on you to grow faster to give them back their money - with interest.

The Rule:
Only take what you can deploy strategically to actually scale your business. Capital you can’t put to work efficiently becomes dead weight — or worse, pressure to spend unwisely just to look like you’re growing. Overfunding a brand in the beauty space is a well-worn path to inflated overhead, misaligned retail expansion, and a Founder/CEO who spends more time in investor calls than in product development.

Ask yourself: What specific initiatives will this capital fund? What does success look like in 18 months? Can you articulate a clear, credible use-of-funds story?

If your answer is “we’ll figure it out,” you’re not ready to take the money.

Values Alignment Is Not a Soft Skill, It’s a Survival Skill.

Here’s where founders get burned the most, and it’s almost never talked about in funding announcements: Does the investor’s values align with your brand’s DNA and planned evolution?

Investors are not a monolith. Some genuinely want to build great brands. They understand the beauty industry, they respect creative vision, and they know that rushing a product into mass retail before it’s ready can permanently damage a brand’s equity. These investors exist. They are wonderful. They are also a minority.

The majority of institutional investors — particularly in PE — are primarily interested in a return on their investment within a defined window, usually three to seven years.
They are not there to fall in love with your packaging or to protect your brand story. They are there to grow revenue, maximize EBITDA (Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, and Amortization), and position the business for a sale or IPO. PERIOD.

That’s not a character flaw. It’s their job. But it may not align with your brand vision.

Before you take a single dollar, do your homework.

• Look at their portfolio.

• Talk to founders they’ve backed before - not the ones on their website, the ones they don’t use in their marketing.

• Ask what happened when growth targets weren’t met.

• Ask what the conversation looked like when a founder wanted to slow down a project to ensure they launch a high-quality, stable product.

• Ask if they’ve ever pushed a brand into a channel or retail partnership the founder was uncomfortable with.

The answers to those questions will tell you everything.

Treat It Like a Marriage, Not a Mortgage.

Here’s the analogy I keep coming back to: taking on an investor is less like a business loan and more like getting married. You don’t just get the money - you get a relationship that comes with opinions, expectations, and often complications that require compromise.

And just like a marriage, the early courtship is when everyone is on their best behavior. The investor is attentive, enthusiastic, and full of big promises about what they can bring to the table beyond capital — distribution relationships, operational expertise, and marketing support. Some of it is real. Some of it is theater.

The question isn’t how they treat you when things are going well. It’s how they treat you when a launch underperforms, when a key retailer pulls back, or when the market shifts and your growth trajectory takes an unexpected detour. Structure your relationship accordingly.

Get the hard conversations in writing before the deal closes:

• What happens if growth targets aren’t met?

• Who has approval authority over key hires, product decisions, and retail partners?

• What does the exit process look like, and who drives it?

These aren’t adversarial questions — they’re professional ones. Any investor worth working with will respect you more for asking them.

And do not - I cannot stress this enough - do not treat the capital injection as a finish line. It’s a starting line. The relationship begins the moment the wire transfer clears, and it requires the same intentionality, communication, and mutual respect as any long-term partnership.

Exits…

This is the part that nobody talks about at the funding celebration dinner, and it’s maybe the most important thing I’ll say here.

The beauty industry has a complicated relationship with investors. There’s a pervasive narrative that selling a stake in your brand to a VC or PE represents capitulation. That if you really believed in what you built and were serious about its growth, you wouldn’t “sell out”. That a founder with integrity would never invite some conglomerate to absorb their creation.

That narrative is unfair, and frankly, unrealistic.

Some of the most influential brands in beauty history were founded, built, funded by investors, scaled, and sold. An exit isn’t a surrender. It’s a chapter closing.

What matters is that you built something real. Something with integrity. Something that genuinely served your customer, pushed the industry forward, or changed the conversation in your category. If what you built wasn’t worthwhile, you wouldn’t have attracted investors or a buyer.
The measure of what you built is based on the quality and values you baked into the brand before stepping into an investment or sale negotiation.

You can be proud of what you built, no matter how you end your participation.

#MyTwoCents

Founders who navigate investor relationships successfully are the ones who go in with clear eyes, ask hard questions, and hold on to their values even when pressure to meet quarterly sales goals builds.

Capital is a tool, not a lottery ticket. Only take what you can deploy. Only partner with people whose definition of “success” is similar to yours. Treat the investor relationship with the same respect and intentionality you’d give any long-term business partnership — because that’s exactly what it is.

And if the chapter closes? Hold your head up. The work was real. The impact was real. That doesn’t disappear when the brand does.

I’d love to hear your thoughts and discuss in the comments below.

Kevin James Bennett is the publisher of In My Kit®. He is an Emmy Award-winning makeup artist, cosmetic developer, industry expert, and educator.
Learn more at www.kjbennett.com

If you’ve been following the talc saga (you have if you read In My Kit regularly), you’ll remember that MoCRA mandated that the FDA finally do something it has managed to avoid for over 80 years: establish standardized, enforceable testing methods for detecting asbestos in talc used for cosmetic manufacturing.

