This is an episode of the Glossy Beauty Podcast, which features candid conversations about how today’s trends are shaping the future of the beauty and wellness industries. More from the series →
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts • Spotify
One of the biggest beauty industry headlines over the past few weeks has surrounded an unexpected lawsuit filed by indie makeup darling Patrick Ta Beauty over which retailers can, and cannot, sell its products.
Last month, Patrick Ta Beauty filed a lawsuit against CVS and Canadian distributor Akstrom for the “unauthorized” sale of its cosmetics in CVS’ newly-launched off-price section called “fresh beauty finds.”
The lawsuit highlights ongoing friction between beauty brands and product diversion into the gray market, best described as the trade of authentic goods through unintended or unauthorized channels.
It comes during a time when off-price is becoming a dominant retail channel for beauty and wellness. Not only do consumers crave a deal, but the quick sale of products to off-price stores can have meaningful financial benefits for beauty brands in need of cash infusion.
Off-price leader TJX — which operates TJ Maxx, Marshalls and Home Goods — grew its revenue by 3.95% in 2025 to reach net sales of $56 billion. While CVS generated $400 billion in revenue during fiscal 2025, the brick-and-mortar leader is not immune to industry challenges facing pharmacy retail. Its new “fresh beauty finds” section is a strategic way to boost revenue through competitive categories.
CVS and Patrick Ta Beauty declined to comment on the lawsuit, and Akstrom did not reply to Glossy’s request for comment.
There’s much we don’t know about Patrick Ta Beauty’s lawsuit, including how Akstrom obtained the Patrick Ta Beauty products, how CVS will proceed with its intended sales and how this may impact beauty’s growing gray market. While early, the lawsuit comes with many valuable lessons that demand analysis.
In today’s episode, Glossy Beauty Podcast host Lexy Lebsack is joined by Julie Zerbo, lawyer, legal analyst and founder of The Fashion Law, where she unpacks the legal cases impacting the fashion and beauty industries. Also on today’s episode is Ian Ginsberg, president of iconic Greenwich Village apothecary C.O. Bigelow Chemists and distribution arm Bigelow Trading, which encompasses its private beauty line and a USA wholesale distribution arm that imports brands like Marvis toothpaste for sale across domestic retailers.
Press play now for a colorful conversation with Zerbo and Ginsberg.
On the proliferation of diversion
Ginsberg: “Diversion has been around since the beginning of time. I mean, I’ve been in this business 40-something years, and it was pretty prominent years back, back in the ‘80s, ‘90s, with professional shampoos, professional hair care and fragrances, where you’d see professional hair care in drug chains, in Target, in CVS, in Walmart, in all these places, and and then in those days, it would come from different places. Some of it came from [resellers who are often called ‘collectors’], where people would go door to door to different hair salons and collect it, and then accumulate it and sell it to chains. And then sometimes you’d have the big fragrance companies that, for various reasons, are just trying to clear inventory toward the end of the year. Sometimes they’re trying to generate a little cash. Sometimes there’s an ingredient change or a package change or a labeling change. … Back in the ’80s, the [sales] reps were in on it, too. The fragrance companies would ship in a whole load of stuff, and the rep would show up and go, “Don’t worry about it,” and it would disappear. So this has been going on forever on both sides.”
On what we don’t yet know about Patrick Ta Beauty’s lawsuit against CVS
Zerbo: “What’s interesting about CVS is they have sophisticated legal counsel that appear [to have] cleared this [sale of Patrick Ta Beauty in its stores]. In theory, they saw the promotional materials that CVS had out, that Patrick Ta Beauty wants back and wants destroyed as part of what they’re asking for. … But, you know, counsel at CVS, in theory, cleared all of this, so it’s not necessarily as straightforward as Patrick Ta Beauty’s allegations, and it rarely is, right? The other thing that’s interesting is Sephora might have come knocking on Patrick Ta Beauty’s door and said, ‘But what about this term in our contract that says we’re the only ones that get to sell your product?’ So I think that there might have been some of that, too. I mean, if LVMH-owned Sephora’s attorneys came knocking on my door, I’d be nervous.”
