Another Sol de Janeiro saga is unfolding in South Africa.
In 2024, we covered the Sol de Janeiro x Dischem x Beauty Bag controversy (prior to officially landing in South Africa) that represented a troubling example of poor business ethics and brand misrepresentation. To be clear, Sol de Janeiro themselves was not responsible for the confusion or the behaviour of those who claimed partnership with the brand in South Africa at that time.
Since then, Carte Blanche has covered alleged counterfeit products on Takealot; allegations which Takealot denied, despite significant evidence by Carte Blanche to the contrary. One would assume that, after all this, the industry would have learned its lesson. Consumers are more informed, influencers more alert, and the industry more cautious… right? Unfortunately, a recent Rhode-branded pop-up suggests otherwise.
Much to our chagrin, a "fake" Rhode (Beauty) pop-up "popped up" in Mall of Africa, in their flexible retail space named SOOK. Again, almost 4 months after the previous 'incident' at another retailer, our questions remain the same: 1) who in South Africa is lending a voice of diligence, expertise and trustworthiness to our beauty industry? In other words, where are the beauty journalists and industry experts meant to steer thought and opinion? And 2) where is the due diligence from anyone, including the mall, payment processors, and Consumer / Competition governmental bodies?
In case you're lost: Recap and update.
Since the Sol de Janeiro stock at Dischem was ousted as either counterfeits (alleged) or "diverted supply" aka grey market products, Dischem not only promised the press that they are working with Sol de Janeiro to bring the brand to South Africa, but also threatened legal action. Beauty Bag similarly threatened legal action. We could not find any public records to substantiate this threat. Further, the brand was brought in by another supplier (legitimately) PCG for distribution to Woolworths, Foschini, Edgars, Arc and so forth. Beauty Bag had a competition running at the time, classified as fraudulent because it entailed purchasing from them to enter under a misleading context. To date, we could not find any evidence that there was any winner. Per law, consumers are entitled to a refund for purchasing under false pretences. Beauty Bag then "dumped" their inventory at Medirite (which we posted in another article on our Buy Me a Coffee homepage). The inventory includes Drunk Elephant. Medirite was also advertising Sol de Janeiro for their launch--advertised by Beauty Bag as supplied by Beauty Bag (Link International Brands). It never appeared in stores and the mentions quietly disappeared. Beauty Bag stood fast in their claims of partnerships until their website went offline and they announced being sold to an American company. No public record of the sale was found.
In sum: the South African beauty retail scene needs to shape up. It's frankly unacceptable. Not only do they insult your intelligence as consumers but also create a perception of our industry that is off-putting for future partnerships.
See my other articles here:
buymeacoffee.com/straal/flying-close-sol-counterfeit-grey-beauty-south-africa
buymeacoffee.com/straal/photographic-track-claims
https://straal.shop/soldejaneiro_southafrica/
Contextual definition of "fake"
While the Rhode pop-up at Mall of Africa seemed quite legit with the logo proudly displayed as well as the true-to-the-real-deal shopping bags (the printing work on the pamphlets unfortunately left much to be desired), it sadly fell apart upon inspection. Upon a closer look, we found the following elements:
Rhode has not announced anything on their social media: The brand has historically publicised all retail events launches via verified social media, press releases, or influencer partnerships.
The pop-up was hosted by Buetessa, not Rhode. While custodianship in beauty retail isn't odd, there has been no publicised or affirmative correspondence that confirmed any relationship between the two entities. This point really goes to the crux of the deception as well: there is a marked difference between ambitious entrepreneurs or passionate beauty lovers hosting an unofficial event or the like under their own name versus the misleading presentation that occurred here. We have historically been gracious to contrast good faith (non-harming) grey markets from malicious ones underscored by misrepresentation. It is our understanding that what occurred here is known legally as "Passing off".
Some of the packaging does not match Rhode's packaging, is shrink wrapped (unusual for Rhode and often a key feature of grey markets and counterfeit items), and--as a font lover--not only were the fonts not matched to that of Rhode's, but letter spacing and spellings are inconsistent with plenty of misspellings in the INCI list.
The definition is substantiated further by there having been a few complaints about both the pop-up and Beutessa already on social media.
As you can see from these images (as well as the images on our tiktok), the logo font is wrong and there are plenty of spelling mistakes e.g. Octyi instead of Octyl; Lauryi instead of Lauryl etc. While some of the products might be real (although it seems some aren't) and simply diverted from another retailer (known as dumping, parallel imports or grey stock), consumers nevertheless have a legal right to be informed regardless: whether they're purchasing grey goods or overstock or 'dupes', so that the ultimate choice is up to them.
