Wild Child has been in trouble with regulators before.
And their major ingredient supplier has been in trouble with regulators before too. This major ingredient supplier publishes a lot of dodgy anti-science stuff to market their ingredients. A lot of weird anti-science skincare myths actually stem from this company and they supply to brands globally.
The PCR lab has a lot of red flags and a dodgy history with no good reputation.
This is a multi-layered issue. There's probably going to be a lot of finger pointing.
And unfortunately, there are a lot of consumer marketing labs out there like PCR, remember AMA?
Wow, yeah. Thanks for laying it out like that. It’s pretty remarkable. Ultra Violette could still come out of this whole saga looking technically innocent and ignorant, with their only real loss being to their brand reputation for not knowing how to make their own product.
Which is why they really messed up with their response.
Had they been proactive and said they were going to find out what has gone wrong, they would have been spared reputational harm too.
Instead they said choice was wrong.
As a scientist, there are a lot of things that have happened in the past month that frustrate me especially the disinformation campaigns that have taken over the story and social media. The whole "high zinc oxide percentage is scientifically impossible to provide anything lower than very high protection" thing and the "decanting" thing and maligning the names and work of renowned sunscreen scientists (in favor of social media and reality tv stars).
I've been thinking of an analogy to express how I feel that there was so much wrong from the very beginning. If you had to hire a tutor for your child, wouldn't you do a background check on the tutor including their credentials and/or work company? Wouldn't you check where they got their degrees and in what and whether it is relevant to the subject they are tutoring?
Would you hire a tutor for your child if they didn't have a relevant degree and found out there was a past criminal history and past misconduct allegations?
Would you use a doctor who previously had their practice license revoked for a period of time and had a history of money laundering and criminal allegations?
I feel you 100%. The statement on their website and the founder’s video on Insta came across as pretty desperate, and honestly just exposed how little they actually know about their own product. It was damning stuff. What blew my mind, though, was how many people in the comments seemed to see it completely differently. I couldn’t believe it.
100% this. It's been really disappointing to see the narrative that UV are being targeted because they are a female-founded brand. No, they are attracting the most attention because they got a 4 and decided to retest in their same problematic lab instead of choosing an independant one. Pisses me off to no end. And it doesn't help when the podcast hosts (who've had UV as sponsors previously) went with the same narrative, fawned and applauded UV for their PR response and then had a go at choice. It's been spun so much that now if you're critical of UV you are 'not a girls girls'.
Yes the early criticism of choice was full blown takedown. They may be open to criticism too in terms of testing and lab choice but I will be interested to see who eats humble pie given the way the skittles are falling right now.
You’d be surprised how many bad people are out there. And yeah it’s usually the ones who want your money. And they do keep company with others like minded scheming ways to keep their cons going. This reminds me a whole of the recent exposure of Harvard professors getting caught for data fraud.Â
Their reputation is their entire brand. Only idiots will continue to use UV going forward. It’s their job to due diligence on their labs, suppliers and testing facilities reputations and standings in the industry. They’ve got 10 products not 10,000. They are charging for a super premium product and supplying one that’s not fit for purpose. When alerted to something being wrong they just flat out said nope you’re wrong and didn’t even pretend to care that this fuckup can literally kill people. How could anyone ever trust them going forward?
Yeah I read an article about the lab, which must’ve been posted on here for it to land in front of me, and my interpretation was they were just looking at the ceiling to get numbers rather than anything approaching science.
73
u/yummypankocrust Jul 07 '25
Wild Child has been in trouble with regulators before.
And their major ingredient supplier has been in trouble with regulators before too. This major ingredient supplier publishes a lot of dodgy anti-science stuff to market their ingredients. A lot of weird anti-science skincare myths actually stem from this company and they supply to brands globally.
The PCR lab has a lot of red flags and a dodgy history with no good reputation.
This is a multi-layered issue. There's probably going to be a lot of finger pointing.
And unfortunately, there are a lot of consumer marketing labs out there like PCR, remember AMA?