Why Our SPF Isn't Launching Until Spring 2027

What's happening with SPF in general?

There is a growing scandal in the sunscreen industry that most brands don't want you to know about.

It's a systemic problem with how SPF is tested, reported, and labeled vs. how they actually perform.

BeautyMatter, an industry trade publication, recently contacted 36 of the top-selling sunscreen brands at Sephora, Ulta, CVS, Target, and Credo, and asked them to simply hand over their SPF test reports.

30 out of 36 refused, ignored the request, or sent incomplete data. Only 2 of 36 brands (Beauty of Joseon and Badger) submitted fully valid results.

That's a 94% failure rate among household names you probably have in your bathroom cabinet right now.

Why you should care

Here's the thing most people don't know about SPF numbers: there is no objectively "true" SPF.

Every result—and therefore every label claim—is an estimated average—and that average is produced by a surprisingly human, surprisingly subjective process.

Under FDA rules, SPF is tested on live human subjects, called "in vivo" testing.

A technician applies sunscreen to 10 people's backs, shines UV light on them, and then another technician visually judges when their skin starts to redden.

It's a human applying, a human evaluating, and the result is an average across 10 people who all have different skin.

Dr. Curtis Cole, a leading expert who has helped develop global SPF testing standards since 2007, published research showing that even the best, most rigorously audited labs produce in vivo results with ±64% variability.

That means a product that tests as an SPF 50 at one lab could legitimately test as an SPF 18 at another.

And before testing even begins, brands submit a "target number" to the lab—the SPF they want to hit.

If the lab doesn't deliver that number, brands shop for a lab that will.

Experts interviewed by BeautyMatter confirmed that labs have lost years of business for telling clients the truth. The financial pressure to produce a favorable result is enormous.

The manipulation shows up in the data.

Legitimate SPF results, across 10 human subjects, should be messy with variable results across multiple individuals.

Research based on 9,400 test subjects shows that only 0.6% of people naturally land on the same result.

But some reports BeautyMatter reviewed showed 80% identical results. That's a clear sign of cherry picking and data manipulation.

The legal system is starting to catch up: Clinique, L'Oréal's La Roche-Posay, and Sun Bum are all currently facing class-action lawsuits for SPF label claims that independent testing found to be significantly overstated.

Best practice vs. what most brands do

Before submitting our SolScreen for in vivo testing, our lab did 3 rounds of vitro testing, in which a robot applies samples to plates that mimic human skin.

SPF is then calculated through optical instrumentation vs. visual grading by a human.

Here's the kicker: most brands don't do in vitro testing, because it's not required by the FDA.

But we don't play that game. We will do this the right way, or not at all.

So when three labs came back with an SPF 5, we were devastated, but there was zero question in my mind what we were going to do next.

Why (+ how) we're going back to the drawing board

Trust > Timing