A message appearing on a phone can express care, but it can also be a demand for an explanation. The difference lies in how the relationship works, rather than in the name of the app: who decides what is shared, whether saying no is possible, and what happens when someone does not reply immediately. This difficult boundary is the focus of YSL Beauty’s announcement published in Germany on October 1. The brand is extending Abuse Is Not Love, launched in 2020, to address the recognition of technology-facilitated intimate partner violence.
The professional starting point is a commentary by research consultant Nina Jane Patel, published in the Journal of Online Trust and Safety on September 30. Its genre matters: this is a professional interpretation, rather than a survey representing the entire young population. It draws on interviews with ten civil-society experts working in domestic violence prevention and survivor support, from the programme’s partner organisations in ten countries.
Patel’s analysis identifies four recurring obstacles. Digital monitoring can become normalised; patterns of parental or caregiver surveillance may carry over into relationships; people may lack precise words to name abuse; and practical enforcement may lag behind technology. The commentary also considers harmful content generated through artificial intelligence. These are themes drawn from expert interviews, rather than evidence that every instance of location sharing or parental monitoring constitutes violence.
The brand is adding digital situations to its programme’s nine warning signs. Examples include threatening to publish private images, dictating social connections or demanding passwords. Such a list is not a diagnosis in itself. The crucial question is whether technology restricts one partner’s freedom, and whether refusal is met with fear, punishment or threats.
A professional perspective independent of the beauty brand is particularly useful here. The US National Network to End Domestic Violence’s Safety Net Project recognises, in its location-tracking guide, that these same tools can serve safety and convenience. Their potential misuse does not automatically make the technology dangerous. The guide nevertheless stresses that stopping tracking or changing settings may alert an abusive person and increase risk. Simply switching everything off is therefore not a responsible universal recommendation.
For Hungarian readers, the most important lesson is not to download another app. It is to recognise that digital consent must remain revocable. There is a significant difference between a convenience feature chosen together and a system of monitoring imposed through pressure. Anyone affected can find Hungarian support contacts and the current schedule on the official NANE helpline page; individual safety concerns warrant professional support.
For the beauty industry, the announcement also illustrates a brand’s move beyond product communication into shaping social awareness. Its value cannot be equated with a campaign’s visibility. What will matter in the next stage is whether education names control clearly, works with survivor-support organisations and leads those affected towards usable help.
Another current question for the beauty industry is how to evaluate product promises, explored in our analysis of Curél’s new line.
The new focus can therefore be meaningful if it enables people to state their boundaries, rather than making every message suspect. Control dressed in the language of love is hardest to recognise when surveillance has already become an apparently ordinary part of everyday life.
