Peters & Peters

ESG Enforcement Tracker

Charting the rise of criminal and regulatory enforcement

Australian consumer rights regulator brings greenwashing claim against well-known sunscreen manufacturer

Date:
30 June 2025
Relevant legislation/regulation:
Australian Consumer Law (uniform legislation for consumer production)
Jurisdiction:
Australia
Status:
Ongoing
Regulator/enforcement authority:
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC)
ESG Category:
Environmental
Defendant(s)/subjects(s):
Edgewell Personal Care Australia Pty Ltd (and its US owner, Edgewell Personal Care Company)

Key Facts:

In June 2025, the ACCC filed civil proceedings against the manufacturer and marketers of Hawaiian Tropic and Banana Boat sunscreen. The products make up a significant share of the Australian suncare market.

Oxybenzone and octinoxate have been identified as common sunscreen ingredients that harm reefs, and many governments have introduced bans on sunscreen that may harm reefs (including Mexico and Hawaii, USA). Sunscreens that are developed without these ingredients are sometimes referred to as ‘Reef Friendly’, albeit the scientific basis for this claim is unclear.

Edgewell PCC (the US parent company) is claimed to have advised and directed on the use of a ‘Reef Friendly’ logo (the words printed next to an image of a piece of coral) in product marketing, through its brand guidelines. Accordingly, Edgewell Australia marketed the products as “reef friendly”, using the logo on its packaging, website, social media and on other third-party websites.

The claim was eventually removed in its Australian marketing in October 2023, nearly three years after the parent company stopped using it on the American market.

The ACCC now brings proceedings to challenge the representations made by Edgwell Australia that:

 1. These sunscreens, more generally, do not cause harm/risk of harm to reefs; and/or

 2. Due to the exclusion of oxybenzone and octinoxate, more specifically the products do not cause harm/risk of harm to reefs; and/or

 3. that there was a reliable scientific basis for making the above claims.

It asserts that the company was aware that the scientific evidence did not support their claim and/or did not take adequate steps to satisfy the accuracy of their claims. The ACCC seeks declarations, pecuniary penalties, injunctions, a corrective notice, a compliance programme and costs.

Sources: 

ACCC press release

Related Insights

The CMA’s latest guidance: making green claims across the supply chain

AI, advertising, and green claims: how the ASA is stepping up its game

ESG Enforcement Tracker featured in The Lawyer’s Spotlight

The hidden price tag: human rights and money laundering risks in supply chains

International Court of Justice confirms that States have a legal duty to protect and prevent harm to the climate

French lawmakers focus on ultra-fast fashion