This is not a rule about banning talc. This is not even a rule about restricting it.
This is simply a rule to require testing for carcinogens in a raw material that has generated over 100K lawsuits globally.

The proposed rule landed in December 2024. It was genuinely substantive, requiring manufacturers to test every batch using two specific methods: Polarized Light Microscopy and Transmission Electron Microscopy. Rigorous, science-backed approaches developed by an interagency group that had been deliberating since 2018. Products that failed testing, or manufacturers that skipped it entirely, would be deemed adulterated under federal law. Finally, some teeth.

The final rule was targeted for this month, March 2026. It did not arrive.
WHY?
The proposed rule was withdrawn on November 28, 2025, signed by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. There is currently no mandatory federal testing requirement for asbestos in talc-containing cosmetics. No new proposed rule has been issued. No timeline has been announced.

So what actually happened?

The official explanation, per the Federal Register withdrawal notice, cites the “legal considerations under the Administrative Procedure Act,” and — perhaps most eyebrow-raising, it’s not a priority of the tRump administration’s “Make America Healthy Again” initiative. 🤬

Industry groups, including the National Association of Manufacturers, argued that the FDA’s proposed definition of “asbestos” was broader than that used by other federal agencies, and that the testing methods could generate false positives, flagging non-asbestos mineral fibers as asbestos, triggering unnecessary recalls and reformulations. Those aren’t frivolous concerns in a regulatory context.

What’s harder to square is the timing and the outcome. The FDA didn’t narrow the rule, clarify the definition, or adjust the methodology. It withdrew the proposal entirely, with a vague commitment to issue a new one…eventually.
As of January 2026, over 90,000 lawsuits have been filed against Johnson & Johnson alone, with the company ordered to pay over $2.5 billion to talc victims in 2025. For an ingredient with such a litigious history, this “we’ll get back to you” messaging is a head-scratcher as a regulatory stance.

Meanwhile, in the EU…

While the U.S. regulatory machinery idles, the EU’s Committee for Risk Assessment did something more definitive in September 2024: it classified talc itself — not just potentially contaminated talc, but the ingredient — as a Category 1B carcinogen, based on evidence linking it to ovarian and lung tumors. That classification is entirely separate from the asbestos contamination question.

Under EU cosmetics law, a Category 1B carcinogen classification typically triggers a ban on use in cosmetic products. The formal regulation hasn’t been finalized yet, but industry experts anticipate it could take effect around 2027. That’s not a testing standard rule - that’s an exit ramp for talc in cosmetics.

The regulatory deviation between the U.S. and the EU on this ingredient is now stark and accelerating. Brands formulating for global markets are already doing the math: if talc is heading toward a European ban, does it make sense to keep it in your formulations at all — regardless of what the FDA does or doesn’t do?

What this means right now.

For consumers, the practical reality is unchanged from last year: there is no federal requirement for how your setting powder, blush, bronzer, or eyeshadow gets tested for asbestos. Testing happens voluntarily, by manufacturers, using methods of their own choosing. Some brands do it rigorously. Some don’t at all.
Unfortunately, you can’t tell from the label if the talc in your product has been tested.

For brands and formulators, the signal, however confusing and messy its delivery, is clear enough. The direction on talc is toward intensified scrutiny, not less, even if the U.S. regulatory path seems derailed. The EU’s carcinogen classification didn’t happen in a vacuum, and it won’t stay contained to European markets. Talc-free reformulation isn’t just a clean beauty marketing choice anymore; it’s become an increasingly important supply chain and liability management decision.

The FDA says it will eventually issue a new proposed rule. It’s statutorily required to. But “eventually” and “no timeline announced” are phrases that should sound familiar to anyone who’s been watching the painfully slow rollout of MoCRA.

#MyTwoCents

Here’s what I keep coming back to: the FDA was legally required to finalize this rule. Congress put it in writing. MoCRA mandated it. And the agency still withdrew the proposal — citing industry pushback over testing methodology — with no replacement and no timeline.

Meanwhile, the EU has gone in the opposite direction entirely, classifying talc itself as a probable human carcinogen — independent of the asbestos contamination issue. Two completely separate regulatory bodies, looking at the same ingredient, arriving at conclusions that couldn’t be more different. One is pressing pause. The other is heading toward a ban.

The talc story isn’t over. It’s just waiting for its next chapter, and the US cosmetic industry would be wise not to wait for Washington to write it.

If you’re a brand still formulating with talc and your distribution is global — or aspirationally global — the EU’s 2027 timeline should be the number on your radar, not whatever Washington eventually proposes. Reformulating ahead of a mandate is always less expensive, less disruptive, and better for the brand story than scrambling after one.

And for consumers?
Until there’s a federal standard with real enforcement - which we now know isn’t happening anytime soon - opting for talc-free products is the only reliable way to make an informed choice.
I know, it shouldn’t be that way. But here we are.

I’d love to hear your thoughts on this industry-changing issue in the comment section.

Kevin James Bennett is a multiple Emmy Award-winning makeup artist, respected industry expert, cosmetic developer, and educator. He is the publisher of In My Kit®

Let’s discuss what Beta-Glucan actually is and does before the cosmetic marketing machine has a chance to muddy the waters.

