On January 28, 2026, Huda Kattan, founder of the global cosmetics brand Huda Beauty, shared an Instagram story reposted from TRT World, a state-funded, international broadcaster based in Istanbul, whose coverage of Iran often mirrors official state perspectives. The video showed a pro-regime demonstration in Iran in which participants burned images of Reza Pahlavi, US President Donald Trump, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The repost appeared amid ongoing nationwide protests that began in Iran in late December 2025, which Iranian human-rights organizations and NGOs say have resulted in more than 36,500 people killed by Iranian security forces.
According to Iranian NGOs, activists, and diaspora monitoring networks, women and young people have been disproportionately targeted during this crackdown. Reports document sexual violence against women in detention, continued public executions, people placed alive into plastic garbage bags, and a broader internet crackdown operated by the regime to prohibit the spreading of the events on the ground to the world
A defining visual and symbolic element of the protests has been demonstrators’ burning of images of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, acts that activists describe as a direct rejection of the Islamic Republic itself. Many protesters involved in such actions have reportedly been killed or detained without trial. Against this backdrop, critics argued that Kattan’s reposted footage echoed state-aligned narratives and distorted the reality of the uprising.
Among those who reacted publicly was Atipak MUA, an Iranian beauty and makeup content creator currently based in Italy. “Honestly, I was truly shocked—I did not expect that kind of post at all,” she told The Media Line. “Since the protests began and ordinary, innocent people were killed, Huda had been largely silent; she hadn’t even shared a simple story expressing solidarity with Iranians,” she added.
She said the reaction was intensified by Kattan’s public positioning as a human-rights advocate. “That felt especially surprising to me, because she presents herself as a human-rights advocate and is very vocal on causes like Palestine,” she noted.
According to Atipak MUA, Kattan’s reach magnified the consequences. “Yet with a platform of around 54 million followers—and with many influencers, including Iranian influencers, working with and promoting her products, especially in Dubai—she shared content that, in my view, was misleading and framed against the Iranian people,” she continued, saying that a post like that could seriously distort public perception.
Atipak MUA added that activists outside Iran have spent months trying to correct misinformation. “Many of us outside Iran have been working hard to draw international attention to what is happening and to the realities on the ground, and a single message from someone with that level of influence can undermine those efforts—particularly because she runs a major brand and has significant reach, especially among Arab audiences,” she explained.
Within hours of posting the TRT World video, Kattan deleted the story following widespread backlash from Iranian followers. Later the same day, she published a series of explanatory stories stating that she was not against the Iranian people, not supportive of the Islamic Republic, and that she “did not feel sufficiently informed to fully criticize the regime.” She also reiterated her opposition to foreign intervention in Iran, citing Iraq as an example of intervention that caused long-term harm to civilians.
For many critics, the clarification did not improve the situation. “For many, that made things worse rather than better,” Atipak MUA observed. “When someone with that level of reach shares content and then tries to walk it back by claiming ignorance or ‘neutrality,’ it erodes trust,” she observed.
She emphasized that intent does not outweigh impact. “Even if her stated intent is neutrality, the impact of amplifying misleading narratives, shaping public opinion in a harmful way, and undermining efforts to raise awareness about what protesters are facing remains real. Deleting a post or offering a clarification doesn’t undo the spread or the damage already done,” she said.
Atipak MUA added that the response felt calculated. “It also felt less like genuine accountability and more like crisis management, especially since a boycott campaign had already begun,” she remarked.
Within hours, a boycott campaign began circulating across Instagram and TikTok, led largely by Iranians in the diaspora and supporters of the protest movement. Videos showed people destroying Huda Beauty products, urging unfollows, and calling for an end to purchases.
Sources in Los Angeles have told The Media Line that they have noticed some Sephora stores have been unusually empty since the calls to boycott.
According to Atipak MUA, the boycott is frequently misunderstood. “I don’t think the goal for many Iranians is only economic pressure. The bigger aim is to make sure the Iranian people’s voices and the reality of what is happening reach the international community accurately, so that no one can downplay the situation through misinformation or distorted narratives,” she said.
She stressed that accountability is central. “When a brand with millions of followers presents itself as a human-rights advocate, it carries a responsibility not to amplify narratives that can mislead the public or harm an oppressed population,” she emphasized.
“That’s why the reaction became so strong, and for many, the boycott turned into a form of civic pressure to demand accountability: greater care before posting, and if a mistake happens, a clear and serious correction,” she added.
Antipak MUA stressed that expectations are concrete. “Many people expect at minimum a clear public correction, an apology, transparency about what happened, and a commitment to greater care and sensitivity going forward.”
As the boycott gained traction, activists began explicitly calling on Sephora and other major distributors to take action. Posts urged retailers to drop the brand, limit in-store visibility, or publicly distance themselves from it.
