65% of millennials and zetas see ethical products if they work the same as the originals, according to a 2025 Statista survey. Abbreviation for duplicate in English, the term refers to cheap products, generally private labels, that resemble other luxury products, as some creators and media are responsible for associating. “Social networks rather catalyze this growth. Platforms like TikTok and Instagram have normalized the dupes through communities like #DupeTok, where users share reviews, comparisons and beauty tricks, turning the act of imitation into a shared and empowering ritual,” explains Alba Navalón-Mira, PhD in Sociology from the University of Alicante. “Analysis of discussions on X reveals a pattern, accumulating thousands of interactions, with users celebrating the democratization of glamour, while they warn against toxic counterfeits,” he continues. Pedro Catalá, cosmetologist, doctor of Pharmacy, professor of Cosmetic Chemistry at the University of Siena and founder of Twelve Beauty, adds: “Cosmetics is a very attractive field that generates a lot of interest. Opening a profile on networks and doing product reviews is relatively easy and inexpensive. “It still seems incredible to me that every day thousands of new self-proclaimed ‘experts’ appear in this science that takes many years to learn.”
The word elevates a practice that is not new. That is why many advocate calling them imitations or under a different term that seeks to move away from the focus of an illicit practice,” defends Jorge López, legal and sustainability director of Stanpa (National Association of Perfumery and Cosmetics). “These products need to mention the original brand to be sold. Without promotion and communication relating them to the original firms, it is very difficult to advertise them, since the average consumer cannot try the references in a display without a guide,” he adds. Unlike the dupes, They take advantage of the virality of the internet and supplant the reputation of brands, their traffic and even the sales of legal brands. In perfumery and cosmetics, almost 50% of counterfeits are concentrated on social networks,” he adds. In the specific case of treatment products, for Raquel González, cosmetologist and creator of Byoode, “counterfeits are growing driven by the desire to own an aspirational product at any price. In the case of the dupes, The growth has more to do with a half-informed consumer, who knows how to identify star ingredients, but does not always understand the weight of the complete formulation. Added to this is the pressure of social networks, where the message is simplified and the idea that ‘if you wear the same thing, it’s the same’ is reinforced, something that is rarely true in cosmetics.”
Some very expansive figures
The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) perceives that annual direct losses due to counterfeits exceed 3 billion euros, which is equivalent to 10% of the sector’s legal sales. “In addition, it places Spain among the countries with the highest intentional purchase of counterfeits (20% of consumers in the last year, compared to 13% on average in the EU). In this study, counterfeits are associated with an annual loss of sales of 5.5% in the cosmetic sector, which translates into more than 50,000 jobs lost or at risk throughout the European Union,” explains the legal director of Stanpa. Analysis Furthermore, the design and traceability of materials is usually not very transparent. Personally, I think it is a shortcut that puts innovation at stake.”
In April, the European Union raised the issue of the dangers of certain more affordable cosmetics sold on retail sites. online such as Temu or Shein, as Stanpa’s López explains: “EU Commissioner Michael McGrath revealed that the EU has received more than 4,137 alerts for dangerous products over the last year, the highest number since its notification system was launched in 2003. It shows that, for dangerous counterfeits destined for the EU, the channel online concentrates 60% of seizures; perfumery and cosmetics is the category most affected in this type of purchases online (46%). The dominant logistics model is small mail delivery, which fits with the dynamics of many sales in marketplaces and platforms online”.
46% of counterfeit seizures in online stores are perfumery and cosmetics. Beauty as a whole is the most affected category on this channel.