The Basics, Without the Marketing Bullsh*t

Beta-glucan is a naturally occurring polysaccharide, a long-chain sugar molecule, found in the cell walls of oats, yeast, barley, and certain mushrooms. It has been a workhorse in wound care and medical research for decades, which tells you something important right away: this is not an ingredient that showed up because a brand needed a new hero story. Have you wondered why so many products targeting irritated, sensitive skin contain oat-based ingredients? That instantly soothing, calming quality you notice on your skin is largely beta-glucan doing its job. The ingredient is not new. What is new is that the skincare industry is finally paying it the serious, sustained attention it deserves.

In a well-formulated product, beta-glucan is genuinely multitasking. It functions as a humectant, drawing moisture into the skin and holding it there. It is anti-inflammatory, meaning it actively calms redness and irritation at a cellular level. It acts as an antioxidant, neutralizing free radical damage. And it supports the skin’s own repair mechanisms in ways that are measurable and clinically documented. That is a lot of performance from a single ingredient, and the buzz is based on clinical data, not marketing.

The Penetration Problem (That Turned Out Not to Be a Problem)

For years, formulators and clinicians assumed beta-glucan’s large molecular structure would prevent meaningful skin penetration.

The assumption was logical. And it was also wrong.

A 2005 study published in the International Journal of Cosmetic Science by Pillai, Redmond, and Röding was the first to demonstrate, using ex vivo human skin models, that oat beta-glucan does, in fact, penetrate the epidermis and dermis despite its molecular weight.
A clinical arm of the same study followed 30 subjects over eight weeks, and proved efficacy by showing significant reductions in wrinkle depth and height, overall skin texture (roughness), and sensitivity.

That’s not marketing copy. That’s peer-reviewed data.

The mechanism of penetration is equally interesting: beta-glucan moves through intercellular channels rather than passing directly through cells, meaning it permeates the skin by traveling between keratinocytes rather than disrupting them. This is part of why the ingredient is so well tolerated, even by sensitive and compromised skin.

What “Barrier Repair” Actually Means Here

Barrier health has become one of those phrases so overused by cosmetic marketers that it barely means anything anymore. But with beta-glucan, the barrier story is real and specific, and it’s worth understanding why.

Research published in 2025 in Food Science and Nutrition confirms that oat beta-glucan activates the Dectin-1 signaling pathway, a cellular communication channel that tells the skin to rebuild. That activation upregulates key structural proteins, filaggrin and loricrin, which are essential to stratum corneum integrity. The stratum corneum is the outermost layer of the skin, your first line of defense against the world. When filaggrin and loricrin function well, that layer remains strong, supple, and properly sealed. Beta-glucan also promotes claudin-1, a tight junction protein that governs how effectively the barrier prevents water loss and blocks environmental aggressors from getting in.

A separate clinical study reinforces this in more practical terms. Participants with sensitive skin applied a formula containing 0.5-2% beta-glucan twice daily for 6 weeks. The result: measurable improvements in stratum corneum water retention and barrier function, with zero erythema, meaning no redness, no irritation, no inflammatory response whatsoever. For a cosmetic ingredient making barrier repair claims, that is a stringent evidentiary bar. Beta-glucan cleared it without breaking a sweat.

Why 2026 Is the Right Moment

The industry has spent the better part of the past decade chasing novelty. We have had mushroom adaptogens, bakuchiol, polyglutamic acid, and any number of ingredients elevated by people who have never read a formulation brief in their lives. Beta-glucan is different because its science substantially precedes its current trend status. The clinical literature on its wound-healing, barrier-supporting, and anti-inflammatory properties has been building since the early 2000s, grounded in peer-reviewed research rather than brand-funded claims.

Consumer behavior is also shifting in ways that favor it. Data from the Boots 2026 Beauty and Wellness Trends Report shows that 80 percent of adults now approach skin care as a long-term investment rather than a quick fix, with nearly half adjusting their routines specifically to manage sensitivity and environmental stress. Beta-glucan is precisely the ingredient that serves that consumer: calm, multifunctional, exceptionally well-tolerated, and backed by evidence that predates its moment in the spotlight by two decades.

#MyTwoCents

Beta-glucan is not a trend. It is an ingredient with a decades-long track record and a research portfolio that most overhyped actives could only dream about. When it shows up in a product you’re considering, it is there because it works, not because some brand needed a compelling hero story for a relaunch.

What to look for: beta-glucan in serums and barrier creams, ideally in the first half of the ingredient list, where its concentration is actually doing something meaningful. Pair it with ceramides and a solid moisturizer, and you have a barrier-supportive routine grounded in real science, not wishful thinking.

The ingredient trend cycle will keep spinning. Beta-glucan was here long before the current noise, and it will still be delivering results when the next viral molecule has come and gone.

