TheChek News Flow

L’Oréal leads beauty groups telling Brussels to leave them out of trade war

French group says 16 companies have told EU to remove US cosmetics from retaliation list

European beauty groups including L’Oréal, the world’s biggest, have lobbied the EU to remove American cosmetics from the bloc’s list of potential trade retaliation targets, warning that the move could trigger reprisals against one of the region’s biggest sectors.

Nicolas Hieronimus, L’Oréal’s chief executive, said he and an alliance of 15 other beauty chiefs had warned EU officials this week that the inclusion of cosmetics in countermeasures against US tariffs could lead to a damaging response.

“My only ask to the people I’ve met [in Brussels] is to say: look at the balance of trade and don’t put a red flag on a category where we have more to lose than to win,” Hieronimus told the Financial Times.

The EU announced retaliation measures against Donald Trump’s tariffs on steel and aluminium imports last week, which included a 99-page list of US goods that could be subject to tariffs from mid-April, including perfumes, shampoos, skincare products and make-up.

The list, which covers some €26bn worth of goods, is part of a two-stage plan that also includes the reinstatement of measures introduced during Trump’s first term, such as levies on bourbon whiskey and Harley-Davidson motorcycles, initially due to come into force on April 1.

The commission, which has the authority to decide trade policy for the 27-country bloc, on Thursday delayed that round of tariffs to April 13, in an attempt to make “additional time for discussions” with Washington. Paula Pinho, the commission’s chief spokesperson, said on Friday the move would also “make sure that we have a list [of measures] which reflects in a balanced, proportionate manner the [EU’s] business and consumer interests”.

The decision to delay followed pleas from France and the country’s important alcohol industry to avoid Trump’s threatened retaliation of 200 per cent tariffs on EU alcohol imports, according to two EU officials briefed on the discussions.

Hieronimus said L’Oréal and an alliance of chief executives of groups including Germany’s Beiersdorf and Switzerland’s Givaudan met with EU officials in Brussels this week to warn against a potential “tit-for-tat” response to levies on beauty products.

“If you’re going to put a category in the tariff war, you’d better make sure that this category is a net importer rather than net exporter . . . If there is this tit-for-tat thing on beauty, it’s going to penalise Europe much more than American businesses and companies,” he said.

“We explained several times [to European officials] that it’s a mistake” to include beauty and cosmetics, said Vincent Warnery, chief executive of Beiersdorf, which owns brands such as Nivea and Coppertone, likening it to “shooting ourselves in the foot”. 

“We’ll raise prices in the US, if needed,” he added, “which will hurt consumers in the US and Canada and will also hurt our market share . . . So leave us out of it, enjoy what we bring to the economy, and don’t start a fire where there is no need.”

Their comments came as German beauty retailer Douglas warned this week that trade tensions had already accelerated a slowdown in European demand for high-end cosmetics, sending its shares down 22 per cent on Friday.

Europe is a major exporter of beauty and personal care products, employing nearly 2mn people directly across the bloc, according to research from Oxford Economics, and contributed some €180bn to the EU’s economic output in 2023, as well as €71bn in tax revenues. 

The US is one of the biggest markets for groups like L’Oréal. Although the Paris-based company manufactures many of its products in the countries where it sells them, an ongoing trade war could lead to some increased costs being passed on to consumers, and disrupt the industry’s complex supply chains.

The group of beauty executives was also in Brussels to speak to EU officials to advocate for changes to the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive, which came into force in January, and which the beauty industry feels unduly targets it.

They are also concerned about a potential ban on ethanol in cosmetics products, and have sought to raise awareness at the EU level about how much reformulations to comply with changing regulatory standards eat into their innovation budgets. 

Hieronimus said about a third of his researchers’ time and budget was spent on reformulating to comply with regulation. “I’m not saying all regulation is bad . . . We are determined to make the changes when it’s necessary. But sometimes you find some absurdities.”

Satellite internet service is expanding fast but some politicians worry whether the SpaceX owner is a reliable partner

Elon Musk’s Starlink is set to cement its dominance of the satellite internet market with a surge in revenues this year, but the world’s richest man’s ties to US President Donald Trump are shifting from an asset to a hindrance in its global rollout.

The billionaire’s SpaceX group is engaged in talks to rapidly bring the service to countries with 1bn potential new users, including holding negotiations with Turkey, Morocco and Bangladesh, while making progress towards regulatory approval in other vast markets such as India.

Musk’s alliance with Trump has also removed obstacles and monopoly concerns harboured by Biden-era officials, paving the way for lucrative federal contracts. 

