A Dirty Little Makeup Secret Update

This story is about two or three years in the making, stemming from a previously written article. Most of my information was and is based on consumer reports from various beauty box subreddits. I will link them throughout as needed. Subreddit/consumer reports are especially vital as it is often difficult to depend upon brand and company transparency. There is often very little transparency from companies. 

Two years ago, I chronicled an incident where I noticed that supposedly "different" brands featured in subscription boxes such as ipsy, were actually not indie brands and all owned by the same person, an Emanuela deFalco. At the time I called this an "Ipsy Conspiracy," and while of course that article got no attention because this is an obscure little blog on the world wide web, major developments happened that I had no idea about. 

I would be more careful to call anything a conspiracy in these times, due to the legal implication, as well as the loss of credibility one who uses the word un-ironically would face. 

While I have unsubscribed from Ipsy for about two years now, and have lost track completely of beauty box/subscription service drama, some passing quarantine boredom prompted me to check back in. 

Has anything new happened? 

At the time, I was able to verify that Emanuela DeFalco was the CEO of the following brands:

-DLS (Dirty Little Secret) Cosmetics, the mothership brand, started in 2013

-Luna by Luna Cosmetics

-Bang Beauty

-Steve Laurant Beauty, with clear documentation proving it's just alibaba whole-sale, found here.

At the time (2018), a total of four "brands," with identical website configurations, the same photography company (verified in this reddit post from two years back) , the same packaging and ingredients, the same sub-par quality, and the same inflated prices. 

DeFalco, a self-proclaimed "entrepreneur," who started DLS (a fitting name) Cosmetics with a loan of $10,000 from her father, (Founder and CEO of FinCredit, Inc), was not necessarily trying to hide the fact that she was essentially Mom from Futurama who was just a little more subtle with branding. 

Pictured: Emanuela DeFalco's second release from her skin care brand, Faccia

Granted, was all this illegal? Well, I'm not a lawyer. But, as documented in my first post, these practices undoubtedly compromised the image that Ipsy was going for. I can only imagine that either 1.) Ipsy did not know, or 2.) could not weather the demands of this arrangement, or 3.) did not like the consumer feedback/response, which continued long after I dropped the story.

In the gap time of 2019-2020, more reports of additional brands under DeFalco's name cropped up. These are:

-Basic Beauty, verified in this reddit post. 

-Give Them Lala (as documented on a LinkedIn post of Joseph DeFalco (maybe an uncle?) documented in this reddit post. 

-Faccia, which claimed to be a luxury skin care brand, despite its non-luxury ingredients and absolutely no brand story/identity. Read here. To make matters worse, consumers confirmed what was already long suspected of her other brands- they were private labelled from wholesalers, in this case, Alibaba. Read here, too, for ingredient break-down.

The Faccia gold stuff resold from Alibaba seemed to be the major tipping point for many consumers, who were horrified at the apparent misinformation and false promises. 

It is important to note that there may be many more brands, not just owned by DeFalco, out there that operate in the same way. They seem to be like a hydra. For our purposes, we know now of at least eight (listed above) that DeFalco runs. 

But how did the subscription boxes respond to this outrage?

As of February 2020, Ipsy no longer sells Luna by Luna, Steve Laurant, Bang Beauty, and DLS cosmetics from their marketplace, documented here. This occurred after they sent an email to their customers, saying they will not work with her anymore. A much different response than two years ago, when they wrote to me informing me that these are indie brands. It looks like one other box dropped them, Fashionista. 

Boxycharm, however, seems to be another story. While you can't search the site directly from items, and you cannot (without an account) determine what items may be available in boxes, a google search will get you access to their marketplace, where one could purchase items directly. In this case, as of late May 2020, they are still selling Steve Laurant lipgloss for $22.00 (lol), gloss from Luna by Luna for $18.00 (also lol). It is funny how arbitrary the price point is for both of them. Though neither Boxycharm, nor Luna by Luna reports ingredients or amounts, I am sure they are identical. By the way, it is the law to produce ingredients, so I am not sure why neither has.


Amazon lists the ingredients for the Luna gloss, though, as "POLYISOBUTENE, MINERAL OIL, ETHYLHEXYL PALMITATE, CAPRYLIC/CAPRIC TRIGLYCERIDE, ISOPROPYL MYRISTATE, SILICA DIMETHYL SILYLATE, PHENOXYETHANOL, CAPRYLYL GLYCOL, MAY CONTAIN: TITANIUM DIOXIDE, MICA, IRON OXIDES, RED 6 LAKE, RED 7 LAKE, YELLOW 5 LAKE" These ingredients also appear for a brand called KAB cosmetics, which has ties to a different group of reality-tv show people, but I am sure there are shared contacts and backing for both of them. Amazon Singapore also gives ingredients for Steve Laurant gloss (here, but link may expire), and surprise, surprise, they are the same.

