What we can learn from Australia’s sunscreen scandal

However, last year, Australian consumer confidence was shaken by a spate of sunscreen recalls. The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) – Australia’s government authority responsible for evaluating, assessing, and monitoring products defined as therapeutic goods – pressed pause on (what ended up totaling) 21 sunscreen products sold in Australia. This followed testing in June by consumer advocacy group CHOICE, which revealed that the sun protection factor (SPF) ratings on 16 sunscreens of 20 tested were incorrectly labeled.

The first product to be voluntarily recalled (in August) as a result of CHOICE’s testing was Ultra Violette’s Lean Screen SPF 50+. The brand conducted 8 new, independent tests of Lean Screen, which returned atypically variable SPF data of 4, 10, 21, 26, 33, 60, 61, and 64. As Lean Screen used the same base as a number of other sunscreens – made by Australian contract manufacturer Wild Child Laboratories Pty Ltd – this formulation underwent testing that indicated it was unlikely to offer an SPF greater than 21.

Products were voluntarily recalled by Aspect Sun, Aesthetics Rx, Beauti-FLTR, People4Ocean, McoBeauty, Outside Beauty & Skincare, and Salus, as well as Ultra Violette, while certain skus from New Day Skin, Allganics, Found My Skin, Ethical Zinc, Endota, We are Feel Good Inc, GlindaWand, and Naked Sundays, were recalled in accordance with Section 30EA of Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Act 1989.

The TGA’s Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) inspection of Wild Child Laboratories’ Perth facility didn’t identify any manufacturing issues that could explain the low SPF results. The authority did, however, raise “significant concerns” about the reliability of SPF testing undertaken by Princeton Consumer Research Corp (PCR Corp), a testing laboratory based in the United Kingdom; many companies responsible for sunscreens manufactured using this base formulation relied on testing by PCR Corp to support their SPF claims. For its part, PCR Corp, in an interview with industry publication Cosmetics & Toiletries, attributed inconsistent results to Australian manufacturers’ use of “lower-grade, non-monograph” zinc oxide producing “highly unstable SPF performance – even under controlled testing.”

CHOICE, meanwhile, is now leaning on the TGA to conduct its own compliance testing, rather than relying on reports from manufacturers, while also calling for the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) to look into whether the region’s consumers are being misled.

CHOICE’s findings were widely reported by international consumer press outlets, including The Daily Mail and the BBC, and the general public, understandably, expressed concern. One Reddit user commented: “These poor results and their excuses happen every year like clockwork and I cannot understand why we tolerate it. Having faith in this industry appears to be something that should be the exception rather than the rule.” Another wrote: “It sucks that us regular consumers have to try and decode everything just to find out if our favorite sunscreen was tested well…guess it’s time to get a sun parasol.”

Concerningly, Australia’s sunscreen scandal hit amid cosmetics brands’ and beauty educators’ struggle against a growing Gen Z anti-sunscreen movement with TikTokers extolling outlandish and dangerous alternatives to UV filters, such as coconut oil or mayonnaise.

It also coincided with the US Food & Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) crackdown last summer on foam format sun care – with offending brands like Vacation and Supergoop! receiving letters reminding them that only oil, lotion, cream, gel, butter, paste, ointment, stick, spray, and powder sunscreens may be lawfully marketed.

So, with sunscreen grabbing headlines in 2025 for all the wrong reasons, what steps can brands take in 2026 to restore consumer confidence in this essential skin safety tool? Here are some top tips:

• Transparency: Australia’s current SPF testing standard requires tests to be performed on at least 10 different people, with more required if any of those tests provide an invalid result. The SPF is the mean (average) of the SPF from each valid test – and to claim SPF 50+, the average SPF must be at least 60. However, sunscreen brands can (and should) go beyond legal requirements to demonstrate transparency. If you are the owner of a brand selling sunscreen, share your products’ test results, the methods used, the testing laboratories, and dates of testing. Ensure these are widely accessible via your website and presented in a format that is easy for the consumer to understand.
• Retesting: The offending Lean Screen base was a mineral sunscreen, a popular formulation type that is more prone to instability during its lifetime. Experts recommend that brand owners retest batches over time, and not only once during development to ensure the formula retains its promised protection level under normal usage conditions.
• Education: In the face of online misinformation, brands are prioritizing activations. Recent highlights including La Roche-Posay’s #DermsAgainstBurns campaign, which fights back against the social media trend for sharing burn lines, and Garnier’s DJ AG team-up ‘One Brighter Set’ to highlight the importance of using SPF on all skin tones. But, in addition to splashy marketing, suncare brands can help boost public education by explaining exactly how sunscreen is tested, as well as answering questions like: ‘why did this fail?’ and ‘why must we store products this way?’ Further, many consumers under-apply sunscreen. So reiterating that an adult needs roughly a shot glass of sunscreen for their body, plus half a teaspoon for the face and neck – to be reapplied at least once every 2 hours – remains important. Finally, brands must ensure they aren’t framing sunscreen as the last word in sun safety. After all, ‘slop’ on sunscreen is only one step in Australia’s famous ‘Slip, Slop, Slap’ slogan. Consumers in sunny climates should also opt for protective clothing, suitable sunglasses, and wide-brimmed hats, while seeking shade during peak UV times where possible. And sun care brands must promote best practice.

With transparency and education taking an ever-more central role, trust Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) software from Coptis to provide complete visibility into each process phase.

It lets your company centralize and organize all the information associated with sunscreen projects past and present – from raw materials to formulation stages, and tests to regulations. Thanks to PLM, everyone has access to the same information, improving communication and reducing errors.

Get in touch to learn more about Coptis PLM and what it can do for you, or request a demo.