It is the sunscreen brand singled out by CHOICE as the single WORST failure in Australian SPF 50+ tests. Now the skincare giant furiously hits back

One of the most popular sunscreen brands singled out by a consumer group for failing to meet Australia’s strict SPF 50+ regulations has furiously hit back at the controversial experiment. 

But consumer group CHOICE has revealed it was ‘so perturbed’ by the results of its extraordinary first experiment – which found Ultra Violette’s Lean Screen SPF50+ Mattifying Zinc Skinscreen returned an SPF of just 4 – that it conducted a second test at an independent lab in Germany.  

CHOICE found that 16 of 20 sunscreens tested in Australia failed to meet the SPF protection claims on their labels, including big brands such as Cancer Council, Neutrogena, Bondi Sands, Coles and Woolworths. 

Ultra Violette’s Lean Screen, which retails for $52, was called out by CHOICE for having the ‘most significant failure’ in the entire experiment during the watchdog’s first round of rigorous testing.

‘We were so perturbed by the results that we decided to delay publishing and test a different batch of the Ultra Violette sunscreen at a completely different lab in Germany to confirm the results,’ CHOICE experts said.

‘Those results came back with a reported SPF of 5.’ 

Just weeks before the bombshell report dropped, Ultra Violette released a slick social media video showcasing the costly process the business says it undertakes to ensure its products meet SPF requirements – singling out how it spent $150,000 on testing. 

‘Do you know how SPF is actually tested? Making our SKINSCREENS can cost up to $150,000 in testing alone,’ the brand said at the time. 

‘We take the integrity of our products pretty damn seriously – no cutting corners here. We ensure you have the best protection (from both UVA and UVB), and the added skincare benefits to match, no matter where in the world you are.’

The video, narrated by Ultra Violette’s co-founder Ava Chandler-Matthews, took viewers behind the scenes of how the company tests its sunscreen products – dwelling on how it cost $150,000 to test them. 

‘Because we formulate our own products at Ultra Violette, we have to pay for all the testing upfront… It’s expensive because you do it on real human skin,’ Ava said. 

She explained that the brand undertake the costly process of SPF testing ‘multiple times throughout the product development journey’.

‘How it works is they apply a test patch of the sunscreen, then they burn you with a UV lamp, with and without the sunscreen,’ Ava said.

‘The amount of time it takes for your skin to burn is what determines the SPF, but that’s the UVB test. The UVA test is done in a lab. We test to Australian standards first because that’s always the hardest. After that, we test to FDA standards.

‘All of our sunscreens globally are broad spectrum.’

Ava claimed the brand went the extra mile by doing ‘additional’ testing on all of their sunscreens because, as she said, ‘UVA protection is obviously very important to us’.

‘The SPF testing is really just the start. When you own all your own formulations, you have to do stability testing which is to make sure the product is stable and contains the UV actives over time as well as clinical and panel testing,’ she said. 

‘Developing all your own formulations, owning your own sunscreen brand and making that sunscreen brand global is really expensive,’ she concluded.

Following CHOICE’s bombshell report, Ultra Violette disputed the claims, saying: ‘Given our commitment to producing the highest quality sunscreens for consumers, we do not accept these results as even remotely accurate.

‘Lean Screen contains 22.75 per cent zinc oxide, a level at which, when applied sufficiently, would render a testing result of SPF 4 scientifically impossible.’

The brand said Lean Screen, like all UV formulas, are made by reputable, TGA-licensed manufacturers and tested to meet the strictest global SPF standards.

‘To ensure complete transparency and peace of mind for our customers, when we were first alerted to CHOICE’s testing, we immediately initiated another 10 person test on the batch in question at an independent lab,’ an Ultra Violette spokesperson said.

‘We proactively initiated another urgent SPF test of the batch in question in April this year (2025). We retested our product 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 five participants, where two results were considered non validated, resulting in a sample size of only three.

‘Over the past four years, we have conducted three different tests at independent labs vs. Choice’s 1.3 tests.’