The service has been installed at the White House in recent weeks, while Trump’s commerce secretary Howard Lutnick has lobbied officials to consider Starlink for the $42bn US rural Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (Bead) programme.

But the SpaceX founder’s foray into politics has begun to hamper its global expansion plans, as regulators in each country need to approve Starlink’s entry into their market and politicians weigh up whether Musk is a reliable partner.

In recent weeks, a Canadian province has torn up a Starlink contract in protest over US tariffs. Musk, meanwhile, has traded insults with European politicians who are helping to finance Starlink in Ukraine, as part of its defensive efforts against Russia, leading them to seek alternatives.

“There appears to be a potentially tectonic shift occurring in the satellite communications landscape ignited by geopolitics,” said Edison Yu, an analyst at Deutsche Bank. “Starlink is still clearly number one, but not the only one.”

Roughly half of Musk’s $314bn net worth is now tied to SpaceX — which was valued at $350bn in a recent private tender offer — while his 20 per cent stake in Tesla has dwindled to $100bn.

Morgan Stanley estimates Starlink will generate $16.3bn in revenue this year, up 74 per cent from an estimated $9.3bn in 2024, with subscribers almost doubling to 7.8mn from 4.65mn, according to a January report. By comparison, SpaceX’s rocket launch business is forecast to make $5.8bn in 2025 revenue, up 20 per cent from $4.9bn last year.

“While it all began with market-leading launch capability, we believe Starlink will be the primary driver of SpaceX’s growth and profitability,” said Adam Jonas, an analyst at Morgan Stanley. 

Starlink has said its more than 7,000 low-orbit satellites provide service to 118 countries and territories, with Niger the latest to be connected last week.

Industry insiders said the group was seeking a licence to operate in Turkey and was in talks with Morocco about expanding coverage into the disputed Western Sahara territory.

They said SpaceX also hoped to obtain approvals to operate in Bangladesh next month, after Musk personally spoke to the country’s interim leader, Muhammad Yunus, over introducing the service.

Those deals would add to progress made to enter India, after announcing tie-ups with rival tycoons Mukesh Ambani and Sunil Mittal earlier this month, weeks after Musk spoke to Indian premier Narendra Modi in Washington DC.

The service is especially popular in less developed or remote areas not connected to fibre-optic networks. It has won contracts with major airlines including state-backed carriers Qatar Airways and Air France, shipping groups including MSC and Maersk, and cruise operators Cunard and Carnival.

About a quarter of the company’s revenues come from government contracts, however. According to US filings, SpaceX has already secured 39 different Starlink contracts across the US government worth around $3.5bn, including multiple military contracts with the Department of Defense.

It is attempting to expand under Trump having been blocked by the Federal Communications Commission in 2022 for a $900mn contract. Former FCC chair Jessica Rosenworcel said last year of Starlink that the “economy doesn’t benefit from monopolies”.

The Trump administration has moved to overhaul the FCC’s approach, to ease restrictions in a separate rural broadband programme that apply to Starlink, including introducing a “tech-neutral approach” to dislodge a preference for fibre-optic networks. 

Evan Feinman, former director of the Bead programme said that Starlink had been singled out by Lutnick as one possible beneficiary of rule changes. “He mentioned Musk by name, he asked if we had been talking with Elon,” he told the Financial Times in a recent interview.

But as Musk’s ambitions broaden from its home market, his proximity to Trump and unfiltered social media comments have made Starlink a target.

Ontario premier Doug Ford this month ripped up a $100mn deal with Starlink in response to US tariffs, commenting that the Canadian province “won’t do business with people hell-bent on destroying our economy”.

Musk branding South African Black economic empowerment laws “openly racist” has complicated Starlink’s approval in his country of birth, while a spat in Brazil over misinformation on Musk’s social media platform X almost led to Starlink being banned.

Most recently, Musk sought an emergency meeting with Italian president Sergio Mattarella to salvage a $1.5bn deal with the Italian government, which was thrown into doubt following Trump’s suspension of military aid and intelligence sharing with Ukraine. The presidential palace has rebuffed the request, saying Starlink must deal with Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s government, not the head of state, whose role is largely ceremonial.

Ukraine has been another flashpoint. The country has grown dependent on Starlink’s ubiquitous terminals with more than 40,000 in operation across the military, hospitals, businesses and aid organisations, according to Ukraine’s digital minister Mykhailo Fedorov. Although SpaceX initially covered the cost of the service, it is now picked up by Poland and the US Department of Defense.

The Pentagon holds a $537mn contract with SpaceX to provide services for Ukraine through 2027 under the Proliferated Low Earth Orbit programme. Poland, meanwhile, contributes roughly $50mn a year to deploy terminals in the country, according to the Polish digitisation ministry. 

