FROM THE GLAMOROUS TO THE SCANDALOUS
Though Sephora isn’t known for keeping a low profile, there are some issues that they simply try to avoid altogether—to their detriment. Over the years, they found themselves in the center of several scandals. Since the early 2000s, they were involved with several lawsuits—with brand partners, consumers, celebrities, and competitors. They have also been at the center of several diversity and inclusion issues and accused of outright discrimination. As mentioned earlier, they sued Macy’s in 2000 for trade dress, but while they were filing suit and battling with competitors, they had troubles brewing within their organization as well. In some cases, they were lauded for their swift response, and at other times they were met with criticism for how they responded. In all cases, there were valuable lessons learned—for Sephora and for all other retailers watching and taking notes.
Over the years, they found themselves in the center of several scandals. Since the early 2000s, they were involved with several lawsuits—with brand partners, consumers, celebrities, and competitors. They have also been at the center of several diversity and inclusion issues and accused of outright discrimination.
Sephora Is Sued by Employees Complaining Discrimination
In 2003, five former Sephora employees who worked at a now-closed Rockefeller Center location in New York claimed that their civil rights were violated when they were prohibited from speaking Spanish. The employees went to the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission, who filed a lawsuit on their behalf. According to the New York Times, the women claimed they were reprimanded for speaking their native language and their supervisors “mimicked their accents and derided their culture.” The former employees said if they complained about it, “they suffered even more.”1 According to one of the women, Mariela Del Rosario, “They would tell us, even on our lunch break, not to speak Spanish. . . . I understand on the floor but when I’m on my lunch break?”2 According to Raechel Adams, a lawyer with the E.E.O.C., all of the women either quit or were fired after complaining of harassment. A spokesman for Sephora at the time told the Times, “Sephora does not tolerate discrimination of any kind. Furthermore, we do not have, and never have had, an ‘English-only’ rule in our workplace.”3
The suit dragged on for years, but in September 2007, the case was settled “with a consent decree” though the consent decree was not on file. According to the University of Michigan Law School’s Civil Rights Clearinghouse, Sephora was obligated to pay 565,000 dollars according to the settlement.4
Sephora is Hit with a Class Action Suit by Customers for Discrimination
One would think that a discrimination lawsuit would have changed something internally—at the very least diversity and inclusion training (which Sephora does provide). However, in 2014, another discrimination case was brought forth against Sephora. This time the plaintiffs were US citizens from Chinese descent and they were not employees, but they were VIBs and VIB Rough Members. In 2014, there was a 20 percent off sale for the top Sephora consumers. The sale was a huge hit, but unfortunately their website couldn’t handle the volume and crashed. Several customers called Sephora’s customer service to handle their issues, only to discover their accounts were deactivated. At the same time, Sephora made an announcement on Facebook that they blamed the site crash on the high volume of people attempting to buy in bulk at the discount prices for resale services and subsequently blocked their accounts. This, of course, coincided with the deactivations of customers with Asian names.
Shortly after, four US women of Chinese descent filed a class action suit against Sephora for what they alleged was racial discrimination. The proposed class action was filed in federal court in Manhattan and claimed that the women’s accounts were deactivated simply because of their Asian surnames, and stated thousands of shoppers may have been affected.5 According to a Reuters article, the four plaintiffs also claim they lost all of the reward points they accumulated buying hundreds of dollars of merchandise from Sephora. The women were seeking unspecified damages and a court order barring the company from engaging in the alleged practice.
