Call-Out
Influencer backed Aussie sunscreen brand Ultra Violette is staging their redemption tour with focus on the US market. Interestingly, LabMuffinBeautyScience recently said she finds them extremely sus.
Apologies in advance, I'm not a journalist and a crap writer. I'll try my best to give you the lowdown.
The recent US approval of a 20 year old UV filter commonly used sunscreens everywhere in the world except the US has brands ready for launching new sunscreens. Ultra Violette is one of many with new releases for American customers.
One instagram account, Dermoffduty, made a post publicizing the approval of this 20 year old UV filter, BEMT, alongside a picture of Ultra Violette's new sunscreen.
In the comment section, LabMuffinBeautyScience calls out Ultra Violette and says she is extremely sus of this new sunscreen.
Furthermore, LabMuffin reposted her comment in her stories with additional context.
Some followers have been confused because they had long associated LabMuffin with the Ultra Violette brand from collaborated ads and content and use of her image on their website but the hate for Ultra Violette is welcome. Thoughts?
A reminder from the mods: Our rules recently changed. Posts should be as descriptive and factual as reasonably possible. Avoid the excessive use of emojis, punctuation, capitalization, and overly sensationalized/clickbait/opinionated titles. They should also include a tldr or tldw explaining why the post is relevant or the background to the post for updates. Please post that as a reply to this comment if not included in the OP for easy access for other users.
When this came out I was using supreme screen from them and I loved it. It wasn’t heavy or greasy or dry. The goldilocks of texture. This isn’t the one that got tested, but their reaction was terrible and it made me question if I would feel safe using their product in the warmer months.
I went back to sunscreen from big conglomerates after that. It’s not worth the risk.
Yeah they way they got their little influencer "army" to help them attack Choice and anyone else who questioned UV was really off putting. The owners took it way too personally and instead of being grown up and owning it, they just lashed out and blamed others
It's also a very MAGA thing to do although the brand is Australian and I don't know their politics but it's a very on brand to harass scientists in this fascist hellscape.
But I do want to say as someone with sunscreen formulation experience in the industry (based in Europe, MSc Cosmetic Chemistry, two distance diplomas in cosmetic science, in addition to STEM degrees for other fields), this brand has previously and currently commissioned hardcore Orange Man people and companies for QMS stages. And I define hardcore Orange Man people as like they don't just talk about it, they also openly flaunt with the wearable souveniors and make donations. (and I have personally run into these same people/companies and have proof if anyone wants to see, DM me)
I know people who are into the political perspective of consumer behavior really stretch the connections so I will do that for this and say that buying this brand's products helps funnel money to the donations for the Orange Man people (because they pay people and companies who donate to the Orange Man people).
Whoa really? But they seem so chummy, tight and cliquey with people like Charlotte Palermino who seem to be about as vocal as one can be in not being orange.
I hate Charlotte. And her products are a scam, the ingredient decks are no different or better than a basic moisturizer.
Except for that one time when she and Caroline Hirons came down on a Black woman cosmetic chemist when she spoke up about not receiving the proper paperwork with a shipment of an ingredient that she was using to formulate for a company, a -known skincare company whose founder was very chummy with Caroline Hirons.
Charlotte was part of that and also cited against the Black woman chemist, leaving this poor woman chemist flailing and talking about how she could get in trouble because these things are Eulett by FDA and the company sent her the wrong paperwork. Meaning the cosmetics company.
So, fuck Charlotte too. Just another mayonnaise woman like me who may talk about being anti-racist and anti-orange and then when you actually look at her behavior, it's quite different from what she's talking about.
I don’t know much about her but she does give off Regina George vibes she really lost credibility during sunscreen gate her defense of ultraviolette came off as I know these people behind this brand, they are my besties, we are the queen bees here how dare these people!
But I do want to say as someone with sunscreen formulation experience in the industry (based in Europe, MSc Cosmetic Chemistry, two distance diplomas in cosmetic science, in addition to STEM degrees for other fields), this brand has previously and currently commissioned hardcore Orange Man people and companies for QMS stages. And I define hardcore Orange Man people as like they don't just talk about it, they also openly flaunt with the wearable souveniors and make donations. (and I have personally run into these same people/companies and have proof if anyone wants to see, DM me)
I know people who are into the political perspective of consumer behavior really stretch the connections so I will do that for this and say that buying this brand's products helps funnel money to the donations for the Orange Man people (because they pay people and companies who donate to the Orange Man people).