💡On that note, did you know that some parallel importers (grey resellers/unauthorised resellers) will mix real products with counterfeits to confuse shoppers and lend legitimacy to their business? Hence, as a consumer buying outside of authorised channel, you really never know!
Lastly, the reason we call the pop-up "fake" even when the damage was very real (some consumers purportedly lost thousands) is because it's not only misleading consumers by not clarifying that they have no affiliation to Rhode, but the use of Rhode's Intellectual Property to imbue the public with the perception that it is 'legit' is not only misleading, but also technically illegal. From the packaging discrepancies, it's also quite clear why we use the word fake.
By the way, we're building a platform to help you spot counterfeits, please sign up to the waitlist here.
Difference between transparent grey market and misleading: IP infringement and disclosure.
There are plenty of complexities and technical business bits when it comes to whether a brand decides to launch in a specific country or decide against it. From purchasing power, to demand, to tariffs, to the culture in a particular country. So, occasionally, it's understandable that you might be curious about trying something not available in your region. For the most part, you'd understand from the get-go that wherever you decide to purchase might just be a forwarder or reseller. In these cases, it's "buyer beware", but generally, you'd understand that you're taking a risk with the purchase and therefore there's a reasonable understanding embedded in the transaction. Other businesses might function more like a personal shopper or as a sourcing company, where they fill tiny gaps in market demand or take special sourcing requests for items that don't ship here. These entities generally do not make wild claims about partnerships, nor do they have elaborate branded pop-ups to create a perception of credibility for themselves. The difference is transparency/mutual understanding vs deception, through the eyes of the reasonable man. Sure, you can buy a lip balm from Rhode off Takealot--you know you're taking a risk. But when you see a pop-up with a brand's IP in a place like Mall of Africa? You're placed under a certain perception due to the context and liberal use of Rhode's IP (which doesn't constitute fair use).
Good faith vs Bad faith parallel imports (more definitions)
Parallel imports (or grey market goods and unauthorised resale) are defined as real products that get "diverted" from their usual distribution chain to sell in another market to either benefit from price arbitrage (in tech, not common in beauty) or to fill demand gaps. Sometimes, these grey markets are also cultivated to take care of over-supply or to protect profits against duties (such is allegedly the case with Estee Lauder). It is not illegal but has to be clearly disclosed to shoppers per the CPA. Many platforms in South Africa participate in good faith grey imports to fill demand of customers. Bad faith parallel imports, on the other hand, are defined as platforms, resellers or products that are purposely trying to mislead customers by omissions, half-truths, semantics, misrepresenting their business model, misrepresenting where they got the products from, not disclosing their business model or affiliations or mixing real products with counterfeits to confuse customers. Bad faith importers will also use influencers or magazines to lend legitimacy, which brings the topic of vicarious liability and fiduciary responsibilities into the picture. Additionally, on top of the CPA, IP infringement, and ethics, the ARB is quite strict on these matters.
The role of influencers
The debate around content creators, influencers, publications, and KOLs/KIVs viewing themselves as neutral advertising platforms is a complex one. To add, Mall of Africa and e.g. Sandton/Rosebank (who also hosts similar pop-ups) like to pull the neutral card too. Many of the aforementioned, especially those with large followings, often claim that they are simply intermediaries: connecting brands with their audience. Thus they distance themselves from the products they promote, but especially when the product or business turns out 'dodgy'. This position is built on the idea that these parties are not endorsing products/brands (unless it's a joint venture or revenue share) so much as providing exposure or a platform, akin to traditional advertising channels. In theory, this allows parties to maintain the appearance of neutrality, focusing more on offering visibility than advocating for particular products or ideas. There are exceptions though; covering every nuance here would be impossible, hence we trust the audience will fill in these gaps and trust that we understand those nuances. Indeed, it does get tricky to make sure partnerships are all perfectly ethical and above board, however, there can be reasonable grace given when due diligence can be proven--even if one party was deceived. To boot, it is entirely true that if one were to only work with those one aligns with ito values and ethics, 99.9% of us would have no income. But most of us--including the law--are forgiving and reasonable when good faith can be demonstrated. Saying that 99.9% of us would have no income sounds controversial, but we'll submit that it is a generous yet sober view: attaching a value system to near every decision today is like asking how long a piece of string is.