The phenomenon is neither new nor was it born on TikTok. In the 1980s in New York, he created the logos of luxury brands and dressed gangsters, athletes and rappers from his small tailor shop in Harlem. Dan was denounced, but years later, in 2018, Alessandro Michele signed the tailor as a collaborator for a collection at Gucci. “Historically, fake silk in Renaissance Venice or perfume in 18th century France challenged the monopolies of the elite,” confirms sociologist Navalón-Mira. “In the 20th century, the knock-offs The eighties in New York marked the rise of hip hop as cultural resistance. Imitations always arise in periods of inequality, as a social valve.” According to the expert, the explosive growth of this food market dupes and counterfeits is explained by a confluence of socioeconomic and cultural factors: “First, the persistent income inequality that has amplified the aspirationism accessible. Consumers seek to emulate lifestyles premium without going into debt, in a context where consumption has become a marker of status, driven by advertising and influencers. Second, the globalization of production in Asian countries has lowered costs and accelerated distribution via e-commerce. Third, from a sociological perspective, the dupes They allow the accumulation of cultural capital without economic capital, challenging the exclusivity of the elites. And, finally, sustainability plays a paradoxical role, that is, many see the dupes as an ethical alternative to fast fashion luxury, which generates massive waste, although real counterfeits feed organized crime networks.”
Dangers and responsibilities
Experts agree that there are dangers, both for the industry and for the consumer. “In the case of counterfeits it is obvious,” says Raquel González bluntly, “we are talking about products that impersonate a brand, without controls, without traceability and with formulas that are not completely transparent. There can be real risks for the skin, from severe irritations to more serious adverse reactions.” For example, counterfeit perfumes “contain mostly water, up to 50%, and industrial or low-purity ethanol as a solvent. This is a fraud for consumers, since, compared to the 80 components that an original perfume has, counterfeits usually do not have more than 20 or 25,” López reveals. In the case of dupe cosmetic, the danger comes when it enters unofficial sales channels or parallel markets, something that affects both dupes as original products. At that point, security stops depending solely on the formula. “The actual expiration date, the storage conditions (inadequate temperatures, exposure to light or air) or even the handling of the packaging can no longer be controlled with the same guarantee. And in this case, the responsibility is very diluted. Even if the product is correct at origin, it can reach the consumer degraded, with unstable active ingredients or less effective preservatives,” argues González.
20% is the percentage of Spanish consumers who intended to buy counterfeits in the last year (compared to the EU average of 13%).
European Union Intellectual Property Office
Controls towards the future
“Within the cosmetic sector, makeup is, by far, the category most affected by counterfeiting,” says Juan Carlos Ruiz, director of brand protection at SICPA Spain, a technology company of Swiss origin. “Products such as makeup bases, eyeshadow palettes, mascaras or lipsticks are especially vulnerable since they combine high demand, attractive prices and ease of distribution.” There are surveillances, he points out: “At SICPA we have authentication solutions that allow the consumer to identify an original product in a simple and reliable way. These include visible elements integrated into the packaging, as well as digital solutions to verify through the smartphone, providing an additional layer of security and traceability.” And he warns that, “when a product does not incorporate this type of security measures, it is essential that the consumer adopts a preventive attitude. First of all, you must check that the physical or digital point of sale is consistent with the type of product being purchased, avoiding unofficial channels or non-transparent platforms. Secondly, it is key to be wary of abnormally low prices, which are usually a clear sign of counterfeiting. Finally, the perceived quality of the product – packaging, labeling, texture, smell or finish – must correspond to the brand’s usual standards.” Ana Trolez concludes: “The textile industry has made great progress with protected trademark programs, collaboration with platforms, serialization, digital passports and standards. Cosmetics can replicate and improve the visible authentication part through a QR/NFC with verification gateways. Furthermore, I think we can focus on alliances with marketplaces to promote Authorized Brand seals. We have already implemented some of these actions. And as an important point, focus on continued training at the point of sale, as well as through networks.”
About the future of dupes and counterfeits in the beauty industry, the sociologist foresees “on the one hand, greater regulation by the EU, reducing false toxins, but not dupes ethical; on the other, a hybridization where marks premium launch affordable lines (e.g. H&M and designers). Socially, polarization will deepen, while the elites will defend sustainable authenticity, the masses will defend dupes as empowerment. In essence, it will evolve towards a more inclusive, but guarded, consumerism.”
