Estée Lauder scraps sale of Too Faced, Smashbox and Dr. Jart to chase indie agility

Estée Lauder Companies (ELC) has decided not to sell Too Faced, Smashbox, and Dr. Jart, according to an internal document. Instead, the global multinational beauty conglomerate has opted to restructure the brands. 

ELC’s chief executive, Stéphane de La Faverie, wrote: “As we looked ahead, one thing became clear: our brands have different strengths. consumer positioning, competitive dynamics, and growth opportunities, requiring tailored business models to help them accelerate innovation, strengthen consumer connections, and unlock long-term growth.” 

The company has confirmed the contents of the internal document. 

Rather than losing the brands, the company is betting that a leaner, more entrepreneurial structure is the better route to faster innovation, stronger consumer connections, and long-term growth. 

“By adopting the speed, agility, and entrepreneurial mindset of successful beauty indies, we are evolving how we operate,” said de La Faverie in the document.

Brands split across new operations

Too Faced will relocate its headquarters from Los Angeles to New York, US, with a smaller team. The brand will join Estée Lauder Companies’ existing makeup cluster alongside Bobbi Brown and MAC. No leadership was named for the makeup brand, but the cluster is led by president Lisa Sequino, who joined in May 2025.

Smashbox will stay in Los Angeles, also with a reduced team. 

Meanwhile, Dr. Jart is said to remain in South Korea under Ye Jin Kim, VP of global brand lead and creative. She has overseen the brand for over four years.Estée Lauder retains Too Faced, Smashbox, and Dr. Jart after abandoning sale plans. 

From package deal to no deal

Last month, ELC reportedly received the final bids for the potential offloading of Too Faced, Smashbox, and Dr. Jart+ to interested parties.

The three brands were originally being considered as a package deal, but the strategy was adapted in the interests of the potential buyers. It was previously estimated that the combined price of the brands would be in the low nine figures (US$100 million to US$199.99 million). 

All three brands have been part of the beauty giant’s portfolio for years, acquired during its major acquisition phase in the 2010s. However, time does not always fuel fiscal results. The previous sales talks were set against the financial backdrop of underperforming financial reports from all three brands. 

ELC’s makeup and skin care segments have overall faced declines, but Smashbox, Too Faced, and Dr. Jart+ have each experienced their own monetary shortcomings. 

Just last week, the conglomerate announced that it expects to spend up to US$1.75 billion on its restructuring plan, part of its Profit Recovery and Growth Plan. The scheme was first announced in November 2023, when the company originally estimated it would cost between US$500 and 700 million. 

The company attributed the higher spending to job cuts, asset-related costs, and terminated contracts, among other changes.

Past collapsed deal 

In a related fallthrough, ELC recently pulled the plug on its merger with Puig. The companies officially confirmed discussions of the merger on March 23, ultimately resulting in the termination of the talks announced on May 21. 

Reports at the time alleged that a conflict with Charlotte Tilbury was complicating the ELC–Puig merger in what was described as a “last-minute obstacle.” According to Spanish newspaper Expansión, which also broke the news about the alleged financing package, the UK makeup brand was pursuing a renegotiation of the terms of its buyout. De La Faverie pitches an indie mindset to revive the three brands. 

The founder, Tilbury, was reportedly seeking a renegotiation of her Puig contract for US$1 billion. 

Expansión said if ELC moved forward with the merger, a change-of-control clause in Puig’s existing deal with Charlotte Tilbury would have given Tilbury — the brand’s founder — the right to force the sale of her shares. This liability held the risk of creating a multi-hundred-million-dollar potential loss for ELC.

At a Deutsche Bank conference after the deal’s collapse, de La Faverie said: “If we cannot reach the growth and the profitability at the right price point, then that is not an option … and this is why, obviously, ⁠this deal didn’t go through, because it was not at the right price.”