Kevin James Bennett is a multiple Emmy Award-winning makeup artist, respected industry expert, cosmetic developer, and educator. He is the publisher of In My Kit®

On December 29, 2025, the FDA released its long-awaited Report on PFAS in Cosmetic Products. PFAS, the shorthand for per/polyfluoroalkyl substances, are a class of synthetic chemicals used across countless industries. In beauty, they go by names like PTFE, perfluorodecalin, and perfluorononyl dimethicone. You have almost certainly used a product that contains one.

The report was mandated by The Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 (MoCRA), the biggest overhaul of federal cosmetics oversight since 1938. The FDA had a congressional deadline to assess the safety of PFAS and publish its findings.

What it found, essentially, is that it cannot tell you whether most of them are safe. Not because they are definitively dangerous, but because the data required to answer the question does not exist.
For 19 of the 25 most commonly used PFAS in cosmetics, the agency’s own language is “incomplete or unavailable” toxicological data. That is not what we expected - a shrug 🤷‍♂️ on government letterhead?

Why Are These Chemicals in Cosmetics at All?

Because they work. PFAS earn their place in a formula.

PTFE, which most people know as Teflon, is the most widely used PFAS in cosmetics. It shows up in eyeshadows, pressed powders, foundations, and long-wear formulations as a texture agent. It is what gives a pressed powder that smooth, almost frictionless feel on a brush. It helps waterproof mascaras resist humidity and long-wear products stay put. Other PFAS contribute to skin conditioning, water resistance, and consistency.

They are not accidental. A formulator puts them there because they deliver a sensory or performance result that has, until recently, been difficult to replicate with non-fluorinated alternatives.

What the Numbers Actually Say

Using new mandatory product listing data from MoCRA, the FDA identified 51 distinct PFAS intentionally added to 1,744 cosmetic formulations. That is roughly 0.41% of all registered products, so not the whole market. But the category concentration is what matters: eyeshadows, face powders, foundations, eyeliners, and leave-on face and neck products make up the majority of those formulations. Products applied close to the eye (a direct conduit to your bloodstream), worn for hours, and used daily.

PTFE alone appeared in approximately 490 products, making it the single most common PFAS ingredient in the category.

Of the 25 most frequently used PFAS reviewed, five were assessed as low safety concern under their intended use conditions. One was flagged as a potential safety concern, with significant uncertainty remaining. And 19 could not be assessed at all, because the toxicological data simply isn’t there.

One important scope note: the report covers only PFAS that are intentionally added as ingredients. It does not address PFAS that may be present as contaminants from raw materials, packaging, or ingredient breakdown. Separate research has found PFAS in products with no PFAS listed on the label, but that is a different, still-developing conversation.

States Didn’t Wait for the Federal Government

While the FDA was drafting its report, states were already acting. Eleven states have now enacted bans on intentionally added PFAS in cosmetics. California, Colorado, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington went first, with bans taking effect on January 1, 2025. Connecticut, Maine, Vermont, and Illinois followed on January 1, 2026. Oregon, Rhode Island, and New Hampshire are on deck for 2027.

France has a phased ban in place. New Zealand is phasing out all intentionally added PFAS in cosmetics by 2027 to 2028. The EU is evaluating a broad restriction proposal that covers thousands of PFAS uses, including cosmetics.

The patchwork is messy, the state definitions vary, and compliance is genuinely complicated for brands selling nationally. But the direction we’re heading towards with PFAS is clear.

How to Read Your Labels Right Now

If you want to know whether a product you use contains PFAS, the INCI list is your answer. Look for:

PTFE (the most common one, appears as exactly that)

Anything beginning with “perfluoro” or “polyfluoro”

Perfluorodecalin, perfluorononyl dimethicone, perfluorohexane

Rinse-off products are lower concern simply because contact time is short. The category to pay attention to is leave-on products used close to the eye daily: pressed eyeshadows, long-wear liners, setting powders, and foundations. That is where the cumulative exposure question becomes meaningful.

#MyTwoCents

Nobody is telling you PFAS in cosmetics are definitely harming you. The FDA report does not say that. What it does say is that for the majority of PFAS used in cosmetics, the science to answer that question has not been done. That is a meaningful distinction worth noting and understanding.

The regulatory environment is tightening, both at the state level in the US and globally. Reformulation away from PFAS is already underway at brands paying attention. Non-fluorinated alternatives for most PFAS functions now exist commercially, even if the reformulation process is rarely a simple swap.

The conversation about forever chemicals in beauty is gathering steam. This report is the beginning of a data infrastructure that will produce more answers, not fewer questions. So, stay tuned.

Kevin James Bennett is a multiple Emmy Award-winning makeup artist, respected industry expert, cosmetic developer, and educator. He is the publisher of In My Kit®

I’ve been working in this industry for over four decades. I have watched brands rise, fall, get acquired by conglomerates that had no business acquiring them, and be quietly shelved because nobody in conference rooms had the courage to say “this isn’t working.” I thought I had seen every mutation of corporate beauty chaos.

Evidently, I have not.

What is happening right now, in this single compressed moment of early 2026, is unprecedented. Not because any one of these stories is individually shocking. We have seen bankruptcies. We have seen mega-mergers. We have seen conglomerates cleaning house. What we have not seen is all of it happening simultaneously, across virtually every major player, in what amounts to the largest coordinated portfolio reckoning this industry has ever experienced.

