The Ethics of Dupe Culture

The ‘dupe’ phenomenon has been circling around the fashion and beauty industry for decades, but its rise in recent years begs the question: has it gone too far? When does it become unethical? Our generation is no stranger to dupes – from Ego and Primark releasing their famous UGG knockoffs, to the viral Charlotte Tilbury Flawless Filter dupe, Elf’s Halo Glow. Products like these can provide an affordable alternative for more expensive, higher-end products. With the fashion and beauty world rooted in ‘copying culture’, it is difficult to know where to draw the line. However, when it involves big brands seemingly ripping off small, independent businesses’ original ideas, the dupe’s unethical nature comes out to play. 

Matilda Djerf & Djerf Avenue

The downfall of Matilda Djerf’s brand Djerf Avenue is a perfect example of the complex nature of dupe culture. The cancelling of Djerf Avenue began when creators on social media platforms such as TikTok were promoting more affordable dupes of Djerf Avenue pieces on websites such as Amazon. These creators saw their videos being flagged for trademark warnings and violations. It was then later revealed that Djerf and her team were allegedly copy-striking small creators accounts for promoting these dupes. The promotion of these Amazon dupes of Djerf pieces like the iconic printed pyjama set by creators such as Anna Davis and Rachel Jenkins went viral for their affordability and similarity in quality. However, this resulted in Djerf herself putting out a statement on her Instagram saying: 

“Unfortunately, there has been a recent surge in websites selling products with our design and owned prints/artworks. In light of this, and to safeguard our prints and the individual print designers – we have an external intellectual property (IP) firm monitoring copyright infringements.”

@matildadjerf on Instagram

At first glance, one may feel obliged to sympathise with Djerf herself. However, when delving deeper, this initial sympathy can seem misplaced. Djerf’s prices range from approximately £30 – £240, with many of her pieces arguably being priced too high for what they are, as seen with her Daily Turtleneck Top retailing for £65. 

Backlash quickly swarmed Djerf’s TikTok, with users pointing out that she didn’t invent ‘Scandinavian Style’. Several claimed the severity of her response  – essentially threatening legal action – was as if she had created the style herself. Following this, Djerf deactivated her TikTok account. The brand, however, is still very much alive. The Swedish Company gained immense popularity for its non-seasonal and timeless pieces that embraced a simple and classic style. These items – pieces like classic button-ups and blazers – supposedly help you achieve a ‘time capsule’ wardrobe. However, whilst the company appeared at the time of the Scandinavian Style popularity peak, Djerf herself isn’t responsible for creating the style altogether. We are left to question whether she has the grounds to be so enraged that affordable dupes of her essentially unoriginal items were being promoted online. 

It is evident that Djerf’s issue isn’t her price range but rather the false belief that she created the “clean girl, Scandinavian style” that has been popular for some time. This style has been successfully promoted for a considerable amount of time by a number of other creators, including Alva Blomdahl and Sofia Grindeland. Thus, the question of when dupes turn unethical and when the boundary is crossed remains. This epitome of unethical behaviour, in my opinion, occurs when a unique concept or product is copied or imitated, as opposed to a brand that has supported a style that is already in vogue, such as Djerf Avenue. Here a more reasonably priced item of very similar quality is being promoted instead – not an exploitative, unethical dupe. This makes these Scandinavian pieces more accessible to a wider audience – making it possible for more people to purchase, wear, and enjoy these timeless pieces – as well as being able to create a time capsule wardrobe similar to Matilda’s. 

Plagiarising Designs, From Transformations by Tracy to Levi’s

The many instances in which large corporations have plagiarised the concepts and works of independent businesses that come from people’s own ideas demonstrate the nastiness and unethical nature of dupe culture. Dupes are a rare occurrence because the fashion and beauty industries are known for their “copy” culture through its roots in absorbing cues from one’s environment. That’s not to argue, though, that dupe culture isn’t immoral. There are plenty of instances of small businesses being shamelessly taken advantage of, like Tracy Garcia’s brand Transformations by Tracy in 2021. Shein is no stranger to ripping off other brands’ ideas either. They have faced numerous backlashes from brands such as Levi’s who have claimed Shein has outright copied their trademarks and pieces. Tracy Garcia’s case, however, is one of significant violations. Tracy’s brand was known for its sustainable, one-of-a-kind silk cami blouses that were sold on Etsy. She was horrified to discover that Shein had been ripping off her designs and selling replicas that were not of sustainable value. Upon her graduation from the Fashion Institute of Technology, she made sustainability her priority – especially after she had encountered how fast-fashion companies had operated through her internships and work experiences. This was devastating for her. Tracy’s horrific case is one of a multitude of examples of the negative and unethical side of dupe culture, and is a prime example of this ethics line being crossed. 

The controversy that comes with dupe culture is unavoidable. How definitive its ethics, however, is certainly up for discussion.

To conclude, this ethics debate regarding dupe culture is one of complexity and an array of differing opinions. When does it go too far? How do you define when it’s okay and when it’s not? Are dupes always going to be unethical or can they be ethical? The controversy that comes with dupe culture is unavoidable. How definitive its ethics, however, is certainly up for discussion. To conclude, we have to ask ourselves: if the product isn’t of sheer original and unique creation by an individual or a brand, is the dupe bad, or is it simply opening up the advantages of these viral products to a wider audience?