According to Global Cosmetics News, in 2017, Sephora was given the go-ahead by a California federal judge to settle the class action. Sephora settled the matter and prepared to pay 950,000 dollars to those who had their accounts deactivated.6 For their part, “Sephora vehemently denied the claims that it deactivated accounts with the Chinese domain-name email addresses at the time, claiming that consumers all over the world were affected by the ‘temporary outage’ of its website.”7 Then Sephora made a formal announcement stating that anyone who “as of Nov. 4, 2014, (i) had an active VIB or VIB Rouge account associated with an email address from @qq.com, @126.com or @163.com (ii) had their account deactivated on or about Nov. 6, 2014, and (iii) unsuccessfully attempted to make a purchase from the Sephora website using their Beauty Insider account at some point in November 2014 could make a claim by April 3, 2017.” The estimated individual payout (depending on how many claimants) was up to 125 dollars in cash or 240 dollars in gift cards.8
Sephora Employee Accused of Racial Profiling and Sephora’s Response
Just as the class action case was winding down in August of the same year, Sephora was hit with another PR nightmare. A viral video was making its way around the internet of a Sephora employee being accused of racially profiling customers. A Twitter user with the handle @Leek12leeek, claimed she and another woman believed they were being racially profiled, having been interrupted several times and an employee even pointed to the security guard on duty. So they confronted the Sephora employee. On her Twitter account, @Leek12leeek posted the video of her confronting the employee, who responded, “I’m from the hood.” To which @Leek12leeek simply invited Twitter to “do ya thang.”9
Sephora responded to the tweet directly apologizing and asking publicly, “We’re so sorry for your store experience!” Then they asked “can you please send us a DM (Direct Message) with the exact Sephora Store you visited.”
The situation seemed to be resolved. There were no further news reports about the incident, and it appears @Leeka12leeek didn’t take the case further than her Twitter feed.
However, when high-profile R&B singer SZA alleged she too was a victim of racial profiling in April of 2019, things escalated quickly. According to her report to Refinery29, she used to work in the skincare department of Sephora before making it big. But during a visit to Sephora’s Calabasas, California location, she believed she was profiled and accused of stealing. She, too, took her beef with Sephora to Twitter, saying: “Lmao Sandy Sephora location 614 Calabasas called security to make sure I wasn’t stealing. We had a long talk. U have a blessed day Sandy.”
Twitter erupted immediately, and many of her fans came to her defense. Sephora, as they say, took a minute to reply and responded the next day with “You are a part of the Sephora family, and we are committed to ensuring every member of our community feels welcome and included in our stores.”10 This time, however, it appeared to the public as though they took the allegations very seriously. Sephora announced they would close every single store, distribution center, and corporate office in the United States to hold inclusion workshops. In a statement announcing the closure, Sephora also announced their “We Belong to Something Beautiful “campaign,” which focused on inclusion for both staff and customers. Sephora added that it “will never stop building a community where diversity is expected, self-expression is honored, all are welcomed, and you are included.”11
A Proper Response or Planned All Along?
Though it initially appeared as though Sephora had taken swift action in the public eye to address the issue, according to a Forbes article published the day before the training was scheduled, Sephora stated it had been planning on holding these workshops long before the SZA tweet. Additionally, the “We Belong to Something Beautiful” campaign had been in development for a year, and the plan to close stores and conduct a one-hour inclusivity workshop for twenty-thousand employees had been in the works for six months as a lead-in to the campaign. The SZA incident was simply an unfortunately (or one could argue ironically) timed incident. But Sephora did acknowledge in a statement that the SZA tweet did “reinforce why belonging is now more important than ever.”12
However, according to Joan Verdon, senior contributor to Forbes, announcing that the training and campaign had been planned all along and was only for one hour, not a full day, in her mind, was a major misstep. “By emphasizing that the inclusion training is part of a long-planned marketing campaign, Sephora is missing a chance to show it can pivot and take decisive action when needed to address racial bias,” she writes. As a counterpoint she shared that the year prior Starbucks closed its coffee shops for a full day for training after racial profiling by an employee resulted in the arrest of two men in Philadelphia and a massive public outcry after the video went viral.