Let me walk you through it, because the sheer volume deserves to be laid out in one place.

Pat McGrath Labs, once valued at $1 billion, is now controlled by its lender. Pat McGrath herself has ceded a 65% equity stake to GDA Luma Capital Management as part of a Chapter 11 restructuring. She transitions from CEO to Chief Creative Officer. The brand that launched with a $40 gold pigment that sold out in six minutes is now governed by a distressed-debt investment firm. Let that land for a moment.

Meanwhile, Estée Lauder Companies is moving in two directions at once. On the acquisition side, CEO Stéphane de La Faverie just completed an 18-year courtship by agreeing to acquire the remaining 51% of the Indian luxury Ayurvedic brand Forest Essentials, a roughly $63 million-revenue business with nearly 200 stores. On the divestment side? ELC is actively marketing Too Faced, Smashbox, and Dr. Jart for sale. The color cosmetic brands are being offered as a pair. Dr. Jart is being offered separately. The message is unmistakable: the portfolio that defined their 2010s acquisition spree is being disassembled.

At LVMH, the situation is even more dramatic. Bernard Arnault’s luxury empire is reportedly weighing the sale of Make Up For Ever (which has been loss-making for eight consecutive years), the skincare brand Fresh (also loss-making), and its stake in Rihanna’s Fenty Beauty (seeking €1.5 to €2.5 billion). During the most recent earnings call, Arnault mentioned none of them. He talked about Dior lipstick sales and Louis Vuitton Beauté. The silence said everything. For those of us who watched and worked with Dany Sanz to build Make Up For Ever into one of the most respected professional brands in the world, watching it reduced to “loss-making” and “not aligned with core luxury focus” after 27 years under LVMH ownership is... well, it’s heartbreaking.

Coty continues its strategic review of the entire $1.2 billion mass color cosmetics business, including CoverGirl, Rimmel, Sally Hansen, and Max Factor, plus its $400 million Brazil operation. The review was initiated under former CEO Sue Nabi before her December departure, and is now being led by interim CEO Markus Strobel, who stepped in from Procter & Gamble on January 1. The strategic direction is clear: Coty wants to be a fragrance house. Everything else is negotiable. The problem? Finding buyers for legacy mass color brands in a market where drugstore traffic is declining, e.l.f. is eating market share from below, and prestige is pulling consumers from above.

And then there is the Kimberly-Clark/Kenvue deal, a $48.7 billion acquisition that both shareholder groups approved with overwhelming majorities. When this closes in the second half of 2026, the company that makes Huggies and Kleenex will own Neutrogena, Aveeno, OGX, and Clean & Clear. Kimberly-Clark has zero beauty infrastructure, zero beauty expertise, and zero track record in the category. The most charitable read is that they will invest in the brands and leverage their commercial execution playbook. The less charitable read is that these beauty assets are about to experience the same kind of strategic neglect that got them here in the first place.

Over in China, Yatsen Holding (the parent of Perfect Diary, Galénic, Eve Lom, and DR.WU) posted 26.7% revenue growth for FY2025 and swung to profitability in Q4 by doing something radical: it invested in skincare R&D, shifted its portfolio toward higher-margin products, and exercised actual discipline. Skincare now represents 53% of revenue, up from a color-cosmetics-heavy mix just two years ago. Gross margins hit 78.2%. In a landscape of write-downs and restructurings, Yatsen’s performance reads like a quiet rebuke to everyone else on this list.

And a comprehensive WWD analysis published today maps the full buyer landscape for 2026. The conclusion is sobering. The traditional private equity players who fueled the beauty acquisition boom of 2018 through 2022 have largely pulled back. Eurazeo shuttered its brand investment arm entirely. Carlyle, TPG, and Summit Partners are described as “less focused on beauty.” The active buyer pool has shrunk from roughly two dozen firms to a small handful. Korean strategics and a few disciplined consumer goods companies (Church & Dwight being the notable example) are the ones still writing checks.

Let me say this plainly: The beauty industry is not experiencing a correction. It is experiencing a structural realignment.

The over-capitalized brands are being recapitalized. The brands that were mismanaged under conglomerate roofs are being shown the door. The legacy mass brands that lost relevance are looking for homes that may not exist. And the buyer pool that everyone assumed would always be there, waiting with term sheets and growth capital, has thinned to a fraction of its former self.

#MyTwoCents

This is not a cycle. This is a reckoning.

The brands that will emerge from this moment in strong positions share a few characteristics:

• They have real product differentiation (not just positioning)

• They have financial discipline (not just revenue growth)

• They have founders or operators who understand that a billion-dollar valuation is not the same thing as a billion-dollar business.

For everyone else, the music has stopped, and there are no chairs left.

Kevin James Bennett is a multiple Emmy Award-winning makeup artist, respected industry expert, cosmetic developer, and educator. He is the publisher of In My Kit®

Let me be direct (as if I’m not always direct 😉), if your brand is still treating MoCRA like the distant rumble of a regulatory thunderstorm, you’re about to get soaked in an unexpected downpour.

