- Nutriwomen defied an ARB ruling over its copycat DERMACARE packaging.
- The ARB confirmed jurisdiction, citing Nutriwomen’s past industry membership.
- Sanctions include product withdrawal and possible blacklisting for non-compliance.
Nutriwomen (Pty) Ltd has landed itself in deeper regulatory trouble after it was found to have breached a ruling by the Advertising Regulatory Board (ARB), a decision stemming from a DERMACARE packaging dispute that centred on its alleged imitation of L’Oreal South Africa’s CERAVE skincare products.
The dispute, which has spanned over a year, not only reignited long-standing debates about branding and fair competition, but also exposed vulnerabilities in how South Africa’s advertising system is enforced, especially when advertisers reject its jurisdiction.
In 2023, L’Oreal brought a complaint to the ARB, alleging that DERMACARE’s packaging closely mimicked the look and feel of its CERAVE range, including the same white-and-blue colour scheme, font style, container shapes, and overall layout.
Nutriwomen insisted that these were industry standards, but the ARB Directorate disagreed. In May 2024, it ruled that DERMACARE’s packaging infringed on L’Oreal’s advertising goodwill and violated the principles of fair competition as outlined in Clauses 8 and 9 of the ARB Code.
Nutriwomen appealed, not only against the substance of the finding but also against the ARB’s authority to rule on the matter, claiming that it was not a member of the ARB and therefore not bound by its decisions.
But in October 2024, the Appeals Committee dismissed both arguments. It upheld the original ruling and found that the rebranding of DERMACARE took place only after CERAVE had entered the South African market. The Committee concluded that the similarities were too extensive to be a coincidence and that Nutriwomen had unlawfully leveraged L’Oreal’s advertising goodwill.
A breach months later
Despite being given until January 2025 to change the DERMACARE packaging, L’Oreal noted that the same infringing products continued to appear on the shelves of Dis-Chem outlets in Sandton City and the Mall of Africa, and were still being sold online as of May 2025.
A fresh complaint was lodged, and once again, Nutriwomen claimed that the ARB had no jurisdiction over it. But this time, evidence showed that Nutriwomen had been a member of the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association of South Africa (CTFA), a member organisation of the ARB, at the time the ruling was made.
This detail proved decisive in the ongoing DERMACARE packaging dispute.
Jurisdiction and accountability
The committee found that Nutriwomen had in fact submitted to the ARB’s jurisdiction, both through its active membership of the CTFA at the relevant time and through its own conduct. The company had filed extensive submissions, participated in hearings, and even launched an appeal against the earlier ruling, all without reservation.
What raised additional concern was that Nutriwomen allowed its CTFA membership to lapse in early 2025, after the deadline to comply with the ruling had passed and after the new complaint had been initiated. The Committee described this as troubling conduct and suggested it may have been a deliberate attempt to escape regulatory oversight.
“An advertiser should not benefit from the rights which flow from ARB association, only to seek to escape any negative repercussions when the bell tolls,” the Committee said in its ruling.
Dis-Chem’s role
Dis-Chem, the exclusive retailer of DERMACARE, was also named in the ruling. As a CTFA member, Dis-Chem is bound by the ARB’s Code and was therefore required to stop stocking the infringing packaging by January 2025. The Committee said no justification had been provided for why the retailer continued to stock DERMACARE products in breach of the ruling but accepted that Dis-Chem may not have been aware of its specific obligations.
Having concluded that a breach had occurred, the committee moved to impose further sanctions on both Nutriwomen and Dis-Chem.
Nutriwomen is now directed, if it submits to the ruling, to immediately withdraw the infringing packaging from the market. It must also submit any new packaging or advertisements, along with this ruling and the prior one, to the ACA Advisory Service for pre-publication approval.
If Nutriwomen does not comply, or refuses to submit to the ruling, the ARB will escalate the matter. It will notify all its members that Nutriwomen has failed to comply with a binding decision and has deliberately circumvented the Code of Advertising Practice. Members will be instructed not to accept any DERMACARE advertising or stock the infringing packaging.
Additionally, the ARB will publish Nutriwomen’s name as a defaulter, effectively blacklisting the company within regulated advertising circles.
As for Dis-Chem, the retailer will receive formal notice of its obligations under the ARB ruling and will be instructed to remove the infringing DERMACARE products from its shelves within a reasonable time, not exceeding three months from the date of notification.
Why this matters
At its heart, the DERMACARE packaging dispute illustrates the fine line between industry standards and brand exploitation, and how difficult enforcement becomes when companies reject the system once held to account.
The ARB operates without statutory power, relying instead on industry buy-in, voluntary compliance, and mutual accountability. While that model brings flexibility, it also depends on the good faith of those involved.
When a company fully engages in the process but walks away when a ruling goes against it, especially after benefiting from membership perks, it risks undermining the entire regulatory system.
For consumers, the lesson is simple, when packaging feels familiar, it might not be by accident. For advertisers, the message is even clearer, fair competition means more than clever branding, it means accountability.
#Conviction
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
