If you have ever tossed a bottle of sunscreen into your beach bag, thinking it was good for both your skin and the reef, you might want to take a closer look.
A recent legal move is drawing attention to how some sunscreen products have been marketed.
It is now raising questions about environmental claims and what they really mean for you—and the planet.
Greenwashing in the sun: What’s the ACCC alleging?
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has launched legal action against Edgewell Personal Care Australia and its United States-based parent company, Edgewell Personal Care Company.
The case centres on allegations that consumers were misled about the environmental safety of their products.
Over four years, Edgewell promoted more than 90 sunscreen products under the Banana Boat and Hawaiian Tropic brands as ‘reef friendly’.
These claims appeared on packaging, catalogues, websites and social media, often accompanied by a coral image.
The appeal was strong for environmentally conscious Australians. However, the ACCC says the claims do not hold up.
Although Edgewell excluded two banned ingredients—oxybenzone and octinoxate—their products still contained chemicals that could harm marine ecosystems.
These include octocrylene, homosalate, 4-methylbenzylidene camphor (4-MBC) or enzacamene, and avobenzone.
The science behind the sunscreen
So why does this matter? Oxybenzone and octinoxate have long been under scrutiny for their effects on coral reefs.
Oxybenzone, for example, can interfere with coral reproduction and has even been detected in dolphin breast milk.
These concerns have led to bans in several countries. But the story does not end there.
The other ingredients flagged by the ACCC are also suspected of damaging marine life.
The consumer watchdog alleges that Edgewell was aware of these risks through existing scientific literature, yet did not seek independent testing to support its ‘reef friendly’ claims.
Catriona Lowe, deputy chair of the ACCC, said: ‘Businesses should not shy away from promoting the environmental credentials of their products, but they must be able to substantiate any claims, for example through reputable third-party certification or reliable scientific reports.’
A tale of two markets
One striking detail in the ACCC’s case is the timeline. Edgewell reportedly removed ‘reef friendly’ labels from its United States products in 2020.
However, Australian consumers continued to see this messaging until December 2024.
This has raised questions about transparency and fairness in marketing practices between countries.
Were Australians given the same level of honesty as other consumers?
Why does this matter to you?
For many Australians, sunscreen is part of everyday life—especially under the sun’s strong rays.
The message of ‘slip, slop, slap’ has become second nature.
Now, as we grow more aware of our environmental footprint, choosing products that align with our values matters more than ever.
This case highlights just how tricky it can be to navigate ‘green’ claims when shopping.
‘Many consumers consider environmental factors when purchasing products. By engaging in this alleged greenwashing, we say Edgewell deprived consumers of the ability to make an informed decision and may have prevented them from purchasing a different brand of sunscreen that did not contain chemicals which risked causing harm to reefs,’ Lowe said.
Have your say
Have you ever bought a sunscreen labelled ‘reef friendly’? Do you feel misled by these marketing terms, or do you think it is up to consumers to research ingredients?
We would love to hear your thoughts and experiences in the comments section below. Your voice could help others make more informed choices—so let’s keep the conversation going.
Also read: Tech giant hit with major lawsuit over hidden dangers—are you at risk?