On February 11, 2026, the FDA updated its Cosmetics Direct portal with new features for facility registration renewals, including real-time registration status displays and renewal date fields. The agency also refreshed its guidance page, user guide, and supporting instructions.

PAT ATTENTION!
This wasn’t just some website rearranging and housekeeping. It was the agency making compliance as visible and trackable as possible, and that should tell you something about where enforcement is headed.

MoCRA (the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022) is the most significant change to U.S. cosmetics regulation since 1938. For eighty-four years, the industry operated under a framework so minimal that facility registration was voluntary and ingredient disclosure was largely optional.
How voluntary?
When the FDA published its first MoCRA compliance data in March 2025, the numbers were striking: 9,528 active facility registrations and 589,762 unique product listings under the new mandatory system. That’s nearly double the facility registrations and more than sixteen times the product listings compared to the old Voluntary Cosmetic Registration Program. That gap represents an entire industry that simply chose not to show up when nobody was taking attendance.

The Renewal Cycle Is Already Beginning

Facility registration was required by July 1, 2024, with biennial renewals. That means the first wave of renewal deadlines is arriving, NOW. If you registered your facility in February 2024, your renewal is already due this month. If you made the July deadline, you’ve got until mid-2026, but that’s going to arrive faster than your planning calendar suggests.

I’m not sure why so many brands have been dragging their feet. The FDA has made the process straightforward.
Cosmetics Direct now displays registration status and renewal date fields on every facility’s homepage, and the agency is sending email reminders. But brands don’t seem to understand that the consequences of falling behind are real. Products from unregistered or improperly listed facilities are legally considered misbranded or adulterated, which means border holds, import seizures, and the kind of disruption that makes retail partners rethink their relationship with a brand. MoCRA also grants the FDA authority to suspend facility registrations entirely when products pose serious adverse health risks, effectively shutting down a facility’s ability to distribute cosmetics in the United States.

Where the Actual Rulemaking Stands

While registration and listing are fully in effect, several of MoCRA’s more complex provisions remain in various stages of rulemaking. The timelines have shifted repeatedly, and I know some of you have been looking at the delays and thinking you’ve been handed more breathing room. You have. But confusing a delay with a reprieve is a mistake you’re only going to want to make once.

Fragrance allergen labeling is targeted for a proposed rule in May 2026. The original statutory deadline was June 2024, so this has been pushed back significantly. The FDA is expected to identify specific substances as fragrance allergens requiring label disclosure, with strong alignment to EU requirements. From a practical standpoint, brands should already be requesting allergen statements and IFRA certificates from their fragrance suppliers. A final rule likely won’t land before 2027, but the companies that have already mapped their fragrance compositions against the EU’s existing allergen lists will have a meaningful head start when the proposed rule arrives. The ones that haven’t will be redesigning packaging under deadline pressure, which is exactly as expensive and chaotic as it sounds.

The proposed formaldehyde restriction for hair-smoothing and straightening products is where this story becomes genuinely difficult to tell with professional detachment. The FDA has now missed its target date for this proposed ban six times: October 2023, April 2024, November 2024, March 2025, July 2025, and December 31, 2025. As of January 2026, the agency has stated only that the rule remains “a priority” without providing a new timeline. Formaldehyde is a well-established carcinogen that also causes respiratory irritation and skin sensitization, and the people bearing the greatest burden of these delays are salon workers and Black women, who disproportionately use these treatments and who have been advocating for regulatory action since 2021.
Six missed deadlines aren’t a scheduling problem. It’s a failure of urgency, and people are being harmed while the agency adjusts its calendar.

Talc and asbestos testing appears to be the rulemaking most likely to stay on schedule. The proposed rule requiring standardized detection methods was published in December 2024, with a final rule targeted for March 2026.

Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) have been moved to the Unified Agenda’s “long-term actions” list, which is the regulatory equivalent of “we’ll get back to you.” The statutory deadline for even proposing GMP regulations was December 29, 2024, and that deadline passed without action. No new target date has been set. But here’s what matters: the absence of a formal GMP rule does not create a compliance vacuum. The FD&C Act’s existing adulteration provisions remain fully enforceable, and FDA inspections continue. ISO 22716, the international standard the agency has repeatedly signaled it will reference, provides a clear framework for any facility serious about operating at a professional level.

The Political Landscape

MoCRA was enacted with bipartisan support in December 2022, and its core provisions remain in full force under the current administration. Early enforcement data from 2025 showed the FDA issuing warning letters under MoCRA at a pace consistent with the prior administration, and the current administration has not taken steps to alter registration, listing, or adverse event reporting requirements.

That said, the broader regulatory environment has shifted. Executive Order 14192 introduced a “one-in, ten-out” requirement, mandating that agencies repeal 10 existing regulations for every new regulation finalized. The FDA has also undergone leadership changes at both the agency and the Office of Cosmetics and Colors, as well as staffing reductions. These factors explain why MoCRA’s more complex rulemakings keep missing deadlines. The requirements already on the books are being enforced, but the rules that would provide the industry with clearer guidance on GMP, allergens, and ingredient restrictions continue to be pushed back.