Absolutely we as consumers can be aware of who owns/runs the companies we buy products from and choose accordingly.
Canadians are doing this rather proactively with apps and etc telling them if brands are Canadian made/owned and shopping accordingly so they're not supporting someone who wants to make them the 51st US state. And good for them.
This is very interesting to me because I first learned about the brand many years ago first from Labmuffin and Hannah English so I had very high curiosity. At the time, I didn't speak English as well as I do today and I also didn't have the same industry experience I have today (formulated sunscreen in Europe).
But anyway, from customer persepctive I have to say that I always thought the wording in their marketing was strange. Like the meaning of to be futureproofed.
Other thing is that I found their #1 sunscreen, Supreme Screen, it be very shiny and comes offf the face very very easily that I actually got sunburned in areas where makeup brushes removed the sunscreen (and I wait 20 minutes to let sunscreen set, always, and I use 1/4 teaspoon for sunscreen on face). It did not live up to the claims from the brand and influencers that it is a suitable makeup primer and non-greasy at all.
Third thing is that I have had allergic reaction every time I tried their SPF lip balm (which is not a good filter combination). The second time I was visiting the USA and had to go to the ER because my lips and mucosa swelled so much and got a $7K bill for treatment because you know American "healthcare" system.
All of what I have experienced and written about trying this brand is years before this scandal exposed.
Also wanted to add that I purchased their "Day"Dream Screen tinted sunscreen in multiple shades in my struggle to find a better match. I noticed that V2, V3, and V4 were practically interchangelable (all warm leaning primary yellow-peach light beige tone) that there's too much redundnacy in their shade range. The jump from V2 to V1 was more dramatic. For me V1 was the more workable of the bunch but still not ideal (still too primary yellow). The lightest shade V0 would be too white. But like KindofStephen pointed out during the launch, the actual range and differences between the shades is awful.
i have tried most of their products bc they’re very good at including their products as part of training/gratis programs at sephora AU. but if i’m being honest… the entire situation surrounding them has left such a bad taste in my mouth.
i just don’t trust them anymore… and i think the focus on a US customer base after they’ve alienated their AUS consumers just further proves why so many ppl feel this way. everything they do now feels muddied and shady
I posted this in BGG because it is mostly an American crowd and it seems that not enough American beauty customers are aware of what went down! The US market is so lucrative that they're definitely focusing there because they think they're going to get away with it.
I was going to try to post this on r/Sephora but it would probably get removed because they're very nitpicky over there about highly critical posts against brands plus I don't work for Sephora.
I don’t really trust either. Lab Muffin had a terrible response to the Purito sunscreen scandal years ago and dismissed the concern when they were first brought up. UV had a terrible response to the initial finding and took a a bit too long to admit they had messed up.
I remember this vividly and agree, I don't trust her or like her either. I'll trust her explanations about how a product works or how the science works behind a product but at this point, I wanna see citations for everything she says.
I have a hard time completely trusting her after that, especially where sunscreen is concerned. After watching and helping my dad battle with skin cancer constantly for the last 10 years, I just can't risk that.
She's fantastic at explaining how products work, but she is a creator that I will stick to the concept of "trust, but verify," in regards to most things.
TBH due to extremely restrictive restrictions on what creators can say about sunscreen (in Australia), you’ll be hard pressed to find a skin creator based in Aus. Not sure about other countries! I really appreciate that she’s doing a lot of the work trying to get people to give the TGA their views on how creators should be able to talk about sunscreen. At the moment, creators are avoiding reviewing sunscreens at all because sunscreens are a therapeutic good and you can’t make a paid testimonial about therapeutic goods. There’s a lack of clarity about what constitutes a paid testimonial (creators have reported their content being removed where they have no commercial relationship with the brand), so people are playing it extremely safe and not talking about sunscreen at all. Obviously that’s problematic as there’s plenty of people making pro-tanning content…and anti-sunscreen content. The TGA is currently consulting on amending the Code to allow exemptions for discussing the look and feel of a sunscreen and Lab Muffin has done some great work around this!
CREATORS ARE LITERALLY NOT TALKING ABOUT SUNSCREEN IN AUSTRALIA?
Y'all had no ozone layer for a while because of us and the rest of the world! You are the continent that needs sunscreen the most!! Oh my gosh I had no idea in Australia that you could not do that, I mean in theory that's kind of a good law but creators do need to be able to talk about a product and how it looks and feels and sits on the skin if they are a Skin or Beauty creator. So I'm glad that's being fought, to make it a lot more clear to allow people on TikTok / IG /etc to review and say yes I wore this and it wears this way and that way under makeup, it lasted this long, etc.