In her article, Verdon cites Katherine Milkman, a professor of operations, information and decisions at the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania, who co-authored a research study that found diversity and inclusion training “produced mixed results.”13 Milkman’s study, which measured the impact of a one-hour online training course on groups of employees, was published recently in the scientific journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and it found that “while the one hour of training changed attitudes, it didn’t do much to change behaviors.”14 The study also concluded that “to change behavior employers might be better off devoting resources to recruiting more women and minorities for leadership roles, or change company process and policies that contribute to stereotyping and bias.”15
Milkman gave her two-cents to Verdon about what she thought about Sephora’s trainings, stating, “It’s not clear these trainings target the underlying cause, and I do think that’s a problem.” However, she added just setting aside a time for diversity training, closing stores, and requiring employees attend does help a bit, if by only raising awareness to the employees where there once was none. “The employees need to know that this is unacceptable, that the organization takes this super seriously, and the public also needs to know that the organization takes it seriously . . . . Maybe the research doesn’t support that it’s going to solve the problem specifically, but it solves a different problem.”16
The employees need to know that this is unacceptable, that the organization takes this super seriously, and the public also needs to know that the organization takes it seriously . . . . Maybe the research doesn’t support that it’s going to solve the problem specifically, but it solves a different problem.”
In the same article, Verdon interviewed Ronn Torossian, president and CEO of the public relations firm 5WPR, who gave Sephora props for providing diversity training and closing the stores. “This is showing that they take these allegations very seriously and that they intend to act on them.” And then adding, “The worst thing a retailer or brand can do in the case of a racial bias allegation or other public relations crisis is ‘to close your eyes and hope that it goes away.’ More often than not, it won’t.”17
A Possible PR Disaster
Other critics weren’t as positive, stating Sephora’s entire handling of the event was a PR disaster and one others should learn from. In an article for PR News called “PR Fail? Sephora Denies Doing the Right Thing for the Right Reasons,” Brooks Wallace, an account supervisor from PR firm the Hollywood Agency, said that Sephora missed the opportunity to show its more “authentic and human side,” adding, “In any crisis communication situation, what the public wants to hear is an apology and admission of guilt. That humanizes a brand. It’s a signal that the brand is listening to its community, which is all [that] the customers—and the wronged—want to hear. A simple ‘we apologize, we hear you, and we’re going to make it right’ would’ve sufficed for Sephora.”18
Wallace continued saying that if Sephora was his client, “I’d recommend their leadership come out with a proactive statement about how the company has learned from this experience, appreciates SZA bringing it to their attention, and announce a yearlong effort to consistently assess diversity and inclusion efforts—not just a one-hour workshop. Perhaps they could even have their CEO and SZA offer a joint statement—perhaps via a short video, if SZA were willing—about the importance of speaking up and making change happen, showing they’ve made amends. Offering a little humility and eating crow, while praising SZA for speaking up, could go a long way. And having a top executive do it, like the CEO, would show how seriously the company is taking it.”19
Other PR experts in the industry concurred. “It seems like a hollow brand message to the public to say the timing of this training wasn’t connected to this incident,” added Patrick Gevas, vice president of GreenRoom. “In today’s challenging retail climate, it’s largely unthinkable to close all locations and miss out on sales as part of a routine. It also points to a larger issue in the training and onboarding of the employees on the front-side of hiring and taking steps throughout the year to prove their commitment to diversity. When something like this occurs, they can take swift disciplinary action and point to their track record of diversity which is ultimately a much stronger brand presence but also the right thing to do.”20
Though they could have handled the situation better, it does show quickly and easily one employee can cause an all-out crisis for the brand, and how important hiring and ongoing training practices are. Needless to say, it’s usually not “just one employee.” In fact, just one day before the scheduled close for the company-wide diversity training, yet another high-profile celebrity took to Twitter and Instagram to lament Sephora employees’ treatment of customers.