After Musk said on his social network X that Starlink was the “backbone of the Ukrainian army” and that “their entire front line would collapse if I turned it off”, Poland’s foreign minister Radosław Sikorski warned that it would be “forced to look for other suppliers” if SpaceX proved to be an “unreliable provider”. 

“Be quiet, small man. You pay a tiny fraction of the cost. And there is no substitute for Starlink,” Musk responded on X. 

The billionaire later clarified that SpaceX would “never turn off its terminals” in Ukraine. “We would never do such a thing or use it as a bargaining chip,” he said. 

Masao Dahlgren, a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said that there was scope for European providers to make inroads in the market but that SpaceX was unlikely to be unseated as a dominant provider unless a rival could develop a more advanced product. He described Starlink as “the hub in the wheel” of the Ukrainian war effort.

But the threat by some leaders to tear up government contracts with SpaceX has not stretched to banning the service within their borders, while the service’s extensive reach means that in some countries without an official network individuals and businesses use equipment purchased abroad and imported privately. 

“SpaceX is the dominant force in the market,” said Chris Quilty, an analyst at Quilty Space. “If a country banned access to Starlink, people would be at politicians with pitchforks.” 

Company faced Monday deadline to make firm offer for London-listed oil services and engineering business or walk away

The UAE’s Sidara and the UK’s troubled Wood Group are set to extend a deadline for takeover discussions, as they await the completion of a report into the Aberdeen-based company’s governance and auditor sign-off of its annual accounts.

Sidara, which walked away from a roughly £1.6bn deal for Wood last year, restarted detailed takeover discussions a month ago.

Wood’s market capitalisation has collapsed to about £300mn since a February trading update that showed it was continuing to burn through cash and which highlighted governance failings.

Sidara’s approach that month sparked off a shortlived rally in Wood’s shares. That has since largely reversed, however, and expectations around price have been tempered by the drawn out discussions.

Under UK takeover rules, Sidara faces a deadline of Monday afternoon to make a firm offer or walk away — unless Wood agrees to an extension. The two sides are close to a deal to extend the deadline, according to people familiar with the matter.

An extension would allow time for the results of an independent governance review by Deloitte of Wood’s projects division, the people said. The group is also awaiting the sign-off of Wood’s 2024 accounts by auditor KPMG.

Both Sidara and Wood Group declined to comment.

Sidara is a privately held network of engineering and design companies run from the UAE. It was formerly known as Dar Al-Handasah, which was founded in 1956.

Wood was one of the homegrown success stories of the UK’s development of the North Sea, valued at more than £5bn in 2018 as it expanded its global footprint and pursued ambitious plans to transition from an oil services provider to a full-scale engineering and consulting firm.

But the company has struggled since shortly after its £2.2bn takeover of Amec Foster Wheeler in 2017.

In a February, Wood said it had found “material” weakness in its governance and that its free cash flow would be negative by as much as $200mn this year, after previously forecasting it would be positive.

Wood’s chief financial officer Arvind Balan was also forced to step down on February 19 after admitting misstating his accountancy qualifications, following questions from the Financial Times.

Stock in the Wood Group closed down 13 per cent on Friday to 38.4p per share, far below Sidara’s final offer last year of 230p per share.

Negotiations between the two sides this time have been conducted at a far lower price to reflect recent trading, according to the people.

Wood Group is working with advisers to navigate parallel refinancing talks with its lenders alongside the takeover talks. The company is seeking to refinance $1.4bn of debt by October 2026.

Any bid is likely to reflect the expected need to recapitalise the company.

Premier Li tells business leaders Beijing chooses to pursue globalisation and multilateralism

China said it was ready for any “unexpected shocks”, ahead of US President Donald Trump imposing higher tariffs on the world’s second-biggest economy.

Premier Li Qiang, responsible for the Chinese economy under leader Xi Jinping, told foreign business leaders gathered in Beijing on Sunday that uncertainty and instability were rising, but China would choose the “correct path” of globalisation and multilateralism. 

“We have preparations for possible unexpected shocks, which of course mainly come from external sources,” Li said. 

And in a thinly veiled swipe at what Beijing sees as western protectionism, Li urged attendees at the China Development Forum to be “staunch defenders” of globalisation and “resist unilateralism”.

The US is expected to impose additional levies on imports from China on April 2, when it unveils “reciprocal tariffs” on countries around the world.