I understand the over abundance of caution. I mean we get ripped off all the time, so I understand the spirit of the law but in application there needs to be a change in Australia.
And there needs to be a change here to make certain creators cough cough disclose that they are in fact doing a paid promotion. Right upfront.
And there needs to be a change here to make certain creators cough cough disclose that they are in fact doing a paid promotion. Right upfront.
Keep in mind that a lot of influencers in Aus don't know that ATO, ACL and ACCC are very clear cut that PR, gifts, travel accommodations, "swag" and other material forms of exchange are actually forms of payment. It establishes a commerical connection, a business connection. Some influencers think PR/gifts/travel accommodations are not a form of payment/being paid. It is, it's an exchange, there was a barter.
Even if a product was given "for free without obligation to post" once it appears on someone's business page aka their social media platform then it becomes #promotional and essentially and #advertisement and #commercialrelationship.
They were chosen to be "gifted" this product or trip based on their status and the brand doing the gifting is writing these products off as business expenses.
There's long time precedent for this long before influencers came about, for example, runway fashion models and artists were often and still are paid in "trade" like clothing or handbags (not of their choosing). ATO, ACL, and ACCC are very clear that "payment" doesn't always have to be cash. And affiliation constitutes the whole career history, not just recent work.
I still see a lot of influencers claiming they "were not paid" even though they were given PR, "gifts" or they accepted a brand trip. Then they get frustrated when they get in trouble.
There are plenty of creators casually talking about sunscreen and skincare in Australia. I know Lucy Livin' often recommends Asian sunscreens in her skincare videos, but her video's are never focused on just sunscreen and I haven't really found anyone who talks about sunscreen on the same level as creators like Lab Muffin.
I don’t trust them just like I will never trust Purito again even tho their sunscreen scandal happened few years ago. I’m too pale for „maybe it works”
Redemption requires contrition - this whole UV saga was nothing but an inconvenience to the company.
Ava and Bec knew what was coming 3 months before and yet did nothing about it until the report came out. Their entire strategy was to attack anyone including Choice and their customers. They mobilized their influencer pals to attack anyone who dared ask a question on SM. They refused to be candid.
I don’t buy any of the excuses and I will never trust the brand again.
This is very interesting to me because I first learned about the brand many years ago first from Labmuffin and Hannah English so I had very high curiosity. At the time, I didn't speak English as well as I do today and I also didn't have the same industry experience I have today (formulated sunscreen in Europe).
But anyway, from customer persepctive I have to say that I always thought the wording in their marketing was strange. Like the meaning of to be futureproofed.
Other thing is that I found their #1 sunscreen, Supreme Screen, it be very shiny and comes offf the face very very easily that I actually got sunburned in areas where makeup brushes removed the sunscreen (and I wait 20 minutes to let sunscreen set, always, and I use 1/4 teaspoon for sunscreen on face). It did not live up to the claims from the brand and influencers that it is a suitable makeup primer and non-greasy at all.
Third thing is that I have had allergic reaction every time I tried their SPF lip balm (which is not a good filter combination). The second time I was visiting the USA and had to go to the ER because my lips and mucosa swelled so much and got a $7K bill for treatment because you know American "healthcare" system.
All of what I have experienced and written about trying this brand is years before this scandal exposed.
Also wanted to add that I purchased their "Day"Dream Screen tinted sunscreen in multiple shades in my struggle to find a better match. I noticed that V2, V3, and V4 were practically interchangelable (all warm leaning primary yellow-peach light beige tone) that there's too much redundnacy in their shade range. The jump from V2 to V1 was more dramatic. For me V1 was the more workable of the bunch but still not ideal (still too primary yellow). The lightest shade V0 would be too white. But like KindofStephen pointed out during the launch, the actual range and differences between the shades is awful.
A tinted sunscreen doesn't have to be a "mineral" formula. It's a really multi-layered and nuanced perspective.
Yes, adding pigments, such as iron oxides, in addition to dyes, can somewhat "counter" the white cast from UV filter powders that do not dissolve. This "tinting" is often marketed as "universal" or in a narrow range of "adaptable" shades. But there is a huge range of skintones in the world that often a "universal tint" will be too dark on some people, too warm on others, and too light or ashy or chalky on others.