Yael Moshe, a strategic analyst and public sentiment researcher, said the pressure reflects a shift. “While Sephora survived the ‘political’ criticism regarding Israel, the moral outrage regarding the betrayal of Iranian women is much harder to ignore,” she told The Media Line.
“This specific convergence of the two boycotts creates a ‘toxic coalition’ that might finally threaten Sephora’s brand image enough to force a reaction, as it exposes a deep hypocrisy in their values,” she added.
Moshe explained why Iran changed the dynamic. “While the Israel/Gaza issue creates political division, the oppression of women creates a unified front that Sephora cannot afford to alienate,” and added, “The Iranian cause (Woman, Life, Freedom) enjoys a global consensus.”
The backlash also revived scrutiny of Kattan’s broader public record. She has previously been accused by critics of antisemitism and of amplifying conspiracy theories such as Israel being behind the two world wars, 9/11, and October 7.
According to Aliza Licht, founder of the Leave Your Mark podcast and author of On Brand, this history fundamentally shapes how the Iran controversy is perceived. “From a brand strategy perspective, cumulative controversy is far more damaging than a single incident because it establishes a pattern rather than a mistake,” she told The Media Line.
She stressed the risks unique to brands closely linked to their founder's identity. “This is a founder-led brand, and founder-led brands carry amplified reputational exposure because the founder and the brand are inseparable,” she explained.
In the case of multiple controversies, she said, partners lose plausible deniability. “When controversies recur and point in the same ideological direction, partners can no longer frame them as isolated lapses,” she said.
Licht also argued that the larger issue becomes trust and alignment for any partner that stays.
“When a founder-led brand shows a consistent pattern of extremist-aligned rhetoric, the issue stops being a PR misstep and becomes a values and trust problem for every company that continues to do business with them,” she noted.
Licht emphasized that founders are not obligated to comment on every geopolitical event, but that repeated commentary changes expectations and accountability.
“Founders are not required to speak on every global issue, but once they choose to do so repeatedly, they assume responsibility for being informed, consistent, and prepared for the long-term reputational consequences,” she said.
“From a brand strategy perspective, founders should always ask three questions before speaking out: Does this align with my brand and stakeholders? Am I sufficiently informed? And am I prepared for the long-term consequences?” Licht added.
She stressed that backlash is not merely a function of “the climate,” but of the founder’s own record. “I don’t think this can be attributed to the global climate alone. Brands and founders are responsible for their own words and actions,” she said. And she added that once a public record exists, it becomes cumulative.
“As I’ve written in both Leave Your Mark and On Brand, the internet is written in Sharpie. The receipts don’t disappear. When people start looking at those receipts collectively rather than in isolation, they form a narrative. And in this case, that narrative is driving the reputational consequences,” Licht noted.
“At that point, retailers and parent companies like LVMH have to assess not just commercial performance, but values alignment, optics, and long-term trust,” she explained.
The controversy also exposed visible divisions within the Kattan family, adding another layer to the social media response.
Mona Kattan, founder of Kayali, unfollowed her sister on Instagram and reposted content in her stories expressing solidarity with the people of Iran—a move widely interpreted online as a distancing gesture.
By contrast, Alya Kattan, Huda’s other sister, publicly defended her and accused critics of orchestrating a smear campaign, describing the backlash as driven by “Zionists.” Her response intensified criticism rather than containing it.
Despite growing calls directed at retailers, public anger remains largely focused on Kattan herself rather than corporate partners, according to Moshe. “People are mostly distinguishing between the individual and the retailer. The public isn’t really attacking the retailer itself yet,” she said.
Whether that distinction holds may depend on how companies respond—and how long the boycott retains momentum. Moshe noted that intensity on social platforms can shift based on crisis management and continued engagement. “If Sephora’s PR team knows how to handle this—especially on the social media front—there is a chance the immediate wave could fade,” she said.
However, she drew a clear line about personal credibility: “But regarding Huda herself? The damage to her image is likely to be long-term because it attacks her credibility on her core value—authenticity,” she said.
Licht framed the retailer’s role as determinative. “Ultimately, this comes down to the retailer. That is a values decision as much as a business one. If Sephora decides to act, they will state that the brand no longer aligns with their values and that they do not condone violence or extremism,” she said.
“Deciding not to act is also making a statement. In these cases, silence tends to prolong damage rather than contain it,” she concluded.
As protests continue inside Iran and reports of executions, sexual violence, mass killings, and repression persist, what began as a single Instagram story has evolved into a broader reckoning—one that touches on influence, credibility, selective humanitarianism, and the responsibilities of global lifestyle figures during moments of extreme human suffering.
The Media Line reached out to Huda Kattan’s public relations representatives for comment but did not receive a response.
First published: 10:15, 01.30.26