Since taking office, Trump has already slapped 20 per cent tariffs on goods from China, in a move the White House says is designed to pressure Beijing to crack down harder on companies that make the ingredients for fentanyl, a sometimes deadly synthetic opioid that has triggered an epidemic of drug use in the US.

The cautionary tone from the Chinese premier comes as Beijing tries to improve consumer and investor sentiment, while also preparing potential retaliatory measures against future US tariffs and sanctions.

While Xi’s administration was caught off-guard by Trump’s 2016 election victory, Beijing is now armed with a quiver of potential countermeasures to new US pressure. They include curbing American access to supply chains for strategic minerals and resources.

Amid calls from economists for Beijing to be bolder in addressing slowing economic growth, Xi’s government is pivoting towards more investment in cutting-edge technology and manufacturing, in part to steel itself for a more hostile geopolitical environment.

There have been very few top-level talks between the US and China since Trump took office, barring one phone call between the president and President Xi Jinping. 

Trump last week said Xi would come to the US in the “not too distant future”, but people familiar with the conversations in Washington and Beijing said there had been no discussion about Xi travelling to America.

Also on Sunday, Li met Steve Daines, a Republican senator from Montana who is very close to Trump, in a rare meeting between a senior American lawmaker and top Chinese official. 

Li, flanked by senior officials including commerce minister Wang Wentao, called for improved ties between Washington and Beijing.

“History tells us that China and the United States both stand to gain from co-operation and lose from confrontation,” he said to the US side, who also included Pfizer executive Albert Bourla and Qualcomm chief executive Cristiano Amon.

According to Daines’ office, at a meeting on Saturday with vice premier He Lifeng, the senator reiterated Trump’s call for China to halt the flow of chemicals used to make fentanyl. It added that Daines had “expressed hope that further high-level talks between the United States and China will take place in the near future”.

Earlier this month the State Council, China’s cabinet, released a new white paper outlining Beijing’s “rigorous control” over fentanyl-related substances and precursor chemicals. State media also pushed back on the pressure from Washington, saying the US had “shifted the blame” for its drugs problem “rather than taking responsibility itself”.

Even Eurosceptics and Britain-bashers should acknowledge the advantage of smooth weaponry supply chains

Belatedly but determinedly, Europe is taking up the burden of its own defence. Part of this will be to spend more on weapons. As big a part will be to overcome the parochialism that has left arms procurement across the region uncoordinated and inefficient.

That parochialism was made a lot worse by Britain leaving the EU. Goodwill and political footwork are helping to contain the impact of Brexit on the joint European security effort. The British, in particular, are keen to keep a common interest in defence collaboration uncontaminated by differences in other policy areas. The risks of that are low. The dismay registered at the EU’s decision to reserve the bloc’s common funding for its members and closest associates will dissipate if the UK decides to enter a defence and security pact.

But pooling some defence spending will not change the UK’s self-exile from European supply chains that its hard Brexit entailed. Trade frictions between the EU and UK are, admittedly, not the greatest obstacle to Europe’s rearmament. But they are not irrelevant.

Even within the EU itself, the European Commission identifies what are essentially trade frictions as obstacles to fully efficient defence procurement. Brussels lists insufficient recognition of product certifications, excessive red tape on military mobility, non-harmonised customs procedures and overregulation of intra-EU transfers of defence-related products.

These and other frictions are much more severe vis-à-vis the UK, whose chosen form of Brexit puts it demonstratively outside any EU rulemaking or adjudication. The resulting barriers — for trade, people, data and capital — hamper exchange in all economic sectors, defence included. Finding a way to lower those threatening Europe’s common security is a worthwhile cause.

What would it mean to create a frictionless market specific to the defence industry? Its goal would be, for activities within the sector, that companies could ignore national location and the associated costs of diverging rules or crossing borders. Frictions must be minimised not just for physical goods but for the delivery of services, flow of capital and movement of specialised workers.

A sectoral version, in other words, of the EU’s internal or single market (in its ideal version, not its present incomplete form) and customs union. To avoid triggering the UK government’s neuralgic attitude to those terms, it is best to call it a “common market” for defence.

A pan-European defence-industrial common market would face practical and political challenges. Practical ones include how to delineate the sector. This would be more complex than the exclusion of the primary sectors from the European Economic Area agreement, since defence work includes much more than goods only. On the other hand, countries already treat the defence sector as special — with regard to licensing requirements, for example — so there is something to build on.

Another issue would be how to remove frictions at the border. Inspiration could be taken from the creative solutions in Northern Ireland. Special transport lanes could be accessible for pre-certified shipments from defence contractors, for example. Passport stamps could authorise non-EU/EEA nationals working in defence to enjoy greater professional mobility rights. As for capital, service and data exchanges, these are regulated behind rather than on the border, so it is largely a matter of adapting laws and putting resources behind policing any abuse.