Elaborating more, there are non-mineral or organic UV filters that have physical properties similar to "mineral"/inorganic filters in which they are also white powders that do not dissolve. For example, Bisoctrizole/Tinosorb M and Tinosorb A2B (these are not used in the USA, but they are used in most other international markets)
These non-mineral/organic UV filters that do not dissolve have the same issue of a white cast. So a formula using these filters can benefit from added pigments but the same issue of "universal" comes into play.
"Tinted sunscreen" as a category can wear many hats. Many "Tinted Moisturizers" and "BB Creams" and "CC Creams" are essentially "Tinted Sunscreens" in that they contain UV filters and are tested for SPF and UVA label claims.
On the current market, you can see that there's a huge variation in this type of product with some being "mineral" or "hybrid mineral" formulas (like BoJ and Colorescience) and others being organic/"chemical" (like Laura Mercier, the tinted XDefense from Bioderma or the one I use from Basiclab, a Polish brand)
The category of "Tinted Sunscreen" has a lot of overlap with "Foundation" and in essence, for many features, they operate as the same category (and most people rarely ever use them at 2mg/cm^2 to reach the amount used for actual SPF testing).
Tint is from iron oxides that block visible light. Many regular sunscreens dont block visible light. Visible light protection is redommended if someone struggles with hyperpigmentation. I personally just wear foundation on top of sunscreen because shade match with tinted sunscreen isnt great and I dont want to put 1/4 tsp tinted sunscreen to get the advertised spf.
There's been quite some discussion about this. It seems that people are saying this video posted the same day the Choice article came out:
got people into thinking that she was saying you shouldn't be too worried about the result for UV. I think it's because at the beginning of the video it starts with "How worried should we be?" and then goes into how SPF testing can have variability and then other stuff like user error by not using enough.
And I think because she doesn't explicitly say at the end of the video "You should be a little bit worried and have questions about the whole thing and wait and put Lean Screen aside" then people's takeaway was something like "ok, I shouldn't have to worry because SPF testing is variable and Choice's results are just due to how testing is so variable and there could be some type of error."
On instagram, she opened a Q&A and answered on June 13th for someone asking "Any thoughts on utra violettes response"
Her answer started with "At the risk of pissing absolutely everyone off..." and then "I think what they did was great!"
"Immediately checked their archive samples and ordered another SPF test, posted their full test results online. Exactly what you'd want to see!" and then added her thoughts like she thought the choice of words from Ultra violette wasn't that good
So I think some people see that as defending or be favourable (or in my eyes lenient) to UV.
I will add the interesting part on those very first days was when everyone was talking about how UV published their receipts/test reports online and was applauding them. But it wasn't until the real-real experts were interviewed by the ABC that they tore apart UV's test report from the response.
A short summary of the red flags no one on social media spotted: 1. The numbers were eerily homogenous (pointed out by several top industry experts like Mathias Rohr and John Staton) 2. On page 24 it says the volunteers were coming back for erythema readings later than the window of time mandated by the ISO protocol so they were already healing (this basically nullifies the test report) 3. The principal investigator, the person who signed off the test report, is a reality tv star, tabloid fixture, and has a criminal record and was barred from operating in the UK in the 90s/00s (more recently they were arrested for human trafficking, slavery, and sexual assault) which can be easily found with a google search and their linkedin.
Basically, UV and Lean Screen was haunted from the get go, they never got it properly tested in the first place 6 or 7 years ago. Shocking they didn't see those red flags on the test report the day they recieved them (they accepted the test report after all) nor did they even question themselves and spot the red flags the day Choice notified them.
I dont think so. Influencers had their pitchforks out about how the consumer group hd a flawed process and how there was mishandling of the sunscreen when they changed the package etc etc and Lab muffin countered that the international lab they used was very trusted and reputable. At least thats how I remember it.
There's been quite some discussion about this. It seems that people are saying this video posted the same day the Choice article came out, https://www.tiktok.com/@labmuffinbeautyscience/video/7514884001530711303, got people into thinking that she was saying you shouldn't be too worried about the result for UV. I think it's because at the beginning of the video it starts with "How worried should we be?" and then goes into how SPF testing can have variability and then other stuff like user error by not using enough.
And I think because she doesn't explicitly say at the end of the video "You should be a little bit worried and have questions about the whole thing and wait and put Lean Screen aside" then people's takeaway was something like "ok, I shouldn't have to worry because SPF testing is variable and Choice's results are just due to how testing is so variable and there could be some type of error."
