For a few days, beauty Instagram started to feel like someone had accidentally uploaded the same product launch four times.

First came Fenty Skin. The Glow Recipe. Then Huda Beauty. Each had a new under-eye patch. Each arrived in an unusually distinctive cylindrical dispenser. And each worked in essentially the same very satisfying way: twist the top and a fresh hydrogel eye patch gets sliced off for you.

Same category. Same visual trick. Very different brands.

Naturally, the internet noticed.

Except this isn’t quite the copycat story it initially looked like. It might actually be a much more interesting look at how beauty products get made in the first place.

FENTY WENT FIRST. WELL, ALMOST.

On September 17, Fenty Skin teased its Dew N Plump Fresh-Sliced Hydrogel Eye Patches, introducing many beauty consumers to a dispenser that looked unlike the usual tub of slippery under-eye masks.

Instead of fishing around for a patch, you twist the grinder-style mechanism and it dispenses a freshly cut hydrogel slice.

Clean. Convenient. Extremely good Reel material.

Fenty described the packaging as solving familiar eye-patch problems including messy liquid and slippery patches, and the internet quickly became fascinated by the mechanism. (beautymatter.com)

And then things got awkward.

GLOW RECIPE HAD ONE TOO

Within days, Glow Recipe’s version appeared.

Its Exopeptide Caffeine Brightening and Depuffing Fresh Slices Eye Mask came in an unmistakably similar cylindrical format, only this time the formula centred on ingredients including exopeptides, caffeine and panthenol. 

Same satisfying slice. Different skincare agenda.

And before the beauty internet had finished comparing the two, there was another one.

AND THEN THERE WERE THREE

Huda Beauty’s Undereye Jelly Patches surfaced next, once again using the now extremely familiar fresh-slice for Fenty, Glow Recipe and Huda had left the group chat.

Huda Kattan weighed in publicly, saying the formulas were different but suggesting the brands had been misled about exclusivity around the packaging. Glow Recipe co-founder Christine Chang offered a different interpretation, telling BeautyMatter that several brands may simply have become excited about the same innovation. The manufacturers used by the different brands have not been publicly established.

Instead of turning the collision into a full-blown beauty feud, the brands largely joined the joke. Fenty posted a Spider-Man-pointing meme featuring the competing packages; Glow Recipe and Huda joined the conversation. 

Very beauty industry. Very internet.

EXCEPT SOMEONE WAS ALREADY THERE

Here comes the plot twist.

Korean beauty brand Wonder Bath had already launched its Slice Serum eye patches in Korea back in July, before Fenty, Glow Recipe and Huda Beauty sent Western beauty feeds into detective mode. Wonder Bath’s range uses the same freshly sliced concept and comes in three versions, with 60 slices in each dispenser.  And the format isn’t stopping there. BeautyMatter reported that Vitamasques subsequently teased another eye-patch product using similar packaging. Industry sources also told the publication that at least two prominent South Korean packaging manufacturers offer versions of the technology. 

So perhaps the better question isn’t who copied whom?

It’s how did everyone arrive at almost the same place at almost the same time?

WELCOME TO HOW BEAUTY ACTUALLY GETS MADE

The answer is considerably less scandalous than TikTok might prefer.

Beauty brands don’t necessarily invent every bottle, pump or dispenser themselves. Manufacturers and packaging suppliers develop components that brands can buy, customise and, depending on the agreement, potentially secure exclusivity over. Without that exclusivity, one genuinely clever packaging innovation can end up in the hands of several companies.

And because Fenty, Glow Recipe and Huda Beauty operate in overlapping beauty markets, consumers aren’t seeing those launches months apart in completely different countries. They’re seeing them side by side, sometimes within days. 

Suddenly, what may be normal behind the scenes looks extremely strange on your feed.

BUT THE STUFF INSIDE ISN’T NECESSARILY THE SAME

This distinction matters.

Similar packaging doesn’t automatically mean identical skincare.

Glow Recipe’s founders told ELLE that the packaging was only one part of its development process and said its formula had been developed separately. Huda Kattan likewise stated that the formulas differed. 

So while the dispensers may be having an accidental matching-outfit moment, the actual products still have to compete on formulation, performance, branding and ultimately whether anyone wants to repurchase them.

Which is where this gets more interesting than an Instagram pile-on.

SO, IS ANYTHING ACTUALLY ORIGINAL?

Beauty has always moved in waves.

One brand launches a lip oil and suddenly everyone has one. Cushion compacts spread. Serum mists multiply. Ingredients trend across entire shelves. What’s unusual here is how visually distinctive this particular innovation is. A moisturiser can share an ingredient with ten competitors without looking identical. A grinder that literally slices your eye patch in front of you is much harder to separate from the product’s identity.

BeautyMatter points to an important consequence: consumers often don’t distinguish between technology developed internally by a brand and technology sourced from a supplier. We tend to associate an innovation with whichever brand shows it to us first. 

And when several brands show us the same thing within days?

That’s when originality gets complicated.

“When everyone can access the innovation, being first is only part of the story.”