The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) will investigate CHOICE’s bombshell report that revealed 16 out of 20 popular sunscreens failed to meet Australia’s strict SPF 50+ regulations.

The consumer watchdog tested 20 of the country’s most trusted sunscreen products to see if they matched their SPF 50 claims on their labels.

In a worrying finding, 16 sunscreens failed to provide the level of protection claimed on their packaging – including big brands such as Cancer Council, Neutrogena, Banana Boat, Bondi Sands, Coles and Woolworths.

But the most alarming results came from one of the most expensive sunscreens tested – Ultra Violette’s Lean Screen SPF50+ Mattifying Zinc Sunscreen, which retails for $52.

CHOICE’s results shockingly claimed the brand’s cult-favourite Lean Screen was one of the worst performing sunscreens on the market – delivering an extremely low SPF rating of just four. 

The experts were ‘so perturbed’ by the results of its extraordinary first experiment that they conducted a second test at an independent lab in Germany, where the result came back with a reported SPF of 5.

The consumer advocacy organisation has since called on the TGA to urgently investigate and conduct independent testing of the average SPF of sunscreens that did not meet their lofty label claims.

And on Tuesday the TGA told Daily Mail Australia it had formally launched an investigation. ‘We are investigating the CHOICE findings and will take regulatory action as required,’ a spokesman said. 

Ultra Violette's cult favourite Lean Screen was one of the worst performing sunscreens tested. Above is company founder Ava Matthews who defended the company's own testing last week

Ultra Violette’s cult favourite Lean Screen was one of the worst performing sunscreens tested. Above is company founder Ava Matthews who defended the company’s own testing last week  

The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) will investigate CHOICE's bombshell report after it laid bare that 16 out of 20 popular sunscreens failed to meet the strict SPF 50+ regulations

The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) will investigate CHOICE’s bombshell report after it laid bare that 16 out of 20 popular sunscreens failed to meet the strict SPF 50+ regulations

The TGA said it could not comment on individual matters – including whether specific products may be subject to investigation or compliance and enforcement activity, or the status of any such investigation and activity due to privacy and legal restrictions.  

‘It is a requirement under therapeutic legislation that statements on sunscreen labels are truthful and not misleading,’ the spokesman said. 

‘It is also a legislative requirement that a sponsor of a therapeutic sunscreen product holds evidence that supports the SPF claim they make at the time they include the medicine in the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods (ARTG).’

The TGA noted there is a high variability in SPF testing results across laboratories because testing on humans can be highly subjective and the response to a test can differ dramatically from one person to another. 

CHOICE’s report has sparked widespread outrage, with many consumers now questioning whether their favourite sunscreens are truly safe to use. 

The consumer watchdog has stood firm on its independent sunscreen testing, conducted under the guidance of industry experts in specialised, accredited laboratories.

The experts are so confident in their findings they have released the lab reports for the 20 products tested – including the 16 that failed.

‘All 16 sunscreens that didn’t meet their claims were tested to a 10-person panel, in accordance with the Australian/New Zealand Sunscreen Standard,’ said Ashley de Silva, the consumer watchdog’s CEO. 

‘As Australia’s leading consumer advocacy organisation, CHOICE has been testing products for decades, and we take our commitment to independence and scientific rigour extremely seriously.’

All sunscreen products tested by CHOICE underwent blind testing, a standard method used to minimise bias and improve validity in scientific research. 

‘Sunscreen testing is costly. CHOICE – an independent, member-funded non-profit – funded this work entirely ourselves due to its importance for consumers,’ Mr de Silva said.

‘We believe the discrepancy between our test results and those provided by manufacturers warrants further investigation by the TGA.’

Ultra Violette responds to CHOICE

Ultra Violette's Lean Screen, which retails for $52, was found to be the worst-performing sunscreen out of the 20 tested after returning an SPF result of just 4

Ultra Violette’s Lean Screen, which retails for $52, was found to be the worst-performing sunscreen out of the 20 tested after returning an SPF result of just 4

At Ultra Violette we take misleading claims made about our products very seriously. Ultra Violette is deeply committed to the health and safety of our customers and only work with reputable, TGA licensed manufacturers who perform substantial quality release testing in accordance with the strictest SPF standards in the world. Given our commitment to producing the highest quality sunscreens for consumers, we do not accept these results as even remotely accurate.

Ultra Violette first completed testing for Lean Screen in 2021 (with results of SPF of 64.32 to allow for an SPF 50+ rating), and again in 2024.

However, to ensure complete transparency and peace of mind for our customers, we proactively initiated another urgent SPF test of the batch in question in April this year (2025). We retested our product in a full 10-person panel and the results have come back at 61.7, which is above the threshold required by the TGA to make a 50+ claim. Choice’s recent retest only included 5 participants, where 2 results were considered non validated, resulting in a sample size of only 3.

We rigorously retest our entire SPF range every two years. Lean Screen has been on the market for 5 years in 29 countries and we have not received a single substantiated claim of sunburn during use – reinforcing our confidence in the testing we have. If the Choice results represented the actual level of protection offered, we would have had hundreds of cases of reported sunburn and skin damage while using this product in real life situations.

Read the full Ultra Violette statement and the April 2025 re-test result here.

To facilitate blind testing, all 20 sunscreens were decanted into amber glass jars, sealed, labelled and transported in accordance with strict instructions provided by Eurofins Dermatest – the accredited lab CHOICE used for testing.

‘After Ultra Violette’s product returned an SPF of 4 when tested at the Sydney lab, we sent a different batch to an accredited, specialised laboratory in Germany, the Normec Schrader Institute, for a validation test,’ Mr de Silva said. 

‘This product was also decanted into an amber glass jar, sealed, labelled and transported… The validation test returned an SPF of 5.

