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.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.
20 recalled sunscreens shared the formula
The Ultra Violette product was among 20 sunscreens made using the same Wild Child base formulation that were recalled after low SPF test results.The Therapeutic Goods Administration said at the time that preliminary testing indicated the base formulation was unlikely to have an SPF higher than 21, while some products could have an SPF as low as four. Wild Child has since discontinued the formula used in the recalled products.Another company taking legal action is Advanced Skin Technology, the owner of Aspect Skincare. It recalled two sunscreens last year and has alleged that Wild Child failed to take reasonable care in developing, manufacturing and supplying the products and in ensuring they were SPF50+.The company is seeking losses including refunds, credits, write-offs, lost sales and profits, staff time spent on the recall and reputational damage. It has not specified the amount of damages it is seeking, although the liquidator’s report lists almost $2.5 million in debts owed to the brand. Wild Child indicated in a defence filed in April that it would defend the action.
Wild Child creditors claim about $20 million
The legal claims come as Wild Child’s liquidation leaves a number of creditors seeking payment. Documents filed as part of the liquidation show that 11 sunscreen companies are claiming more than $19 million in total.The Australian Taxation Office is also owed more than $400,000. Prominent Australian sunscreen brand Naked Sundays is listed in the liquidator’s report as being owed $8.2 million.The liquidation has also raised questions about the transfer of Wild Child’s business to Heliora. Wild Child sold its assets to the new company in the month before entering liquidation. Heliora shared the same CEO and director and continued the manufacturing business.Heliora said it “firmly rejects any suggestion that it was established as a means of avoiding Wild Child’s liabilities”. “The liquidators have not raised concerns with us about the transaction,” the company said.Heliora said the purchase was negotiated with the involvement of a secured lender to Wild Child and a restructuring advisory firm. It also said the new company had assumed agreed liabilities involving many Wild Child suppliers and creditors.“All Wild Child employees were offered employment with Heliora, and their employee entitlements carried forward,” Heliora said.The company has also continued the manufacturing business under Wild Child’s TGA manufacturing licence. Heliora said it had submitted the required documents to the TGA to support the transfer of the Good Manufacturing Practice licence.SPF, or sun protection factor, refers to protection against UVB radiation. According to the Cancer Council information included in the ABC report, SPF20 filters about 95 per cent of UVB rays, while SPF50 filters about 98 per cent.