#NoMoreSephora
Former Saturday Night Live cast member, actress, and comedian Leslie Jones reported a hostile interaction between a Sephora salesperson and manager and her makeup artist, Lola Okanlawon, and her best friend’s wife on June 4, 2019, in the Broadway store. Jones explained that while her friends were at the New York area Sephora store they were badly treated and left “in tears.”21 Though Sephora responded to her tweet and reaffirmed their diversity and inclusivity training that was to take place the next day, Jones believed Sephora’s actions weren’t sufficient. She posted again on Instagram: “I am tired of the [f–ery] yo!! If we spend money in your store we deserve customer service too. SO [F–K] YOUR STORE @sephora you got to close your store to teach your employees sensitivity how about fire they ass and hire people who got sensitivity. Cause they exist!!! I’m tired of this [s–t]!! #NOMORESEPHORA.”
Sephora responded to Jones on Twitter: “@Lesdoggg we’re very sorry to hear this. We have reached out via Instagram and hope to connect with you and your friends directly.” The company then also gave a statement to Us Magazine regarding the incident: “As a company, we hold ourselves to a high, and public, set of standards around creating a welcoming space for each and every client. The information shared by Leslie Jones regarding Lola Okanlawon’s experience at Sephora is concerning, and the situation she describes does not reflect our values. We have reached out to Lola to gather more information. It is our priority to build an inclusive community and a place where all clients feel respected. Our journey has not been perfect and is by no means complete. We will continue to learn and work toward this goal.”
Since the launch of the campaign, Sephora has reasserted its efforts in diversity and inclusion—as seen already in the aforementioned Beauty Insider groups, its We Belong Together campaign, the announcement of twenty-four #SephoraSquad influencers with diverse backgrounds and lifestyles, and even how they talk about customers. When speaking to a Sephora employee in the Kenwood Mall in Cincinnati, who asked not to be named, she attested that Sephora is very clear about their commitment to inclusivity, and even emphasized her own effort to be considerate even with the use of gender pronouns—refraining from calling customers “she” or in the feminine third person, which was pretty standard language for years. “I try not to make any assumptions. Ever.”
However, it’s not just inclusion issues that plagues the store. There is an entire Reddit thread dedicated shoppers’ “worst Sephora experience.” Shoppers on the thread complained about rude workers who judged them on how they looked and how they dressed as well and others who were accused of shoplifting and being followed around the store by sales associates who communicate with one another and zone in on particular clients. Of course, personal experiences are just that—and they are largely anecdotal as they are on Reddit.
Woman Claims to Have Contracted an STD at Sephora and Company’s Response
While the legal and PR teams at Sephora were busy with cases involving inclusivity, diversity, discrimination, and angry Reddit threads, it was hit with another unfortunate wakeup call. A claimant filed a lawsuit in 2017 alleging that she contracted the STD herpes after trying on lipstick at a Los Angeles (Hollywood and Highland) area Sephora. One of the main attractions of Sephora is of course you can sample EVERY. SINGLE. PRODUCT. before buying. Most Sephora shoppers know the etiquette. There are cotton swabs and applicators near every sample display, and absolutely no George-Costanza-level double-dipping going on. One dip and application, and then you throw out the applicator.
Sephora employees also follow rigorous protocols to maintain the samples as well. However, according to SELF magazine, the plaintiff claims that soon after visiting the Sephora location in 2015 where she tried on lipstick she was subsequently diagnosed with herpes on her lip by the Olive View-UCLA Medical. Herpes is incurable and can flare up at any time. The claimants, says it’s a condition she “never had before this particular shopping excursion.” She sued the company for, among other things, the “emotional distress” over “an incurable lifelong affliction.”22 For their part, Sephora who usually doesn’t comment on litigation, came out and told SELF magazine “the health and safety of our clients is our foremost priority. We take product hygiene very seriously and we are dedicated to following best practices in our stores.”23
A Quick Tutorial About Herpes
Needless to say, when word got out in 2017 of the case, it got the Sephora community talking, and even panicking. The entire Sephora experience is based on the ability to try on products and trust that the samples are clean and untainted. So just how probable is it for someone to actually contact herpes from makeup samples? According to SELF magazine’s health reporter, “it’s pretty improbable.” Though, according to Tara C. Smith, Ph.D., professor of epidemiology in the College of Public Health at Ken State University and SELF contributor, “not totally impossible to become infected with herpes from applying a lip product.”24 Apparently, herpes can live for hours on a plastic surface and a cosmetic surface just as long, so she says, “Someone who was infected with the virus would have needed to have used the lipstick before you did.” Super comforting.