‘We did this testing because it’s in line with our mission to work for fair, safe and just markets for Australian consumers. 

‘Millions of people rely on SPF ratings to understand the sun protection they’re paying for, and expect these ratings to be as accurate as possible.’

On Friday, Ava Chandler-Matthews, co-founder of Ultra Violette, addressed the backlash after CHOICE claimed Lean Screen SPF50+ had an SPF of 4 when tested.

‘We obviously freaked out, [and] took it very seriously immediately,’ she said.

The results she said, visibly emotional, ‘were all consistent SPF rating of over 60 and we stand behind the tests we’ve done’.

Ava said Ultra Violette conducts its sunscreen testing at a reputable laboratory, commonly used by many other sunscreen brands for similar testing. 

Ava Chandler-Matthews, co-founder of Ultra Violette, has addressed the backlash after CHOICE claimed Lean Screen SPF50+ had an SPF of 4 when tested

Ava Chandler-Matthews, co-founder of Ultra Violette, has addressed the backlash after CHOICE claimed Lean Screen SPF50+ had an SPF of 4 when tested

Fighting back tears, the beauty entrepreneur expressed her devastation – not only for the brand but also for the growing mistrust this situation might foster among Aussie consumers.

‘My concern with this whole thing is that people will now no longer trust any sunscreen. This isn’t just about us… It’s just knowing that the consumer can trust the sunscreens they’re wearing,’ she said.

‘This will mean nothing to you but I put Lean Screen on my own children – and I still would tomorrow.’

Addressing her consumers directly, Ava said the company has in-house regulators and has followed all the correct, rigorous testing procedures.

After CHOICE sent Ultra Violette the receipt showing where the product was purchased, Ava and her team were able to identify the batch number the test sample came from.

‘We checked that the SPF, [and] the zinc levels in the product were as we have put on the packaging, which was 22.75 per cent zinc,’ she said.

‘That is almost a quarter of the entire formulation is zinc, and they were within spec, so there was no issue from a manufacturing point of view.’

Ava with her Ultra Violette co-founder Bec Jefferd

Ava with her Ultra Violette co-founder Bec Jefferd

Within the same hour, the sunscreen brand organised an urgent 10-panel SPF test at an independent third party lab. She said those new tests, done on 10 real people as required by the TGA, returned SPF scores of 64 and 61.7.

‘We are a sunscreen brand, we live and die by what we put in the market,’ Ava said. 

As founders, Ava said she and her co-founder Bec Jefferd deeply involved in every aspect – from formulation and testing to regulatory compliance and the entire process of bringing a sunscreen to market.

‘We now have three SPF tests done on 30 people that show where they’ve got a consistent result,’ she said. 

‘We are as baffled as you are. Please know we are taking this so seriously.’

According to TGA, a product’s SPF rating indicates how effective the sunscreen is against sunburn from the sun’s ultraviolet (UV) radiation.

In Australia, sunscreens are regulated as either cosmetics or therapeutic goods depending on a number of factors, such as their ingredients, health claims and SPF. 

Sunscreens with a primary purpose of UV protection are considered to be therapeutic goods and are regulated by us to ensure their safety, quality and efficacy.

In its report, CHOICE highlighted that the SPF factor was not tested independently, with the regulator relying purely on reports supplied by manufacturers from accredited laboratories.

All sunscreen formulas in Australia are required to be approved by the TGA. 

The surprising results of the 20 popular sunscreens tested

Australian consumer watchdog CHOICE has tested 20 popular sunscreens, with 16 failing to meet the SPF50 protection claims on their labels.

Of the 20 sunscreens tested, only four passed the SPF test:

  • Cancer Council Kids Sunscreen SPF 50+ passed with a reported SPF of 52
  • La Roche-Posay Anthelios Wet Skin Sunscreen 50+ passed with a reported SPF of 72
  • Mecca Cosmetica To Save Body SPF 50+ Hydrating Sunscreen passed with a reported SPF of 51 
  • Neutrogena Ultra Sheer Body Lotion SPF 50 passed with a reported SPF of 56

Sunscreens that failed the SPF test:

SPF results in the 10s

  • Ultra Violette Lean Screen SPF 50+ Mattifying Zinc Skinscreen – tested at 4

SPF results in the 20s

  • Aldi Ombra 50+ – tested at 26
  • Banana Boat Baby Zinc Sunscreen Lotion SPF 50+ – tested at 28
  • Bondi Sands SPF 50+ Zinc Mineral Body Lotion – tested at 26
  • Cancer Council Everyday Value Sunscreen 50 – tested at 27
  • Cancer Council Ultra Sunscreen 50+ – tested at 24
  • Neutrogena Sheer Zinc Dry-Touch Lotion SPF 50 – tested at 24
  • Woolworths Sunscreen Everyday Tube SPF 50+ – tested at 27 

SPF results in the 30s

  • Banana Boat Sport Sunscreen Lotion SPF 50+ – tested at 35
  • Bondi Sands SPF 50+ Fragrance Free Sunscreen – tested at 32
  • Cancer Council Kids Clear Zinc 50+ – tested at 33 
  • Invisible Zinc Face + Body Mineral Sunscreen SPF 50 – tested at 38 

SPF results in the 40s

  • Coles SPF 50+ Sunscreen Ultra Tube -tested at 43
  • Nivea Sun Kids Ultra Protect and Play Sunscreen Lotion SPF 50+ – tested at 41
  • Nivea Sun Protect and Moisture Lock SPF 50+ Sunscreen – tested at 40
  • Sun Bum Premium Moisturising Sunscreen Lotion 50+ – tested at 40 

Source: Choice Australia

***
Read more at DailyMail.co.uk