It’s the politics that would be the greater hurdle. There is no way around such a scheme having to run on EU legislation, including European court jurisdiction (again, Northern Ireland offers lessons). That has been anathema for successive British governments — although Labour has opened the door a crack with its product regulation and metrology legislation and its openness to a veterinary agreement.

The EU, for its part, would have to abandon the dogma of “the indivisibility of the four freedoms”, according to which frictionless economic exchange with it is an all-or-nothing affair. This was always slightly hypocritical, as shown by the EEA’s exclusion of agriculture and fish. More recently, the EU’s new agreement with Switzerland shows that it can give partial frictionless access to partners willing to align dynamically with the bloc’s relevant rules.

So it should be possible to find a meeting of minds. If the greater good of common security cannot justify concessions from both sides, what could? Even British Eurosceptics and continental Britain-bashers should acknowledge the overarching advantage of smooth Europe-wide weaponry supply chains — an advantage exceeded only by the greater trust and unity such a common market could build over time.

Coty acquired 20 percent of KKW Beauty for $200 million in 2021.

After months of speculation, Kim Kardashian and Coty are parting ways.

Skims, Kim Kardashian’s shapewear and apparel company, has acquired Skkn by Kim from Kim Kardashian and Coty Inc.

Coty acquired 20 percent of KKW Beauty, for $200 million in 2021. Now that stake will belong to Skims, while Kardashian’s 80 percent stake will also be transferred to Skims. Coty plans to use the proceeds to progress its deleveraging strategy and invest in wider brand portfolio innovations.

Anna von Bayern, chief executive officer of Kylie Cosmetics and leader of Kim Kardashian’s beauty business at Coty, said: “Since Coty’s establishment over 120 years ago, we have remained at the forefront of consumer innovation. We are the go-to partner for global brands, fashion houses and celebrities looking to create leading beauty products. I would like to thank Kim for the partnership and look forward to continuing our work on our hugely successful Kylie Cosmetics brand, which we have grown by 1.5-times in the last two years and where we own the majority, as well as hold the perpetual license.”

Terms of the deal were not disclosed, apart from that through this acquisition, Skims will open its doors in 2026 to expand into beauty, skin care and fragrance.

“My mission has always been to create products that resonate deeply — whether it’s shapewear and lingerie that empowers or makeup and skin care that transforms,” said Kardashian, Skims’ chief creative officer and cofounder. “Uniting everything under the Skims brand streamlines that vision.”

Jens Grede, CEO and cofounder of Skims, added, “This acquisition isn’t just growth. It’s about the strength of our brand and our ability to enter a new category with authority.”

Skims snagged a $4 billion valuation in 2023 by raising $270 million in a series C funding round, led by Wellington Management and included funds from Greenoaks Capital Partners and existing partners D1 Capital Partners and Imaginary Ventures. Kardashian remains the company’s single biggest shareholder, and she and Grede still own a majority stake. Speculation continues that Skims is looking to do an initial public offering.

Kardashian launched KKW Beauty in 2017 with contouring products, and also introduced KKW Fragrance.

Kardashian shuttered both brands in 2022, with a plan to return with “a completely new brand with new formulas that are more modern, innovative and packaged in an elevated and sustainable new look,” she said in a statement at the time.

Coty helped Kardashian expand into skin care in 2022 with Skkn by Kim, a $630, nine-step system, including a toner, exfoliator, hyaluronic acid serum, vitamin C8 serum, face cream, eye cream, oil drops and a night oil.

In January 2024, the brand dove back into color cosmetics, introducing Skkn by Kim Makeup on Jan. 26.

Coty also bought a 51 percent stake in Kylie Jenner’s business, Kylie Cosmetics, for $600 million. While rumors have circulated about the future of that partnership, WWD understands that it will remain with Coty, which has the perpetual license.

For Coty, betting on the Kardashian-Jenner family provided a means of accelerating the direct-to-consumer business, which was a key focus for CEO Sue Nabi as she looked to turn around the group. Sources told WWD it makes the most sense to focus on Kylie Cosmetics, of which it is the majority shareholder.

Most recently, while the fragrance effect has boosted Coty for the past year, it was not enough to offset a trio of impacts including weak demand in Asia, FX headwinds and a slowing mass market from weighing on sales in the second quarter.

Net revenue declined 3 percent to $1.66 billion in its fiscal second quarter ended Dec. 31, below Wall Street’s expectations for $1.71 billion. On a like-for-like basis, sales fell 1 percent.