The entire Sephora experience is based on the ability to try on products and trust that the samples are clean and untainted. So just how probable is it for someone to actually contact herpes from makeup samples?
However, according to the Centers for Disease Control, herpes can live the nerve cells and can be dormant for years before an outbreak and it’s nearly impossible to know exactly when and where an infection was transmitted.25 So even though the claimant very well may have never exhibited symptoms before trying on lipstick at Sephora, she very well could have had it in her system. Nevertheless, Sephora settled with her in the spring of 2019. No terms were disclosed, but in an official statement, Sephora stated, “We have resolved this matter while continuing to deny all of the allegations in the complaint. Sephora’s entire retail concept is rooted in self-discovery and our goal is to enable an immersive environment that caters to clients’ desire to learn and play uninhibited in a safe and clean environment. We take product hygiene very seriously and we are dedicated to following best practices in our stores.”26
Even though Sephora does its best to maintain a clean and safe environment, some beauty editors advise to take precautions regardless of what stores like Sephora, Ulta, and other beauty- sample stores do. In other words: take some personal responsibility and use your own best judgment when approaching samples
A DOCTOR’S ADVICE FOR SHOPPING AT SEPHORA
Dr. Joshua Zeichner, Director of Cosmetic & Clinical Research in Dermatology at Mount Sinai Hospital, advises those who shop in environments like Sephora to follow these steps to protect yourself and others:
• “Never apply makeup samples directly to your skin. Clean off makeup with an alcohol swab then use an applicator on the makeup and then use that to touch your skin.
• “Do not apply to open or raw skin.
• “Do not use makeup samples in stores where samples are unsupervised by employees because you don’t know who has used the sample before or how it was used.”27
Reports of contamination haven’t slowed down traffic to stores like Sephora. The very reason Sephora is so successful and beloved by fans is that customers can try on almost everything in the store. Awareness isn’t a bad thing though. The more educated the population is about appropriate hygiene practices the better for all involved. Awareness also pushes stores like Sephora to stay vigilant. Though from the beginning Sephora has claimed to be so, having always provided a plethora of disposable tools and cleaners throughout the store. In addition, they claim to have a highly trained staff that is assigned to various departments to assist customers with the testers and even teach those new to the testing environment.
In a 2018 statement in response to a CBC (Canadian Broadcast Company radio) report on testers, Sephora stated, “While we cannot comment on these results, as CBC has not provided full details on their findings or their collection procedures, we can say that the health and safety of our clients is our foremost priority. Not only do we have hygiene stations available for client use throughout our stores, our testers are regularly sanitized, replaced and replenished, and our associates are trained on industry hygiene standards to assist our clients. Sephora’s entire retail concept is rooted in self-discovery and our goal first and foremost is to enable an immersive environment that caters to clients’ desire to learn and play uninhibited. That said, we take every effort to ensure we are following best practices in our stores. We also offer many other ways for clients to test products, including guided assistance from our associates, personalized samples and digital tools that allow users to try on hundreds of products virtually.”28
Sephora Becomes Embroiled in the Website Accessibility Litigation “Tsunami” Following as 2017 Executive Order
The legal team at Sephora had their hands full between 2017–2019, and were fighting lawsuits on various fronts. In addition to discrimination, mistreatment of customers, and being blamed for hygienic lapses, Sephora also caught the attention of American Association of People with Disabilities. According to the Americans with Disabilities Act, if a business operates for more than twenty weeks a year and has more than fifteen employees, its website is required to be accessible to those with disabilities just as a physical location is.
