Supergoop! Beats SPF-Accuracy Lawsuit — What the Case Reveals About SPF Testing
A lawsuit claimed a cult sunscreen tested at half its labeled SPF — here's why a judge tossed it twice and what SPF lab variability really means for you.
In Dunning v. Supergoop (S.D.N.Y.), plaintiffs alleged that the Unseen SPF 40 sunscreens tested at only SPF 23 on the face and SPF 20 on the body. In early 2025, Judge John Cronan dismissed the proposed class action for the second time, finding that plaintiffs failed to plead an injury-in-fact and therefore lacked standing.
Legal observers note that the dismissal rested on standing — the plaintiffs couldn't show a concrete injury — rather than on a finding that the sunscreen was mislabeled, a distinction that keeps the underlying SPF-testing questions unresolved in court.
Questions we get a lot
What did the Supergoop SPF lawsuit claim?
In Dunning v. Supergoop, filed in the Southern District of New York, plaintiffs alleged that the Unseen SPF 40 sunscreens actually tested at only SPF 23 on the face and SPF 20 on the body. They sought class-action status over the alleged discrepancy. The case targeted the accuracy of the labeled SPF.
Why did the court dismiss the case?
In early 2025, Judge John Cronan dismissed the proposed class action for the second time, finding that the plaintiffs failed to plead an injury-in-fact and therefore lacked standing. That is a procedural ground about who can sue, not a ruling that the SPF claim was scientifically false. The underlying testing dispute was not decided on its merits.
Does this mean SPF labels can't be trusted?
Not exactly. The dismissal was about legal standing, not a finding that any product was mislabeled. Still, the case is a useful reminder that lab SPF results can vary with testing method, lab and how product is applied. Using enough sunscreen and reapplying matters as much as the number on the bottle.
r/SkincareAddiction: 'Didn't someone sue Supergoop saying the SPF was way lower than the label? What happened with that?'