On Nov. 6, actress Shay Mitchell launched Rini, a skincare line for children as young as three years old. The brand sells hydrating masks shaped like puppies, unicorns and pandas, ranging in prices from $5.99 to $6.99.
Mitchell co-founded the brand with Esther Song after taking inspiration from her daughter’s curiosity with the products she uses. Mitchell told Elle that “[Her daughters] would just come into the bathroom and look at me in the mirror and be like, ‘Can I use that? What’s that?’” Mitchell positioned Rini as responding to children’s natural curiosity rather than promoting beauty standards.
“I think this is coming down to it not being a beauty thing,” Mitchell said on the Today show. “Truly, skincare starts from birth. We moisturize, we soothe, we comfort their skin as newborns.”
The launch sparked immediate backlash. One TikTok content creator posted a video asking “Why should your body dysmorphia start in your teens when it could start as early as birth?” Many others viewed the brand as a “money grab” and “tone deaf,” questioning why young children would need skin care products so early.
Dermatologists rejected Mitchell’s justification. Dr. Fatima Fahs told Today that kids “don’t really need to be using any of [Rini’s] ingredients.” Dr. Anna Karp stated how “Kids don’t need sheet masks–their skin is naturally healthy.”
Pleasant Valley students hold different views on whether the products serve a legitimate purpose. Senior Natalie Brown sees potential benefits of the brand. “I think it is a cute idea, similar in my mind to the kids’ makeup kits you might find at Claire’s,” said Brown. “A lot of kids emulate what they see online, which currently is a lot of skincare products, so it is good that they have things designated for them.”
Like Brown, some defend the products as harm reduction. Some users online see Rini as a healthier and safer alternative skincare brand for kids who will inevitably become curious about the subject. “I don’t believe these types of products are necessary for kids, but if kids were not using kid-friendly products, they would be using harsher adult products that they do not need,” acknowledged Brown.
However, some students disagree with this reasoning. “I feel like it isn’t basic hygiene as it kinda enhances their features,” said junior Neha Kommuri. “For kids, they should just focus on being clean and healthy.”
This distinction matters. Skincare for adults addresses genuine concerns like aging, acne and sun damage. Three-year-olds don’t have those problems. Marketing products to “enhance” already healthy skin teaches children their natural state requires correction.
In addition, social media accelerates this marketing. “On social media, everyone is participating in skincare and makeup, and I think the younger kids want to be a part of it,” said Kommuri. “They also know this will make them ‘prettier’ and being pretty shows many advantages from their perspective. I’ve seen kids I babysit be into it now because of social media.”
Brown acknowledges the risks. “I agree that it can promote unrealistic beauty standards because kids may think that they should have an insane amount of products to be ‘healthy’ or ‘have good skin,’ but that is not true,” she said. “Kids should not feel pressure to start whole routines.”
Yet Rini contributes to that pressure. Mitchell’s claim that skincare starts at birth conflates medical necessity with beauty marketing. Moisturizing a baby’s dry skin addresses health needs. Selling character-shaped face masks to toddlers serves different purposes.
While Rini’s launch may seem like harmless fun, the impact extends beyond one celebrity product line. For children growing up surrounded by beauty standards, the stakes are personal. Whether the beauty industry will continue marketing toward children will shape how kids view their own bodies and faces for years to come. Rini doesn’t respond to children’s needs; it creates them, then profits from the insecurity it manufactures.
