The Smilist markets a range of oral care products positioned in the organic and peroxide-free segment, with items such as the night whitening enamel serum, purifying toothpaste, or biphasic mouthwash. The negative reviews published by users do not concern health risks but converge on three main points: perceived effectiveness, value for money, and the brand’s management of customer returns.
Dental floss, bottles, packaging: product defects reported on Trustpilot
The most concrete negative reviews on Trustpilot target material issues. One return mentions dental floss that breaks on first use, leaving residues stuck between teeth, resulting in a visit to the dentist. Another reports defective bottles, without specifying the product concerned.
Related reading : Everything You Need to Know About Lawyer Fee Rates and Legal Limits to Observe
These criticisms do not represent the majority of feedback: the overall rating on Trustpilot remains high. Nevertheless, they raise a question of quality control over accessories and packaging, which are often the first points of contact with the brand.
To delve deeper into this topic, a detailed negative review of The Smilist lists the most common testimonies and analyzes them point by point.
You may also like : Everything You Need to Know About Home Insurance: Coverage, Obligations, and Practical Tips
Whitening without peroxide: why results disappoint some users
The Smilist’s night whitening enamel serum is based on a formula containing hydroxyapatite and fermented pomegranate enzymes, without hydrogen peroxide. This approach inherently excludes the most powerful whitening agent allowed in dental offices.
The expected result is a gradual lightening, limited to superficial stains (coffee, tea, light tobacco). Several returns confirm a sensation of freshness and a slight increase in brightness on minimally colored teeth.
The problem arises when expectations do not align with the product’s mechanism. A peroxide-free treatment does not change the intrinsic shade of the enamel. Users who hoped for visible whitening within a few days find themselves facing a result they deem insufficient. The brand’s communication, centered on visuals of bright smiles, contributes to this gap between perceived promise and actual result.
What the serum can and cannot do
- Actual action: partial removal of surface discolorations, strengthening of enamel through remineralization, support of oral microbiota thanks to prebiotics
- Structural limit: no effect on deep dyschromias (tetracyclines, fluorosis, natural aging of dentin)
- Condition for results: regular use over several weeks, on already minimally stained teeth, for a benefit that remains subtle
This distinction between maintenance care and whitening treatment is rarely clarified on product pages, which fuels negative reviews.
Value for money of The Smilist products: the main friction point
The pricing positioning of The Smilist is at the high end of the cosmetic oral care market. The range is certified organic and vegan, with patented active ingredients like the Floral Microbiotic complex. This premium positioning is justified by the quality of the ingredients, but it creates a psychological threshold effect.
Critiques focus more on the cost in relation to a perceived modest benefit than on the composition itself. A user spending a high price for a whitening serum expects a result proportional to the investment. When the aesthetic gain remains discreet, disappointment translates directly into negative reviews.
On Que Choisir, The Smilist products are analyzed from the perspective of undesirable substances in cosmetics. The brand does not seem to be flagged for problematic ingredients, confirming that the debate is not about safety but about perceived value.
Moderation of customer reviews: an accusation of censorship
A Trustpilot review dated June 2026 accuses The Smilist of deleting negative comments on its own channels. The user claims that two attempts to publish factual reviews were censored and mentions a report to Signal Conso for misleading commercial practices.
The brand’s response on Trustpilot remains measured but does not directly address the accusation of deleting reviews. This type of grievance weighs heavily because it shifts the focus from the product to trust. A customer whose review is deleted becomes an active detractor, far beyond their initial disappointment.
What the regulations say about review moderation
In France, the selective deletion of authentic negative reviews on a merchant site constitutes misleading commercial practice. Third-party platforms like Trustpilot apply their own moderation rules, independent of the brand. The distinction between legitimate moderation (defamatory remarks, off-topic content) and commercial censorship depends on the nature of the deleted content.
Cosmetic labeling and transparency: a changing regulatory context
The European Union now mandates the labeling of 82 fragrance allergens on cosmetic products. This regulatory evolution affects all brands in the sector, including The Smilist. For a consumer reading negative reviews, this increased transparency on labels allows for checking the composition before purchase rather than relying solely on marketing promises.
The Smilist range highlights a certified organic and peroxide-free formula, placing it within a framework of gentle oral hygiene. The new labeling obligations do not change the formulation, but they provide an additional tool to assess the consistency between brand messaging and product reality.
Negative reviews about The Smilist outline a consistent profile: no warning signal regarding safety, but a recurring gap between the promise of whiteness and the result obtained from cosmetic treatments without powerful whitening agents. The high price amplifies this disappointment. The issue of review moderation, if confirmed, remains the most damaging point for the brand’s credibility.