Boxycharm also is still selling the Faccia face cream, but a reddit post revealed that after a consumer left a message about the Faccia/Ali-baba scandal, Boxycharm was unwilling to pull the plug on them. I could not find any apparent ties just yet between DeFalco and Boxycharm that would indicate something rather sinister, so for now I am just going to chalk it up to Boxycharm's greed and disdain for its own customers. 

Most of these businesses still seem active, unfortunately. Their sites are still up and running, and taking people's money. Boxycharm still seems like the last hold-out, but Ipsy's distancing seems like a big step. Two years ago, I was skeptical that all these brands would still be around, since they seemed like a ploy to make cash fast and run. 

I still feel that way, though, and am certain these are brands just exist to fill the subscription boxes of those brands who consider this type of business (subscription services) a way to cut corners. 

This story isn't finished, I don't think. While activity for everyone has slowed due to the pandemic, it remains to be seen what the future of these brands will be, and, to a greater extent, subscription boxes. I do not think S.B. can continue to thrive of this model of low-quality and low-transparency. 

For the consumer- take heed. I abandoned subscription boxes long ago, because I figured if I wanted one specific thing, I would just buy it. I didn't want to play essentially a game of risk with my money. When it comes to your own money, consider what (and who) it goes to. 

Milani Luminoso Glow Palette Review

The Milani Luminoso Glow Palette was introduced by the brand last year (Spring 2019). It was a step by the brand into a higher price point of products, which continues to this day, with palettes around the $20.00 mark.

The Luminoso Glow palette, named after the much-loved Luminoso baked blush, costs $18.00 at full price. I did not see many reviews at the time of its release, probably because of the prohibitive cost.

It fell into my hands with a bit of luck. I had to run into Walgreen's for some essential items, when I saw the clearance section had an entire makeup bin of sealed products. With practically no other customers in the store, a quick rummage yielded some steeply discounted Spectrum by Covergirl palettes (at both $2.39 each), and this palette, the Milani Lumioso Glow palette, for $1.89, almost a 90% discount....whoa.

So, let's get into product details.

The palette contains 8 shades of blush, bronzer, and highlight tones, that could also easily double on the eye. It reminds me a little of the Em Cosmetics Golden Hour Face/Eye palette in that regard. The pans are sun-beam shaped, triangle, with divots in the pan. All in all, quite a gorgeous, sleek design, but with too much plastic for my liking.

In the past, I have had experience with Milani face color products. I owned and decluttered the Strobelight highlighter in the shade Afterglow. While the product was highly reflective, I didn't enjoy the thicker formulation. I also owned the baked luminous blush in Corallina, and did not like that one, either. It had an odd smell and huge flecks of glitter.

However, as I am a fan of Milani in general, and didn't have much to lose, I thought would give this a shot.

From left to right, we have swatches of shades #1-4

Shade 1. A luminous peach blush tone with scattered golden glitter. I am not a huge fan of glitter in products, but I don't mind the scattered effect of this one too much. 

Shade 2. A darker wine-copper metallic shade, with no discernible glitter. This is a rather pigmented shade that needs to be blended out. For me, it is really pretty mixed with the other shades.

Shade 3. A mid-toned, rich gold-copper metallic shade, no glitter. This one is probably the one I'll get the least use out of, unless I mix it with other shades. It has a nice shine to it.

Shade 4. A light gold metallic shade, no glitter. The gold is definitely red-toned, and though I don't particularly use gold highlighters, there is something glowy and pretty about this color.

And next,  shades #5-8

Shade 5.  A really bright duochrome with pink shifting gold with gold flecks. Reminds me a lot of the Too Faced shade Satin Sheets.

Shade 6. This is the peachy pink duocrome that Milani really started using with the Luster Lights single highlighter compact. Not as metallic as the other shades, but really gorgeous. Reminds me a bit of Urban Decay Fireball.

Shade 7. A sparkling peachy-gold.

Shade 8. A pink-gold duochrome that is also quite common in eyeshaow palettes.

Final thoughts:

Though this palette has a lot of glitz, I do think it can be used to create really soft and pretty looks. I do find this to be a rather lucky find, given it had such a high price tag for such a long time. I am not a fan of paying a lot of money for makeup, but I can say this would be a steal anywhere from $10-$15.00.

It especially curved my craving for the Golden Hour products from EM Cosmetics, as I think this palette is more than capable of washing someone in a warm golden light. I think the amount of duochrome shades is also really neat.

My final commendation is the formula. Past Milani highlighters from the Strobelight collection had, in my opinion, a denser "wetter" formula that I did not enjoy. This palette has a really soft and somewhat drier (but not dry) and thin formation that makes is easy to smooth over the skin. I have not seen anything like that formula from Milani before, though for all I know (given their more current and plentiful spate of releases) they might have been continuing with it.

Ah, well. This is a nice little palette. It's a shame I had to wait so long for the cost to become reasonable.

Thanks for reading.