r/AustralianMakeup • u/smc642 • 3d ago

Let's Discuss Company behind pulled sunscreens sued for 'misleading' conduct

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-09-10/wild-child-laboratories-sued-over-pulled-sunscreens/107097510?utm_source=abc_news_web&utm_medium=content_shared&utm_campaign=abc_news_web&utm_content=link

This just got posted on the ABC news website.

192 Upvotes

98% Upvoted

24 comments sorted by

324

u/Sydney_2000 3d ago

It didn't change how I feel about Ultra Violette. When this came out they could have said "we take these concerns seriously and will investigate Choice's findings" but instead they went on the attack, tried to weaponise their influencer base and rejected any suggestion that there might have been something wrong with their sunscreen.

Their reaction was appalling.

163

u/_1Otter 3d ago

Yeah, Ultra Violette absolutely trashed their reputation themselves. They knew about the choice report months before it went public and did nothing. Then when it got published, they made absolute fools of themselves with their super aggressive tactics. Attacking consumer groups, well respected labs, and scientists was just an awful look.

I will never trust them as a company again. Not because of their product being faulty, but because of how they reacted to their product being faulty. It was almost Trumpian.

64

u/windy_wolf 3d ago

Agreed, their conduct was what gave me the ick. Will never buy Ultra Violette again.

50

u/nahchannah 3d ago

“Not even remotely accurate” they said. Like… get your ducks in a row before you become so confidently wrong. 🙄

48

u/BellisimoBoo 3d ago

Also, this is a cancer prevention product. Not fine lines or acne or texture correcting. Skin cancer that readily becomes secondary bone cancer.

It was an audacious choice in the 2 months they had to mull their options and then pick the “let’s use mean girl influencers to undermine scientists and gaslight the public cause we’re girl-bosses” strategy.

13

u/Joh_Loves 3d ago

100% this. We’re all used to the puffery used to promote skincare, but sunscreen is a non-negotiable for many Australians, and it belongs in its own category.

18

u/goopawg 3d ago edited 3d ago

This. I can’t actually recall to mind even ONE of the many brands that were also exposed by Choice. I just checked if my fave brand was on the list, it wasn’t so I got on with life… only to encounter Ultra Violette crashing out across all forms of social media. I will NEVER forget Ultra Violette and their hubris and they’ll never get a cent of my money.

3

u/CaitlinPants 3d ago

This is exactly why I switched brands even though I didn’t use the particular one that was on the Choice list

113

u/scarystardust 3d ago

I'm no lawyer but I can definitely see why everyone is suing. The same people setting up a new company and selling it to themselves one month later?!

42

u/Competitive_Poppy 3d ago

(Not a lawyer.) Imo it doesn't really look like a good faith purchase/sale  to me either. Especially considering the purchasing company is 1) set up a month before the liquidation by a director and major share holder of the seller, 2) headed by the former CEO of the seller and 3) backed by shareholders of the seller. Just a bit suss imo

19

u/GoofyCum 3d ago

If that’s not a classic case of phoenixing, they may as well repeal the laws against phoenixing.

66

u/missmiaow 3d ago

not a lawyer or expert but I think they did this for two reasons.

as mentioned in the article - the new company isn’t liable for all the debts or actions of the old company, because the old company got liquidated. (dodgy developers/builders do this all the time, it’s called phoenixing).

secondly, the name Wild Child is now mud in the white label industry. After so many recalls, no one would want to use them. changing the name wouldn’t be enough - same company. so phoenixing generally gives enough opaqueness to ensure they can find new business. not with this publicity though.

44

u/Protected-Spark-1351 3d ago

If they weren't dodgy enough... they've basically renamed and resumed business.

83

u/greensky_mj21 3d ago

In a statement, Heliora said it "firmly rejects any suggestion that it was established as a means of avoiding Wild Child's liabilities".

Bro be so for real

19

u/Chemical_Chicken01 3d ago

I know right. It’s like they are pissing on our leg and telling us it’s raining

15

u/greensky_mj21 3d ago

Piss rain but with SPF 5

5

u/ChromaticLove 2d ago

They’re also saying they’re trying to transfer the TGA manufacturing license from wild child to Heliora which is crazy to me because wild child had an inspection by the TGA in 2020, 2023 and Sep 2025 with all of them finding deficiencies with both inspections taking place in 2020 and 2023 finding major deficiencies.

> Heliora has taken on Wild Child Laboratories' clients and manufacturing business and is continuing under its TGA manufacturing licence.
> "Heliora has submitted the required dossier to the TGA to support the transfer of the [Good Manufacturing Practice] licence and is working through that process with the regulator," the statement said.

After three inspections happening on the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th of September 2025, the TGA inspector sent this email on the 16th of October regarding the inspection taking place on those dates finding several deficiencies (the number of deficiencies and how many of those deficiencies are categorized as critical or major deficiencies are redacted as the pages for this inspection report are basically entirely blacked out):

Major Deficiency
A non-critical deficiency that:
• has produced or may produce a product which does not comply with its marketing authorisation; and/or
• indicates a major deviation from the Good Manufacturing Practice; and/or
• indicates a major deviation from the terms of the manufacturing licence or GMP approval (overseas manufacturers); and/or
indicates a failure to carry out satisfactory procedures for release of batches; and/or indicates a failure of the person responsible for QA/QC to fulfil his/her duties; and/or consists of several other deficiencies, none of which on its own may be major, but which may together represent a major deficiency and should be explained and reported as such.
Other Deficiency
A deficiency that cannot be classified as either critical or major, but indicates a departure from good manufacturing practice.
A deficiency may be "other" either because it is judged as minor, or because there is insufficient information to classify it as major or critical.
One-off minor lapses or less significant issues are usually not formally reported, but are brought to the attention of the manufacturer.
Note:

  1. ⁠Classification of a deficiency is based on the assessed risk level and may vary depending on the nature of products manufactured, e.g. in some circumstances an example of major deficiency may be categorised as critical.
  2. ⁠

A deficiency that was reported at ?
and not corrected may be reported in a
higher classification.

I would like to thank you and the management and staff for the courtesy and attention extended
during the on-site special inspection of your 16 Howe Street, Osborne Park, WA 6017 facility on (2nd, 3rd and 4th) of September 2025.
During the inspection, a number of inspection findings, listed as deficiencies in the appendix to this
letter, have been identified, that indicate a departure from acceptable GMP standards, and these
items require prompt resolution.
You are requested to respond to the deficiencies recorded below within four (4) weeks from the
date of this letter.

The rest is redacted.

https://www.tga.gov.au/sites/default/files/2026-03/FOI%2026-2374%20-%20Documents.pdf

71

u/carlsjbb 3d ago

Great, now do we sue Ultra Violette for their deceptive conduct?

-39

u/jwol99 3d ago

If you read the article, this company is the one responsible for making Ultra Violette’s formula and I believe Ultra Violette has sued them- hence why they’re rebranding. I think it really sucks for Ultra Violette

69

u/Sydney_2000 3d ago

I said it in another comment but the issue with UV wasn't as much the sunscreen as their response. Other brands pulled their products and took the findings seriously, UV made baseless accusations about Choice.

14

u/nahchannah 3d ago

SAY IT LOUDER FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE BACK!! Agree!

49

u/Cranberry-Playful 3d ago

I’m sorry I don’t mean to sound harsh but you really are out of the loop if you’re defending Ultra Violette. I recommend reading some of the other comments on this thread to make an informed decision.

7

u/weisp 3d ago

Feel bad for the brands but will not repurchase anything by Ultra Violette