You’ve probably seen the headlines by now:
16 out of 20 sunscreens failed to meet their SPF claims, according to a new investigation by consumer advocacy group CHOICE (read the full report here).
The story’s been picked up by just about every major news outlet, and social media’s been blowing up with concerned comments – from Instagram reels and Facebook groups to Reddit threads. Understandably, people are shocked and confused. And I can only imagine how full the inboxes are for the brands that were named.
But – and it’s a big but – this situation is far more nuanced than the headlines suggest.
What you need to know about the testing
Science communicator Michelle Wong (aka Lab Muffin Beauty Science) quickly posted a fantastic explainer video that unpacks the complexities of sunscreen formulation, SPF testing and what these results actually mean. It’s well worth watching.
Meanwhile, the TGA has released an official statement, confirming they’re aware of the CHOICE findings and will be investigating further.
They also reinforced a few key points:
-
SPF testing is highly variable, even between accredited labs.
-
SPF 30 still offers high protection against the sun.
-
Sunscreens must meet strict standards, and brands are required to hold evidence for their SPF claims at the time of listing.
The Ultra Violette response
One of the most talked-about findings was for Ultra Violette, whose Lean Screen SPF 50+ tested at an SPF of just 4 – the lowest result in the report.
In response, the brand published a detailed blog post [DELETED AS AT 25 AUG] outlining testing they’ve done across multiple independent labs, including:
-
An initial result of SPF 64.32
-
A 2024 retest under FDA protocols
-
A 2025 retest on the same batch CHOICE used, which returned SPF 61.7 (using a 10-person panel)
They also pointed out that CHOICE’s retest used just five people – with two invalid results – leaving only three valid data points to draw from.
Reactions have been mixed. Some consumers feel the brand is “doubling down,” while others have appreciated the detailed transparency.
Personally, I think their willingness to share data and respond directly deserves credit. Especially when other brands have either stayed quiet or posted generic, AI-generated responses with no detail.
So… what’s my hot take?
If you’re a sunscreen user: (which you should be!)
Don’t panic.
These results don’t automatically mean your sunscreen doesn’t work. This was a limited snapshot, and SPF testing is far from an exact science – it’s highly variable, especially with human-based methods. Even if a sunscreen tested lower than SPF 50+, SPF 30 still provides strong protection.
More importantly, sunscreen is just one part of the sun safety equation. Hats, clothing, shade and reapplication are all key – no sunscreen is a silver bullet.
If you’re a sunscreen brand:
Don’t feed the fear.
Please don’t use this as a marketing opportunity to discredit competitors or fuel confusion. Take the time to understand the complexities, the regulatory standards and the ripple effect this kind of messaging has on consumer confidence.
Public trust in sunscreen is already shaky, thanks to the explosion of low-toxxers and misinformation. Don’t add to that unnecessarily.
Trust matters now more than ever
This SPF conversation ties into something I care deeply about: trust and transparency.
Trust is one of the most valuable things a brand can build, and transparency helps you earn it.
We saw that with Ultra Violette’s response. Whether you agree with them or not, sharing detailed test results and addressing the issue head-on is about as transparent as it gets.
When things go wrong – or even just get questioned – how you respond matters.
If you missed it, this week I shared this post on the link between Truth + Transparency = Trust, and why it’s such an important conversation for beauty brands right now.
—
I’m sure this won’t be the last we hear of it, so I’ll keep you posted as things unfold, and will share more of my perspective once we have more information.
In the meantime, keep wearing sunscreen. Apply enough, reapply often and pair it with a bit of shade and common sense.
Jen
Jen has worked with Australian and international skincare and beauty brands on regulatory compliance since 2018, drawing on a background in corporate risk and compliance and degrees in Business and Psychology. Jen speaks regularly on cosmetic regulation, including at the Australian Society of Cosmetic Chemists (ASCC), the New Zealand Society of Cosmetic Chemists (NZSCC), in-cosmetics Korea, and Monash University.
GREAT SUMMARY JEEN!
I WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE RE OTHER BRANDS NOT LEVERAGING THIS FOR THEIR OWN MARKETING. THEY COULD BE ON THE CHOPPING BLOCK FOR THE NEXT CHOICE ARTICLE!
Thank you!