The Original Lashgate: The Lashify Drama Endures 6 Years Later

Frankel has a Lotti nerve...

Sahara Lotti vs. Bethenny Frankel. Do either of these names ring a bell? For most of you, the answer is probably a solid “kind of,” and that “kind of” is largely made up of knowing who Frankel is due to her Real Housewives shenanigans, Skinny Girl empire, or perhaps more recently her unhinged TikTok beauty reviews.

Sahara Lotti on the other hand is a screenwriter/actor-turned-entrepreneur. She is founder, inventor and CEO of at-home lash extension brand Lashify. And this week, Frankel posted an unhinged video of a different kind: telling Lotti and her brand to “fuck off.” It’s a deliciously juicy and petty Instagram drama. But there’s more to the story.

*Cracks knuckles* This is where my tenure in the beauty industry comes in handy, because although this is the first mega-public drama involving Lotti that far exceeds the niche beauty audience, it is not her first public drama. Or second!

There is a long history regarding this particular founder that I think is worth discussing, because it adds context to what’s going on. But first, what happened between Frankel and Lotti?

bethennyfrankel

A post shared by @bethennyfrankel

Bethenny posts this explosive video and it’s one of those videos most people can only dream of: she tells Lashify, who (allegedly) threatened legal action against her to “shove it up [their] ass.” Frankel has more money than god and has been through extensive litigation with her ex-husband (the Hoppy guy), so this is not her first rodeo. She explains that she got sent a competitive product, which is apparently Pro Lash — a Lashify dupe that I’ve never heard of, which is saying something.

This is when Lotti sends her a message that awakens the Bethenny Kraken.

Lotti posted the exchange on her page, which has since been removed along with another video addressing the situation. She says she didn’t take “you have way too big of a platform and therefore have unfortunately involved yourself in ligitation” as a threat. I would love to know how else this was supposed to be taken…

Let the record show that Lotti posted an apology to Frankel here. She’s missing the point entirely — people don’t “hate” her for fighting for what’s hers. Rather, I’d argue most people are shocked and appalled by her behavior and her tactic of repeatedly threatening the consumer.

Lotti’s aggression was and often has been directed toward people who are simply consumers in a capitalist society. Why in the world would Frankel know anything about the ongoing litigation or any of Lashify’s patents? Why would any consumer? Frankel barely knows anything about beauty — her reviews are based strictly on how she feels, not any real institutional knowledge of the industry, the makeup or skincare world, etc. To some people, that’s her charm. (She even alludes to this in her video.)

But Lotti does have valid reason to be upset. To understand why, you need to understand her brand. Lashify was the first “at-home” lash extension brand and holds over 600 patents worldwide. Lotti told BeautyMatter in January that she’s spent $50 million over the last four years defending these patents. (JFC.) The application was innovative albeit not entirely Lotti’s design (because plenty of makeup artists prior to the 2000s were using this technique with the lashes they did have). The underlash technique made it so the lashes appeared to grow from the lashline, making them appear more natural. And nobody was making or selling underlashes with that specific marketing or messaging until Lashify. It was smart. And initially, the brand had difficulty gaining traction due to the innovation and the pricepoint. A lot of education was needed around this product, and I attribute the reason I apply any lash in this fashion to Lashify.

There’s a lot of people who are missing this point, commenting that Lotti didn’t create faux lashes so she needs to get over it — competitors will always exist. And that’s true, but to her point, that isn’t what she is upset about. She has patents that legally her brand is protected by. However, that hasn’t stopped other brands from duping her products. It’s not as simple as e.l.f. duping Milk or MCO Beauty duping Charlotte Tilbury.

Legally, she should have those protections and she has gone after many brands and people in the past — some legally, some just on social media — including Lilly Lashes, Kiss, etc. for (allegedly) stealing her system (and making it for cheaper). The BeautyMatter story dives deeper into suits Lotti has filed.

Last year, Lashify won their case against Chinese lash competitor Qingdao Lashbeauty Cosmetic Co. for violating three of their patents, awarding them $34 million, which is groundbreaking and could even provide the brand more ammunition against other suits they have filed, and perhaps other patent law cases.

Lotti is nothing if not… passionate. Some may argue to a dastardly fault. No matter your personal opinions of her, her patent argument is iron-clad. Patents give the owner special rights to make, sell, or share their invention. Without permission, you are in violation. If you were inspired by a product with a patent, it’s the law to either work with the pantent-holder or license that patent accordingly.

But we’re adults here. It’s not so much what Lotti is saying, but how she conducts herself and who she tends to go after. She claims in her apology video that her intention wasn’t to be threatening toward Frankel, yet she’s got a track record of just that. That’s where people get a bad taste in their mouth: Lotti has frequently posted online about people stealing from her. She drags just the founders of brands who do infringe on the patents and the consumers who likely have zero fucking clue what patents a brand does or doesn’t have. Customers want something effective, easy to use, and in most cases affordable. They aren’t looking up who-owns-what on the USPTO before purchasing.

Lashify is a luxury product whose starter kits retail around $150 and include entire installation offerings; it’s an elevated experience opening the Lashify kit. Kiss and these other brands make the type of product that you wouldn’t be upset if one fell off or if you only used them once. They are different yet similar, and for a consumer it likely boils down to how much money they can spend (or not). It’s not a personal vendetta the customer has to buy something they’re more accessible that they can afford. I’d argue that dupes could provide a learning curve for someone to ultimately buy Lashify once they feel the technique is something they can master. And perhaps the marketing of Lashify should hone in on being the first and/or the original.

But Lotti has a track record of going after consumers of the brand.