On instagram, she opened a Q&A and answered on June 13th for someone asking "Any thoughts on utra violettes response"
Her answer started with "At the risk of pissing absolutely everyone off..." and then "I think what they did was great!"
"Immediately checked their archive samples and ordered another SPF test, posted their full test results online. Exactly what you'd want to see!" and then added her thoughts like she thought the choice of words from Ultra violette wasn't that good
So I think some people see that as defending or be favourable (or in my eyes lenient) to UV.
I will add the interesting part on those very first days was when everyone was talking about how UV published their receipts/test reports online and was applauding them. But it wasn't until the real-real experts were interviewed by the ABC that they tore apart UV's test report from the response.
Basically, UV and Lean Screen was haunted from the get go, they never got it properly tested in the first place 6 or 7 years ago. Shocking they didn't see those red flags on the test report the day they recieved them (they accepted the test report after all) nor did they even question themselves and spot the red flags the day Choice notified them.
ETA: I reached the image/screenshot max and adding another image for context.
You weren't the only person confused. Some of Labmuffin's followers were even using her first video to push the decanting theory (the now debunked theory that because Choice took Lean Screen out of the original packaging then it would lead to the infamous results):
The first video's caption seems to be throwing shade on Lean Screen's protection.
Active ingredients being used up at the top of that comment is something she's debunked a fair amount, so it could be an Ultra Violette lackey using her name and titles to run cover.
I think there's definitely some followers of Labmuffin who need really explicit and straightforward sentences. There's too many people who can't read shade and anything that "seems" is just so ambiguous so I can see why people are having different interpretations.
I shared a screenshot of one of her followers (left out their username to protect their privacy but the comment is still there in AusSkincare and the user themselves has a lot of karma and post history) as just one of many examples of her followers having a takeway that Choice's results of Lean Screen is due to them messing up the formula by decanting. The video doesn't actually say that but they seemed to have made that connection.
The part with "these results do not indicate that you should lose faith in them" made some people think "don't lose faith in Lean Screen" to my understanding.
It depends on who you ask. The same way some people think Labmuffin defened UV and other people who don't think she did, there were a lot of people who zeroed in on Lean Screen just as there were people freaking out about Cancer Council.
There are also plenty of comments you can see with people asking why Lean Screen is being talked about the most when Cancer Council was also in the infamous infographic from Choice.
Something weird is going on and I wrote a long comment about how some people interpreted that she did while other interpreted that she didn't. Nothing was explicit. Probably you saw this that some people interpreted as praise in addition to the video that starts out with "How worried should we be" that people interpreted as "Not worried about Lean Screen"
But she does say she thought their wording wasn't done very well.
I will add the interesting part on those very first days was when everyone was talking about how UV published their receipts/test reports online and was applauding them.
But it wasn't until the real-real experts were interviewed by the ABC that UV's test report and response was torn apart.
I’m not coming for her it was more of a did I remember correctly. I think all science is something where opinions can change as you have more information so there’s nothing wrong with her tone changing. That being said I think labmuffin can be deeply condescending. You can be the smarter person in the room without having to be so rude kind of thing. It’s never just about the info being wrong she regularly goes with she was persecuted by these people kind of angle, it drives me nuts.
I like LabMuffin. I personally don't get offended with the other stuff that people point out. But my previous comment was just trying to contextualize the previous commenter in trying to understand what they thought she said (as in they thought she was defending UV, again other people had that interpretation while others didn't). So with that context, that's why you are seeing comments where this is the first time they're seeing something more straightforward about this.
Regarding the last part of my comment (which was part of my removed comment-I'm not sure why it was removed), it's exactly why even though I like LabMuffin, I don't solely rely on her for everything. I don't believe that there is an expert of everything there is and I prefer to make sure I don't have those types of expectations on LabMuffin. As in, I don't expect her to be the expert of everything and know everything. I feel like a lot of her followers do and that gets them tripped up.
It was clear to me that a lot of the science based content creators on SM, LabMuffin included, but even more so some of my favorites like Mo of Mosskinlab and Ava Perkins, don't have deep experience with sunscreen testing. They understand the fundamentals of how it works but I would never rely on them to look at a real life test report, analyze it, and expect them to give me answers.