However, when this position of neutrality is inspected from more angles, the seams fall apart in several ways. First, an influencer's (or KOL/KIV's, creator's or publication's) personal brand, authority, and relationship with their followers are intrinsically tied to 1) the products/brands they promote/platform (with or without paid affiliation), 2) their persona, POV or 'walled garden' approach (in the case of an exclusive mall) and 3) their credibility/expertise. Consumers follow these entities not just for their paid content but also for their perceived taste, expertise, or lifestyle. However bleek or para-social that might be. Similarly, we generally trust magazines, retailers, or in this case malls, to have a certain standard, at very least because the costs (such as rent) creates a barrier that we assume is only accessible to serious businesses. So, when a publication, mall, blogger, retailer, creator, or influencer "endorses" (or promotes) a product--whether directly or indirectly--they are implicitly associating their reputation with it. Even if a party claims to be neutral, their post (or in the case of a mall, their allowing the pop-up to occur) is still an implicit endorsement, because shoppers trust their judgment. This dynamic challenges the claim of neutrality because personal credibility is at stake—no one can truly be neutral when their identity and authenticity are so closely linked to the products they advertise or their affiliations. Posting on social media is also entirely voluntary, especially when the posting is not just for a private social community such as your family members and friends. Theoretically, these creators who get rewarded with campaigns or other partnerships, are posting organic content to build a platform or brand for themselves to leverage for future gain.
Moreover, if every influencer were to adopt a “neutral” position in pursuit of profit, we would enter a world of unchecked commercialisation where authenticity is diluted, and consumer trust erodes. Actually, that's already happening. The market would become flooded with endorsements devoid of genuine opinion or informed judgment, which ultimately harms everyone's credibility--including honest businesses--and consumer decision-making. Actually, that's already happening. Imagine your Tiktok just full of paid-for nonsense? Actually, that's already happening. When everyone washes their hands of responsibility..."not my problem", we risk creating a landscape where we are no longer able to discern which parties are sincere and which endorsements are purely transactional or for personal gain, ultimately undermining the whole industry.
In the case of Rhode, people were promoting it for free. Ostensibly to be the first to "break" news, to benefit from views or to align with Rhode. Which is even more offensive, given the high fees legit businesses pay for credibility and for genuine affiliations--whether with a mall, publication, or especially with influential people.
All that being said, we want to be charitable and acknowledge the complexities; it's similarly not ok for businesses to mislead influencers, creators, publications, retailers, malls or any partners who pay with their reputations. We acknowledge that loudly because it can happen and does happen everyday, even to the most well-meaning people and entities.
Why is it our business?
In the South African consumer space, we have a culture of silence, also known as the chilling effect, cultivated by corporations or businesses targeting the public or consumers, instead of focusing on their own ethics and practices.
Simply put, businesses taking short cuts that create profit from deception puts ALL honest businesses at a disadvantage. What this leads to is an environment where good, honest entrepreneurs are competed out of the market and move overseas instead. Foreign investment stops. Services decline. The economy doesn't grow. That's the dramatic side of things, but the short and sweet: why would anyone keep doing quality business if it's so much more profitable taking advantage of people?
💡 When a competitor gets away with promoting counterfeits, it creates a false equivalency in the eyes of consumers, making it harder for the honest business to stand out or justify their price point and existence.
Legitimate businesses risk losing customers who may be unknowingly swayed by the false appeal of lower prices or the allure of "exclusive" items that are, in fact, counterfeit.
So, it’s important to recognise that speaking up in these situations isn't about trying to hurt anyone's business or name, but rather about creating a level playing field replete with credibility and favourable to true competition. When dishonest practices go unchecked, it can set a precedent for the whole industry, making it harder for all businesses to succeed honestly. The business that adheres to proper standards has a stake in maintaining the integrity of the market, ensuring that consumers are informed and protected from being misled into purchasing subpar or potentially harmful products.
In closing: consumers are not angry enough for consistently being taken for fools in SA. Our economy is in tatters. These minor, seemingly inconsequential business practices from "vanity industries" are one drop in a larger conversation. It certainly does not help us protect and build a thriving country for all industries and entrepreneurs. Including yours, i.e. the reader's industry, whichever one that may be.
Buyer beware.
[edited July 2025 for grammar and structure; fluctuations between American- and British English is acknowledged as auto-correct software settings between different platforms]