If there’s one beauty category that’s known for being a drama magnet, it’s sunscreen.
From MAHA-adjacent sunscreen sceptics to influencers calling out non-inclusive formulas, sunscreen has come under fire from multiple fronts this summer. But in the past week, it’s been regulators stirring up sunscreen controversy. In the US, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) fired off warning letters to Supergoop and Vacation questioning the efficacy of their “mousse”-textured suncare products. Even more dramatically, five Australian sunscreen brands — including Ultra Violette and Naked Sundays — have pulled or recalled products after a major testing lab’s results came into question.
With slick branding and innovative marketing, dozens of sunscreen startups have glamourised SPF in recent years and cemented it as a rapidly growing premium beauty category. They’ve used social media to promote the message of wearing sunscreen, which is unlike other cosmetics in that it carries a health imperative by protecting against skin cancer — and is also highly regulated in most countries as an over-the-counter drug.
Recalls and claims revisions, while unfortunate, are not uncommon in the beauty industry. But the growing number of sunscreens pulled from shelves and viral discussion of the efficacy question have set off a wave of trust issues that has shaken consumer confidence in the sunscreen category. According to both brands and experts, a complete overhaul of the way regulators require testing is needed to bring it back.
“The whole social media thing has made a bigger difference than any dermatologist has made in the last 10 years in people calling for improved sunscreens and calling their legislators and whatnot,” said dermatologist Dr. Ellen Gendler, who frequently posts about sunscreen regulations on social media.
Sunscreen efficacy was not always this captivating to consumers, as SPF tests finding varied results have been conducted by publications like Consumer Reports for years. But prominent skincare influencers have brought big attention to dramas like Ultra Violette’s objection to a dismal SPF rating and the FDA’s warning to beloved, buzzy brands.
A low SPF rating “tends to go viral if the brand is very popular online,” said cosmetic chemist and influencer Michelle Wong, especially if it has a “clear and shocking” result.
Australia’s Solar Saga
With the highest rate of skin cancer in the world, Australia takes its sunscreen seriously. When Ultra Violette’s Lean Screen was reported in June by consumer watchdog Choice to have an SPF of 4 rather than its stated 50, founder Ava Chandler-Matthews fought back by posting a detailed video on how the brand’s own testing contradicted Choice’s results.
But in late August, the brand announced it had pulled Lean Screen from the Australian market after new testing with multiple labs yielded inconsistency, saying on its website it had cut ties with both the manufacturer of the sunscreen and the lab that initially tested it.
That lab, as the brand confirmed with Choice, was international beauty-testing lab Princeton Consumer Research (PCR), which tests beauty products in multiple countries and has no affiliation with the university. PCR has since come under scrutiny in local Australian media, and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation found that the lab had tested at least half of 16 brands found to be underperforming in the Choice tests.
Following Ultra Violette, brands not among those initial 16 sunscreens have also taken action to review their SPF ratings. Naked Sundays paused sales of its Collagen Glow sunscreen in Australia three days after Ultra Violette’s announcement, stating they are awaiting new test results. Other Australian brands, including Outside Beauty & Skincare, Found My Skin and Endota announced a pause on sales of select products later last week, without naming their manufacturers or testing labs.
Ultra Violette manufactured its recalled Lean Screen at the Perth-based Wild Child Laboratories, while several Naked Sundays products have been produced at Wild Child, according to FDA filings. The brand would not confirm whether Collagen Glow was one of those. Wild Child Laboratories’ chief executive, Tom Curnow, said in a statement that the company was “surprised and disappointed by inconsistencies in results from PCR” and ceased using their services. PCR did not respond to a request for comment.
Beyond Australia, UK-based brand Refy’s decision to pull its one-year-old Skin Trio sunscreen from sale in July cited inconsistent test results, but did not share the name of its lab or manufacturer.
Dimming Trust
Earlier this month, the FDA sent warning letters to five brands including Supergoop and Vacation stating that “mousse” was not an FDA-approved sunscreen format for SPF, adding that Vacation’s playful whipped cream canister for its Classic Whip sunscreen looked too much like the actual food product.
The FDA is known for facing criticism when it comes to SPF — it has not approved a new sunscreen filter since 1999. Trust has continued to erode given Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his “Make America Healthy Again” movement’s association with sunscreen scepticism.
Multiple skincare influencers questioned the warning letter’s motivations. In a TikTok video, Dieux founder Charlotte Palermino pointed out that RFK Jr. drank raw milk shots in the oval office with “carnivore” diet influencer Paul Saladino, who rails against sunscreen on Instagram. BeautyStat founder and cosmetic chemist Ron Robinson also weighed in, posting a video questioning the difference between a mousse and a lotion. The FDA did not respond to a request for comment.
“The recent communication from the FDA regarding our Play SPF 50 Body Mousse is focused on product labelling and has nothing to do with its safety, effectiveness, or formula,” said a Supergoop representative, who shared the brand’s testing results to reach compliance with FDA standards, clearly labelling it a “mousse” at the time.
Packaging is not approved by the FDA before a product goes on the market, said Allison Kent-Gunn, the founder of beauty packaging consultancy 3E Beauty Consulting. “If a component makes the formula behave differently, like expanding with air to mimic whipped cream, that’s when it crosses into gray territory,” she said.
Dr. Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, agreed. “No one should trust anything that comes out of Mr. Kennedy’s mouth,” he said. “But the folks at FDA are professionals.”
Clearing Confusion
With credibility questions and accusations flying between labs, brands, consumer advocates, manufacturers and regulators, brands and experts are calling for change to what they say are outdated and confusing regulator testing requirements.
The TGA and FDA both require that brands commission their own SPF testing from accredited labs. Those labs conduct tests on human subjects, evaluating skin redness from UV lights.
Samantha Brett, the founder of Naked Sundays, said that she has been advocating for a reform on testing requirements as a member of the TGA’s consumer health advisory group, stating that current protocols are “unclear.”
“As it stands, brands affected by the consumer group investigation, and even those that were not, are left in limbo,” she said in a statement, noting that in vitro tests would be more accurate.
On Aug. 21, Australia’s TGA announced that it may switch to in vitro tests after reviewing its sunscreen regulation as part of an investigation into the Choice results. The agency stated that “variability” in human-subject tests “is a known issue” because it relies on a visual estimation of individual skin responses.
For now, SPF may be more accurately conveyed as ranges rather than exact values, said Wong. But in the long run, the TGA’s proposal to switch to in vitro tests could avoid the vast ranges igniting controversies. Even if changed, restoring consumer confidence will take work.
“Testing variability is creating unnecessary confusion for consumers and brands alike, and it’s important at this time that we need to come together and create a united industry advocating for the consumer,” said Brett.
Editor’s Note: This story was updated on Sep. 2 2025 to clarify that sales of Naked Sundays’ Collagen Glow were suspended only in Australia.
Sign up to The Business of Beauty newsletter, your complimentary, must-read source for the day’s most important beauty and wellness news and analysis.