In addition to discrimination, mistreatment of customers, and being blamed for hygienic lapses, Sephora also caught the attention of American Association of People with Disabilities.
How does one make a website accessible? This is a murky business and the ADA lacks clear guidelines for websites. Without clear guidelines in place and the lack of definitions, most websites haven’t been able to translate requirements for physical venues into online sites—opening the doors for massive onslaught to litigation.29 In 1999, The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) was published in an attempt to offer general guidelines for those with sight impairments, hearing impairments, cognitive limitations, learning disabilities, speech disabilities, photosensitivity, and limited mobility. According to Dyno Mapper, which provides site content auditing, WCAG criteria are not “technology specific” and this invites not only ambiguity, but lots of room for interpretation and hence litigation.
In 2017, a Sephora customer, Lucia Marett, claims she was attempting to close out a purchase on the Sephora and had difficulty. Legally blind, Marett attempted to use her screen-reading software but Sephora’s website was not compatible with the application.30 According to Sephora’s statement at the time, their website was in line with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines and developed by the World Wide Web Consortium. She and her lawyers, C.K. Lee and Anne Seelig of Lee Litigation Group PLLC, filed a class action lawsuit in 2017, but it was immediately dismissed “with prejudice” stating “a resolution of all matters in dispute having been made and each party to bear its own fees and costs.”31 In other words: Case closed. (“With prejudice” means it’s over and the case can never be brought back to court again.) A quick Google search shows that Marett is the plaintiff in several class action suits accusing companies of similar offenses—including the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), Roche-Bobois, Red Lobster, Boston Market, Baggallini, The Clorox Company, Burt’s Bees, Five Guys, Adelphi University, and even the National Association of Social Workers.
Needless to say, it seems like Sephora became the target of a litigation frenzy that followed a 2017 Presidential Executive Order for Web Accessibility. According to Garenne Bigby, for Dyno Mapper, the order would continue to “create a volatile and litigious environment, especially in the current client of regulatory uncertainty.” A major implication of this order according to Bigby is that the “current tsunami of lawsuits is likely to continue,” further adding “without a clear-cut set of rules to follow, website owners are largely implementing accessibility for users with disabilities (and users in general) through a means of trial and error.” Bigby warned other retailers and business, “there seems very little website owners can do to protect themselves from lawsuits.”32 However, for their part, Sephora’s legal team proved successful warding off further legal fees, all the while asserting their compliance.
Sephora Pulled into the College Admissions Scandal “Operation Varsity Blues” of 2018
With hardly enough time for the legal and PR teams to catch their breath, Sephora once again was pulled unwittingly into the headlines, when one of their influencers, Olivia Jade Giannulli, daughter Lori Loughlin (Aunt Becky of Full House fame) and fashion mogul Mossimo Giannulli, was caught up in the college admissions scandal called Operation Varsity Blues that broke in 2018. The news rocked not only the academic world, but the beauty influencer and celebrity world as well. At the time, Olivia Jade had almost two million YouTube followers, had a makeup collaboration with Sephora called the Olivia Jade x Sephora Collection Bronze & Illuminate Pallette, as well as with other top brands, like TRESemmé, Marc Jacobs Beauty, Smashbox Beauty Cosmetics, Lulus, Boohoo, and Too Faced Cosmetics. She also attended Sephora events and promoted various products on her YouTube channel and her Instagram account, where she had 1.4 million followers.
