U.S. Sunscreen Scandal
New class-action lawsuits allege popular sunscreens are failing their SPF tests. Here's why the system is broken and how to protect yourself.
If you’ve ever purchased a high-SPF sunscreen, you need to read this.
In the fall of 2025, a series of class-action lawsuits were filed against some of the biggest and most trusted sunscreen brands in the U.S.—La Roche-Posay, Sun Bum, and Hawaiian Tropic.
The allegation? Fraud. The lawsuits claim the advertised SPF numbers on the labels are vastly higher than what the products actually provide.
While this news is shocking, it’s a predictable result of a flawed, outdated SPF testing system that has wound up putting consumers at risk. Here, I’m breaking down what’s happening, why it’s happening, and the simple rules you can follow to protect yourself not only from harmful UV radiation but also from potentially harmful sunscreens.
The Shocking Allegations: What the Lawsuits Claim
The lawsuits are based on independent laboratory SPF testing commissioned by the plaintiffs using the FDA’s mandated method. The discrepancies between the SPF the labs determined versus the advertised SPF numbers are staggering:
| Brand / Product | Label Claim | Test Result |
|---|---|---|
| La Roche-Posay Anthelios Melt-in-Milk | SPF 60 | SPF 34 |
| Hawaiian Tropic Everyday Active Sport | SPF 50 | SPF 20 |
| Sun Bum Mineral Lotion | SPF 50 | SPF 17 |
These aren’t just minor differences. In the worst case, consumers were potentially getting less than one-third of the coverage they paid for.
Not Just a U.S. Problem: It’s Happened Before
Before you dismiss this as a few one-offs, you need to know this is a recurring, global problem.
The 2025 Australian Scandal: A similar scandal rocked Australia prior to the U.S. one. The consumer advocacy group CHOICE (similar to Consumer Reports) tested 20 of the most popular Australian sunscreens, and 16 of them failed to meet their advertised SPF claims. The most egregious example was the popular mineral sunscreen, Ultra Violette Lean Screen SPF 50+. Independent lab tests found it provided only SPF 4.
The 2021 “Purito-gate” Scandal: A cult-favorite Korean sunscreen, the Purito Centella Green Level Unscented Sun, was advertised as SPF 50+. However, independent tests found its protection level was only around SPF 19.
These events all point to one core issue. The industry relies on a fundamentally broken testing system that is easy to game.
The Redness Trap: Why the Testing System is Flawed
Are all of these brands intentionally lying? The answer is complicated. One thing they all have in common is the FDA mandated in-vivo SPF test, which is the official test brands must use to determine what SPF number goes on the label. Crucially, this test does not measure UV radiation directly. It measures redness. Here’s how it works:
A lab enrolls 10-20 human subjects.
A technician applies the sunscreen to small patches on their backs.
Subjects are exposed to a high-intensity UV lamp.
24 hours later, a technician visually inspects the skin and grades the level of redness.
As you can imagine, this process is subjective and variable. What one person sees as “red” on the skin, another might not. Similarly, two technicians might apply the sunscreen differently. This means two different tests on the exact same formula can get different results.
The Missing Piece: UVA Damage
Another major flaw with the SPF test is that it only measures UVB protection. The SPF number alone doesn’t tell the full story of protection from both UVB and UVA rays.
UVB (burning rays): These are the shorter-wavelength rays that cause visible redness and sunburn. The SPF test works by measuring how long it takes for skin to turn red (erythema).
UVA (aging rays): These are longer-wavelength rays that penetrate deeper into the skin. They don’t cause significant redness, but they are responsible for DNA damage (which increases risk of skin cancer), collagen breakdown, and premature aging.
Because the SPF test only measures redness, a product can be fantastic at blocking UVB rays (and get a high SPF number) while still letting in damaging UVA rays.
(Note: This is why the “Broad Spectrum” claim is vital. It requires a separate test called the Critical Wavelength test to prove a product offers significant UVA protection. We need protection from both.)
Sunscreen Doping: How Brands Cheat the Test
Another major problem is that the SPF test can be cheated. Because the test only measures redness (inflammation), a brand can hack the score without actually adding more sun protection.
1. The Anti-Inflammatory Trick: Brands often add anti-inflammatory ingredients like licorice root, centella asiatica, or bisabolol. These ingredients don’t stop the UV radiation or the DNA damage. They just stop your skin from turning red. Since the visible sign of damage (redness) is masked, this can trick the technician into awarding the product a higher SPF score than it deserves in terms of real UV protection. While these ingredients are not necessarily toxic, they can impact the subjective SPF rating.
2. The “Inactive” Booster: Brands also use “inactive” ingredients to increase the SPF number like butyloctyl salicylate. While listed as inactive, this ingredient has mild UVB-absorbing properties and is chemically similar to the UV filter octisalate. By adding a high percentage of an “inactive” booster, a brand can use less of the “active” ingredients (like zinc oxide in a mineral formula) and still receive a high SPF number. This is a topic I’ve written about before in depth here.
Note: All three products named in the new lawsuits contain butyloctyl salicylate.
Who’s to Blame: Is This a Chemical or Mineral Problem?
This is the first question I had and the answer is critical. SPF discrepancies have been found in sunscreens with chemical UV filters only and those labeled “mineral.” Keep in mind, even sunscreens that claim to be “mineral” often contain inactive ingredients that act like chemical UV filters such as butyloctyl salicylate (in the Sun Bum mineral sunscreen named in the lawsuit).
The core problem is the testing system AND brands making overreaching SPF claims that their formulas can’t consistently support. However, there are rules brands can abide by to ensure at least a baseline reliable SPF.
How to Spot a Risky SPF Claim: The Zinc Check
As someone who has researched sunscreens and consulted multiple chemists over six years, I’ve learned a simple rule of thumb for vetting mineral sunscreens.
To get a reliable, broad-spectrum SPF 30, a “zinc-oxide-only” formula needs around 20% zinc oxide.
This yields a zinc oxide to SPF ratio of about 1.6. If a product strays too far from this yardstick, it is a red flag.
The Calculation: Take the Sun Bum lawsuit. The product has 20% zinc oxide yet claims SPF 50. That is a ratio of 2.5.
The Verdict: Claiming SPF 50 on a formula that should mathematically be closer to SPF 30 implies the brand is relying heavily on boosters and/or overpromising. The lawsuit’s finding of SPF 17 is exactly what happens when a formula is pushed beyond its limits.
4 Rules to Be Your Own Regulator: Choosing the Right Sunscreen
Even with subpar testing methods, you can still find a clean sunscreen with a reliable SPF. But we cannot blindly trust the front of the bottle. Here is my 4-step survival guide.
STOP CHASING HIGH NUMBERS. Stick around SPF 30. The tiny incremental UVB protection from sunscreens with higher SPF numbers isn’t worth the testing uncertainty.
USE THE ZINC CHECK. As a rule of thumb, the zinc oxide to SPF ratio should be around 1.6.
REMAIN SKEPTICAL OF SPF 50+ CLAIMS. Especially in mineral sunscreens, high SPF formulas are likely over-relying on boosters and exposing you to risky chemical UV filters.
APPLICATION IS IMPERATIVE. Remember to apply generously and to reapply throughout the day.
This news is frustrating, but it’s also empowering. It confirms that we have to be our own regulators. Be skeptical, read the ingredient labels, and stop falling for the “higher is better” marketing myth for sunscreens.
I’d love to hear from you.
Were you using one of these sunscreens? What surprised you the most? Thank you for reading.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and reports on allegations made in public class-action lawsuits. It does not constitute medical advice. Always consult with a dermatologist for your specific skin needs.