It leaves the industry in a frustrating position - expected to comply with regulations of a law whose rules haven’t been fully written.

What Brands Should Be Doing Now

Companies that move early during regulatory transitions don’t just survive them; they set the standard everyone else has to meet.

So, here’s what current compliance with MoCRA looks like in practical terms:

• Confirm your registration and renewal status immediately.

• Log in to Cosmetics Direct, check the new status and renewal date fields, and put your deadline on every calendar that matters. If you registered in early 2024, you may already be due.

• Build or audit your adverse event reporting system. MoCRA requires serious adverse event reports submitted to the FDA within 15 business days.

• Begin fragrance allergen mapping now by requesting full allergen data from your fragrance suppliers.

• Cross-reference against the EU’s existing disclosure requirements. When the FDA’s proposed rule lands, it will be tighter than anyone expects, so following the strictness of existing EU rules will keep your brand safe.

• Operate to GMP standards regardless of the rule’s status. The current ISO 22716 covers production, personnel, documentation, and quality controls. Implementing it now protects you during inspections and positions you well ahead of whatever the final rule requires.

• Develop safety substantiation files for every product you market. MoCRA requires it, and even though the FDA hasn’t defined what adequate substantiation looks like or provided samples, the standards will likely be established in light of enforcement actions. You do not want to be the brand they use as an “example” of what NOT to do.

#MyTwoCents

MoCRA’s implementation has been slower and messier than the statute intended. For example, the delays around formaldehyde are particularly hard to justify given the human cost. But the direction is unmistakable: the grace period is OVER, the era of cosmetics operating as the most loosely regulated consumer product category in the US is ending.

The brands that will come through this FDA restructuring strongest are the ones paying attention to how MoCRA evolves, building real compliance infrastructure, and treating regulation as a competitive advantage rather than an inconvenience.
I can state with confidence that companies that don’t take MoCRA seriously at this point will become examples of “what not to do” and face substantial fines and potential shutdowns.

For decades, two brands in the luxury home fragrance space have become synonymous with “impeccable taste and obvious disposable income.”

Diptyque and Aesop.

You know these icons, even if you aren’t aware of the brand names - the instantly recognizable black-and-white oval label of a Diptyque candle, the amber apothecary bottles of an Aesop’s hand wash perched on a Waterworks sink. These aren’t just products—they’re cultural shorthand. Interior design currency. The olfactory equivalent of a perfectly draped Hermes cashmere throw on a Knoll Barcelona chair.

And then, while no one was paying attention, Loewe walked into the room, set down a candle in a handmade terracotta vessel that smelled like tomato leaves, and quietly started rearranging the furniture.

The Anderson Effect

To understand what’s happening, you have to understand Jonathan Anderson. Before his departure in early 2025 to take the creative reins at Dior Homme, Anderson didn’t just revitalize Loewe’s fashion business—he more than quadrupled the brand’s revenue over a decade, from roughly $250 million to nearly $950 million. He turned a heritage Spanish leather house that was gathering dust into one of the hottest luxury brands on the planet. The globally respected (and anticipated) Lyst Index ranked Loewe among the top five most desirable luxury brands in 2025.

But here’s what the fashion press overlooked while swooning over Puzzle bags and viral runway moments: Anderson was simultaneously building a lifestyle empire that operates on an entirely different philosophy than anything Diptyque or Aesop has ever presented.

When Loewe Home Scents was launched in 2020, it wasn’t just an extension of their fashion and accessory collections. It was a home collection with a point of view so specific, so profoundly rooted in craft and nature, that it made the reigning champs of the luxury home fragrance category look, well, predictable…maybe even a little uninspired.

The Terracotta Revolution

Let’s get into the details, because this is where it gets interesting. Loewe’s candles arrive in handcrafted, ribbed terracotta vessels inspired by fifth-century BC Greek drinking cups. They’re made in Spain. They’re embossed with the house’s monogram. And here’s the thing that makes a forty-year industry veteran like me sit up straight: people are buying these candles as much for the vessel as for the fragrance. Interior designers are specifying them. They’re showing up on coffee tables in Architectural Digest shoots. The empty pots are being repurposed as vases, pencil holders, tiny sculptures in their own right.

Now compare that to Diptyque, whose iconic glass vessels, charming as they are, have remained essentially unchanged since the 1960s. Or Aesop, whose amber glass and minimalist typography, once thrillingly austere and apothecary feeling, has become so ubiquitous that it’s practically a meme. (If I see one more TikTok video rating a bathroom based on whether there’s an Aesop hand wash on the sink, I may need to 🤮).

Loewe understood something fundamental: in the luxury lifestyle space, the object itself has to earn its place in someone’s environment. And it can’t just smell beautiful, it has to BE beautiful, and feel like a deliberate, curated choice.

Storytelling With Scent

Then there’s the fragrance philosophy, which is where Loewe really separates itself from the pack. While Diptyque has long traded on sophisticated French perfumery scent profiles (and done it beautifully), and Aesop has leaned into its botanical-scented apothecary identity, Loewe went somewhere nobody expected: the vegetable garden.