All of these collaborations came to a screeching halt when, according to court documents, Olivia Jade’s parents were accused of committing fraud in an attempt to secure her admission into the University of Southern California. According to reports, the FBI alleges that Loughlin and Giannulli paid Rick Singer, a supposed admission “advisor” 500,000 dollars and even faked photoshoots so their daughters could appear as rowers, though they were never on a crew team.33
After the news broke, critics and angry fans were quick to point out a YouTube video Olivia Jade had made where she wasn’t all that into “school” for the education, rather saying, “I do want the experience of game days, partying. I don’t really care about school, as you guys all know.” Soon after #boycottsephora tweets started to flood Twitter, Sephora responded quickly this time and put out a statement that Thursday announcing the end of the partnership: “After careful review of recent developments, we have made the decision to end the Sephora Collection partnership with Olivia Jade, effective immediately.”34 According to Today.com, the link to Olivia Jade’s product line on Sephora’s website had been “flooded with angry comments calling for Sephora to drop it after the scandal broke” and as a result, Sephora dropped the line. Sephora wasn’t the only one to distance itself to Olivia Jade; TRESemmé, announced a similar statement. Even brands that did one-off sponsored programs through her and her mother distanced themselves. Hewlett-Packard asserted, “HP does not currently have a relationship with either of them.”
The case isn’t going anywhere anytime soon. Olivia Jade’s parents were charged with several crimes including bribery. On November 1, 2019, Loughlin and her husband pleaded not guilty to the charges. The US Attorney Andrew E. Lelling alleges that Loughlin, Giannulli, and other parents “conspired to commit federal program bribery by bribing employees of the University of Southern California (USC) to gain admission for their children. In exchange for the alleged bribes, USC employees allegedly ‘designated the defendant’s children as athletic recruits—with little or no regard for their athletic abilities—or as members of other favored admissions categories.’”35 In addition to pleading not guilty to bribery, Loughlin and Giannulli pleaded not guilty to money laundering, mail fraud, and honest services mail fraud. If found guilty of all, Loughlin and Giannulli could face up to fifty years for their alleged actions.
Though initially Olivia Jade took down her YouTube and Instagram accounts, she returned to Instagram and has plans to rebuild her brand, though has no plans to return to USC and Sephora has not renewed their partnership with her and has made no other public statements regarding Olivia Jade’s role in the scandal. File this lesson learned under: How to Handle Situations When Influencers/Their Parents Do Dumb and Possibly Criminal Things. See also: Research the facts. Make quick game-day decision. Pull the partnerships and products. Distance yourself publicly. Never mention it again.
Sephora Carries a Product Named after Brooke Shields and Raises Some Eyebrows
In 2019, Brooke Shields filed a suit against popular makeup brand Charlotte Tilbury used her name and likeness to promote a thirty dollar pencil that enhances brows. Brooke Shields, of course, is known for several things, like nothing coming “between her and her Calvins” and of course her iconic full eyebrows. According to a complaint filed in May 2019 in a California state court, the suit file stated that the “Brooke S” shade of Tilbury’s Brow Lift pencil was an attempt to “capitalize on [her] iconic eyebrows,” and as a result is serving to “interfere with Shields’ ability to market a cosmetics line” of her own.36
The complaint further asserts that “from the beginning of her career” from her days in Vogue and in Calvin Klein commercials to her film roles, Shields’s “bold eyebrows have been the trademark of her look and a target for endorsements and collaborations” . . . and her “eyebrows have been the subject of profiles in media such as InStyle, Elle and Vogue, who even ran a story entitled, “17 Times Brooke Shields’s Eyebrows Were the Best Thing in the Room.”37
According to the suit, Tilbury “neither consulted Shields [about] nor requested permission to use” and that by naming an eyebrow product after her, it directly “interferes with Shields’ ability to market such a potential collection, the unauthorized use also runs afoul of her right of publicity, which enables the actress to prevent others from commercially exploiting her name and/or likeness without permission.”38
She says the same goes for Beautylish, Bergdorf Goodman, Bloomingdale’s, JCPenney, Neiman Marcus, Nordstrom, Sephora, and Yoox Net-a-Porter, which are also named as defendants for their part in carrying and selling the product.
