A sunscreen manufacturer whose base formula was used in 20 products recalled in Australia after they failed to meet their advertised SPF claims is facing multimillion-dollar legal claims. Wild Child Laboratories is being sued in the Federal Court over allegations of misleading and deceptive conduct.
Get breaking news anytime, anywhere. Download the TOI app now!
The issue came to light last year after an ABC news Australia investigation and testing by consumer group Choice led to a series of sunscreen recalls. One of the products involved was Ultra Violette’s Lean Screen SPF50+, which Choice testing found had an SPF of just four.
Ultra Violette is now seeking millions of dollars from Wild Child Laboratories. The company alleges that Wild Child made several representations that its sunscreen had an SPF of 50 or 50+, but tests it commissioned later returned much lower results.
The legal action has become more complicated because Wild Child Laboratories went into voluntary liquidation in August. The company had sold its assets to a newly established business called Heliora about a month earlier. Heliora continued the sunscreen manufacturing business and had the same CEO and director involved.
Tests found shocking SPF levels
According to Ultra Violette’s statement of claim, the company commissioned SPF testing between July and September 2025. Seven test results from four laboratories returned average SPF ratings of 2.9, 3.0, 3.6, 4.1, 10.5, 21.5 and 25.18.
The claim also referred to another test commissioned by Wild Child Laboratories, which returned an SPF result of 21.7.
Ultra Violette has accused Wild Child of misleading and deceptive conduct and breach of contract. The company is listed in the liquidator’s creditor report as being owed $7 million.
Wild Child has disputed liability. In its defence filed in July, the company argued that Ultra Violette, as the sponsor of the therapeutic product, was responsible for ensuring the sunscreen met its label claim.
“Ultra Violette undertook responsibility for meeting all the legal obligations required of a sponsor of therapeutic goods in Australia in relation to the Lean Screen SPF50+ sunscreen,” the defence said, as quoted by ABC.
Wild Child also argued that the companies it hired to carry out SPF testing were “concurrent wrongdoers”. One of those companies was Princeton Consumer Research, or PCR, whose SPF testing data had been questioned.