Tomato leaves. Cucumber. Beetroot. Coriander. Pea. Cannabis. These are not safe choices. These are not scents designed by a marketing committee looking at consumer data. These are the olfactory obsessions of a creative director who grew up with a greenhouse and had the audacity (and the LVMH backing) to say, “You know what smells incredible? A ripe tomato vine in August.” And he was right.

The Tomato Leaves candle alone has achieved something approaching cult status. Master perfumers have reviewed it glowingly. Fashion editors fight over them. And the collection has continued to expand with increasingly bold offerings—Mushroom, Roasted Hazelnut, Palo Santo, and a recent limited-edition trio of Earl Grey, Black Sesame, and Sweet Almond that sounds more like a tasting menu at a Michelin-starred restaurant than a candle collection.

This is the kind of creative confidence that builds brand mythology. And brand mythology, my friends, is the most expensive real estate in luxury.

Vulnerability of the Icons

Now, I want to be clear: I’m not writing a eulogy for Diptyque or Aesop. Both remain formidable players. Diptyque still commands an estimated 7% of the global luxury candle market and continues to perform beautifully on limited editions and seasonal collections. Their heritage is real, their craftsmanship is legitimate, and their loyal customer base runs deep.

But Diptyque has a redundancy problem. When your visual identity hasn’t meaningfully evolved in decades, you risk becoming the luxury equivalent of background music—pleasant, reliable, and increasingly invisible.
Industry analysts project that the home fragrance category will nearly double to over $1 billion by 2030 - so standing still is the same as falling behind.

Aesop’s situation is more complicated, and frankly, more concerning. Since L’Oréal acquired the brand in 2023 for a staggering $2.5 billion (the largest acquisition in the company’s history) the tension between brand integrity and corporate growth expectations has been noticeable. L’Oréal has publicly stated its ambition to make Aesop a “billionaire brand,” and while the company has maintained double-digit growth, the aggressive expansion and increasing omnipresence could erode the very exclusivity that made Aesop aspirational in the first place.

There’s also the identity question. Aesop’s strength was always its curated, almost academic approach to beauty—the brand felt discovered rather than marketed. But when you’re in 400-plus stores across 29 markets, with a parent company talking about “unleashing massive growth potential,” “discovered” doesn’t seen to apply any longer. The very TikTok virality that put Aesop’s hand wash in every aspirational bathroom is now working against it.

FACT: Overexposure is the silent killer of luxury desirability.

The LVMH Advantage

Here’s something else worth noting:
Loewe sits within the LVMH portfolio - the same conglomerate that owns Dior, Louis Vuitton, Fendi, and Bulgari. LVMH knows how to build luxury brands. More importantly, LVMH knows how to build luxury ecosystems.

Loewe’s home scents aren’t a side project. They’re a strategic extension of a brand identity that Anderson spent a decade constructing—one that marries Spanish craft heritage with intellectual, art-world credibility. The home scents collection is inseparable from the fashion shows, the Loewe Foundation Craft Prize, the collaborations with ceramic artists, and the whole carefully orchestrated world-building exercise. When you buy a Loewe candle, you’re not just buying a fragrance. You’re buying into a meticulously curated universe.

Diptyque, as beloved as it is, has not expanded its product offerings with anything innovative for decades. Aesop, nestled within L’Oréal’s Luxe division alongside Lancôme and YSL, was the acquisition of a beauty conglomerate—not a fashion-and-lifestyle ecosystem. These differences matter more than you might think when you imagine the trajectory of Loewe Home.

#MyTwoCents

The big question is: what happens to Loewe Home now that Anderson has left the brand? New creative directors Jack McCollough and Lazaro Hernandez, the founders of Proenza Schouler, are enormously talented, but they’re inheriting a brand identity deeply rooted in Anderson’s sensibility. Will they be able to continue the roll-out while remaining true to the brand DNA Anderson created?

Here’s what I think the fashion media is underestimating: the home scents infrastructure Anderson built isn’t going anywhere because:

• The in-house perfumer, Núria Cruelles, remains in place.

• The ceramic artisans in Spain remain in place.

• The distribution through the brand’s own retail network and premium stockists, such as Net-a-Porter, remains in place.

• The home scent division was established with a compelling DNA, and that DNA has proven remarkably resilient.

Meanwhile, the luxury home fragrance market continues to expand at an extraordinary pace. Consumer demand for premium, design-forward home scenting products shows no sign of slowing.
Loewe is offering something distinctively different. It’s offering terracotta and tomato leaves, along with the audacious idea that your home should smell like a treasured memory only you have. And slowly, elegantly, decisively, it’s acquiring shelf space and top-of-mind awareness reserved for the two brands everyone assumed would dominate this category forever.

Let’s be clear, Diptyque and Aesop aren’t going anywhere.
But the crown they’ve been sharing for a few decades…it’s sitting on a table next to a Loewe Puzzle Bag in a room that smells like a Spanish garden in August.