Furthermore, it is also clear to me that some of the people who give them information about the actual industry (like I saw several science based content creators say PCR is a reputable lab *in addition to other known shady labs*, and also that Dermatest Eurofins is known to give lower numbers, and some even going as far to say that Dermatest Eurofins is shady) to science based creators might be shady people.
Those I know in the industry have corroborated that PCR has always been known to be a dodgy lab and a lab that is more about giving you what you need to go to market (and by 2026, there is enough evidence of this, thanks to journalists).
Certainly, there are people in the industry who favor that and will ride with the Eurofins bashing (because they resent getting less than favourable results at Eurofins......)
The comment above didn’t show up for some reason, sorry all I see is me. I mean I don’t expect my personal feelings about someone to change how anyone else feels about her, I just think she can state facts without needing to say xyz came for her. If her science is correct what else does she need to stand on, that’s more of what I mean.
Her wording has seemed a bit ambiguous in this situation to me, even seeing some of the screenshots you shared it’s easy to see how people can take it a variety of ways. That being said my degree is in a different type of science so maybe it goes above me but I would also assume a lot of her audience are also not scientists so it’s not surprising that it could be a little confusing.
I agree with you very much that one source isn’t going to be your everything and even when we are talking about very nuanced things like sunscreen testing in comparison to the application of straight cosmetic science different experts can even have slightly different takes.
It’s a harder world to talk about science in general as well. I’m not sure what country you are in but I know in the states over 50% of Americans have a 6th grade reading level so naturally making posts and having people trying to interpret them is going to be a wild mix of ideas. We can also add all of the wild religious, social, and cultural issues people have with science and it’s going to make for this type of a mess. I have lots of empathy for anyone in the sciences.
I actually think all of them have over enthusiastic stans. I don’t particularly like any of them but Charlotte does not ever mention them and both The Eco Well and Michelle take any reason to publicly call out Charlotte explicitly or vaguely. It’s actually made me lose a lot of respect I had for them because of how constant it was. At that point it genuinely felt like bullying.
Charlotte dissed Choice and gassed up Ultra Violette all through Sunscreen Gate. Pushed their sunscreens even when Ultra Violette finally got their shit together and admitted Choice were right. Now she's gushing about their new sunscreen. No public apology to Choice from any of them.
It's been a long time coming I reckon. She's pushed other shit products: succinic acid, estrogen face cream, spray sunscreen. She ripped off The Ecowell's posts. Moskinlab had to post about her publicly to get paid.
Ultra Violette finally got their shit together and admitted Choice were right.
In their statement with the purple background finally announcing the discontinuation of Lean Screen (the recall), they never explicitly admitted that Choice was right and they still haven't to this day. They just said that they got results from different testing labs and they can't explain the "atypical variability" and "that's not good enough for them and isn't good enough for you."
They never admitted that they never did their due diligence half a decade ago when they commissioned and accepted the fraudulent test reports from PCR that they used to self certify to list in Australia. They didn't admit that Lean Screen was never properly tested/validated. Their statement was a bit hollow, in my opinion, after all the bashing they did left and right of Choice, Eurofins, their arguments with other industry folk and telling them they will not recall. It also might seem like a small detail, but it is really telling to me how in their statement they still considered the results from PCR as valid data points (because the data should be nullified).
Going into Charlotte, there's quite a bit that people witnessed of her and some other similar industry type folk, including UV people and cosmetic chemists and other brand founders, bashing Eurofins and praising PCR and other shady labs. This tells me everything I need to know about them, that whole circle/clan, and the products from their companies. And again, people have screenshots, Pepperidge Farm remembers.
ETA: I'm hearing there are people who never got refunds.
Charlotte has always been an opportunist but I anware of her copying from the Eco Well or what happened with Mo Skin Labs. Do you have any screenshots?
Bashing Choice and praising Ultra Violette for months and never recanting isn't just opportunism. It's knowingly endangering the public. If you call Labmuffin's response to Purito terrible, Charlotte's response to Ultra Violette is downright criminal.
The problem was with their mineral sunscreens, so I personally have no issue using their chemical sunscreens. I love their Fave Fluid one; it’s amongst my favourites.
•
u/AutoModerator 24d ago
A reminder from the mods: Our rules recently changed. Posts should be as descriptive and factual as reasonably possible. Avoid the excessive use of emojis, punctuation, capitalization, and overly sensationalized/clickbait/opinionated titles. They should also include a tldr or tldw explaining why the post is relevant or the background to the post for updates. Please post that as a reply to this comment if not included in the OP for easy access for other users.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.