Shields asked the court to force the defendants to cease their use of her name and sales of the “Brooke S” products, and seeks unspecified monetary damages. Interesting also to note is that Tilbury has used celebrity names quite often in the naming of their products and haven’t been met with litigation. The “Naomi” is named after Naomi Campbell and is a brow lift in a shade for “dark brown to black” eyebrows. The “Kim KW” is named after Kim Kardashian West, the “Bosworth’s Beauty” after Kate Bosworth, the “Penelope” after Penelope Cruz, the “Secret Salma” after Salma Hayek, and the “Kidman’s Kiss,” after Nicole Kidman. Not one of these celebrities have sued Tilbury. Shields is the first.
Neither Charlotte Tilbury nor Sephora have commented on the suit, which remains ongoing as of the writing of this book, but a representative for Shields’s counsel, Alex Weingarten of Venable LLP, stated: “This is an egregious violation of Brooke’s rights, which we will litigate vigorously to vindicate. Brooke Shields’s career as a model, actress, author, and entrepreneur spanning decades has made Brooke (and her eyebrows) a household name.”39
There is no word on what Sephora will or won’t do. However, when searching the Sephora website for the Brooke S Brow Lift pencil, the search came up empty, though when searching simply for Charlotte Tilbury Brow Life pencil, the $30-dollar pencil does come up on the Sephora site. There is absolutely no mention of Brooke Shields anywhere. No word on whether the litigation has stopped, but it looks like Sephora is playing it safe for now.
Sephora Caught in Naming Scandals Before
Though Sephora isn’t directly responsible for the original naming of the Charlotte Tilbury Brow kit, it’s not the first time the retailer has suffered backlash because of the names some of their brands have decided to call the products.
Famed tattoo artist and makeup mogul Kat Von D has enjoyed a long and successful partnership with Sephora. Kat Von D first made a name for herself in her popular show LA Ink on the TLC network and then launched her vegan beauty line in 2008, exclusively for Sephora. The eponymous cosmetic line, which is known for its bold colors and long wear, is one of the most popular cruelty-free brands at Sephora. Kat Von D is nothing if not “colorful,” and the names of her products have certainly made the headlines over the years. In 2013, Sephora immediately pulled the Kat Von D lipstick named “Celebutard” from their shelves, stating, “It has come to our attention that the name of one shade of lipstick we carry has caused offense to some of our clients and others. We are deeply sorry for that.”40 Kat Von D didn’t feel the same way and took to Twitter to give some “real talk” back to her fans, tweeting and then deleting, “At the end of the day, it’s just f—ing lipstick.”41
Interestingly, Sephora and Kat Von D remained in partnership despite the temporary fallout. (Her products are still sold at Sephora and often featured as some of Sephora’s bestsellers.) Sephora simply handled the dustup by 1) making a statement, 2) taking the offensively named product off their site, and 3) being more aware and mindful in the future, and responsive when similar fallouts (as in the case of the Brooke S Brow Lift) came up. Lesson learned.
Though by no means exhaustive, this list of scandals, lawsuits, and celebrity dustups in the past few years alone have showed that most of the time Sephora was responsive, took deliberate and swift action, and when warranted, immediately apologized for wrongdoing and took corrective actions to make amends wherever they could. They also proved to be quite resilient and agile when dealing with the unexpected, like the ADA website case and the college admission scandal. As a large company, with a popular name, carrying a considerable amount of high-profile brands, it’s inevitable that Sephora would run into some scandals. Without minimizing the company’s role in alleged cases of discrimination, it has, however, made a concerted effort to inform and train employees on diversity and inclusivity and seemed poised to be responsive in the future.
Though by no means exhaustive, this list of scandals, lawsuits, and celebrity dustups in the past few years alone have showed that most of the time Sephora was responsive, took deliberate and swift action, and when warranted, immediately apologized for wrongdoing and took corrective actions to make amends wherever they could.
The reality is the social, economic, and technological landscape is changing rapidly. It’s not just effecting beauty retailers and the cosmetic industry, but the world as a whole. As Sephora grows and expands, it is preparing for this new and often unexpected landscape, while managing for the unexpected along the way.