Why you don’t see more Australian sunscreens on social media – and what we can do about it

Two in three Australians get skin cancer, but you’ll barely see Australian sunscreens on social media. That’s because of a July 2022 change to the Ad Code banning “paid” testimonials for therapeutic goods (health products).

Main interpretation: an influencer or content creator who gets a free sample or does a sponsored post can’t talk about their own experience with that therapeutic good. (Note: anyone posting on social media can be considered an “influencer”.)

Not allowed: “I like that this cough syrup doesn’t taste too sweet and it got rid of my headache” (testimonial)

Allowed: “I recommend this – it has a berry flavour and relieves coughs” (endorsement and repeating marketing info)

The TGA is considering an exemption for the look and feel of sunscreens. They currently plan to keep the ban – they believe:

1. It’s necessary for honest and unbiased reviews
2. Buying sunscreen should be based on your own circumstances and professional health advice
3. You shouldn’t get sunscreen advice from people who aren’t health professionals and aren’t familiar with your situation
4. Sunscreen ads might not promote other forms of sun protection

This might sound good in theory, but evidence since 2022 shows this ban has had the opposite effect. Reviews are now more biased, sun protection choices are less informed, and the ban has likely hampered skin cancer prevention in Australia – especially concerning, given the surge in pro-tanning and anti-sunscreen advice.

How you can help

The TGA is currently seeking feedback until September through an online survey. If you’d also like to see more and better Australian sunscreen content on social media, you can complete the survey to give the TGA your feedback (our further supporting evidence is below).

Here are our recommendations on how to complete the survey for the best outcome.

Page 1 – Enter your name, email, who you are

Click “Continue” until Page 4: “Issue 1C: Whether to allow the use of paid testimonials in advertising about therapeutic sunscreens”

“10. Do you agree with the TGA’s preferred option (Option 3) to continue to prohibit the use of paid testimonials in advertisements for therapeutic sunscreens?”

Answer: No

“If no, please provide your preferred option.”

Answer: Option 2 

“Please explain your answer”

You may want to include some of our reasoning, along with any personal or secondhand experiences with:

• not seeing Australian sunscreen content on social media
• struggling to find suitable sunscreens in the absence of reviews
• being able to find a sunscreen you enjoy thanks to social media reviews
• not being able to get answers to questions about specific sunscreens
• lack of awareness of available Australian options
• using alternatives to Australian therapeutic sunscreens (overseas sunscreens, makeup with SPF)
• friends and family being influenced by pro-tanning or anti-sunscreen misinformation

“11. Do you think allowing paid testimonials in advertisements for therapeutic sunscreens will affect consumer trust in sunscreen advertising?”

Answer: Neither Agree nor Disagree (the question seems to assume that trust can only decrease with a change)

“12. Do you think paid testimonials in social media advertising could influence how consumers understand or engage in sun protection behaviours?”

Answer: Yes

“If yes, please explain your answer”

Points you may want to discuss:

• Reviews making it easier to find suitable sunscreens
• High visibility of pro-tanning and anti-sunscreen misinformation
• Low visibility of sun safety messaging
• Anything you’ve learned about sun protection from social media content creators
• Influencers acting as role models to normalise sunscreen use, especially for young people
• Increased use of alternatives to therapeutic sunscreens – cosmetic sunscreens (e.g. SPF makeup), overseas sunscreens, DIY sunscreen, tanning oils

From here you can click “continue” until you reach the end, and submit the survey.

Thank you for your help – read on for the supporting data.

Why the ban doesn’t work for sunscreens

1. Sunscreens don’t have the issues targeted by the ban

For other therapeutic goods, this ban makes sense. Consumers shouldn’t be influenced to use unnecessary health products by dishonest testimonials (“this supplement cured my depression”) – they should talk to their doctor.

But these concerns don’t really apply to sunscreens.

A. Pretty much all Australians should be using sunscreen, but it’s massively underused.

• Around 2 in 3 Australians end up with skin cancer, costing Medicare $2 billion a year. ¹
• Only one-third used sunscreen most days in spring and summer.²
• Skin cancer is one of the most preventable cancers. If Australians wore sunscreen daily, melanoma would drop by one third, other skin cancers by a lot more.³

B. Product choice should be subjective – “the best sunscreen is the one you prefer”, based on look and feel.

• Look and feel are vital for regular use.⁴

C. Personalised medical advice isn’t very helpful before using or choosing a sunscreen.

• Clear guidelines based on UV index are on government websites, weather forecasts, SunSmart posters etc.⁵

D. Content creators rarely give testimonials on how well a sunscreen works – it’s almost always just look and feel.

• Claims like “this felt like it was working at a higher SPF” are almost unheard of in reviews
• Most people know opinions on look and feel differ, and to take them with a grain of salt.

2. Ban has impacts beyond paid testimonials

What legally counts as “paid” isn’t clearcut e.g. some free samples may count as valuable consideration, but not all. It’s also unclear how remote an association may still count as “paid” (e.g. if a content creator can review a sunscreen they bought themselves, if they received a free sample of a cleanser from the same brand 3 years prior).

Several content creators have had unpaid testimonials removed from social media platforms with no avenue for appeal. So content creators are erring on the side of caution – they’re also posting far less unpaid testimonials, and avoiding sunscreen content altogether (estimated >80% reduction in sunscreen posts by Australians).⁶

Impacts of the ban

1. More biased and less honest sunscreen reviews

To avoid testimonials, most Australian creators only repeat the brand’s claims. For other therapeutic goods, this effectively limits exaggerated health claims.

But unlike influencers, brands won’t say anything negative about the look and feel of their sunscreens. Many consumers have reported that they disagreed with brand descriptions of these.⁷

Posts on Australian sunscreens now rarely contain negative statements that are common in overseas and pre-2022 sunscreen reviews:

• “This sunscreen clogged my pores”
• “This stings my eyes”
• “It bunched up under my makeup”
• “It says it’s lightweight, but it felt heavy to me”

Since “paid” is ambiguous, this hasn’t only impacted clearly labelled sponsored posts – there are also less honest opinions of free samples, and sunscreens creators purchased themselves.⁸

2. Less unpaid sunscreen content

Since the testimonial ban, sunscreen posts by Australians have dramatically dropped:

• Stitching brand claims together takes more time than normal reviews
• Posts are less useful without genuine opinions
• Consumers ask questions on sunscreen posts that can’t be answered without a testimonial (e.g. “Did this sting your eyes?”)

Both a science communicator (Dr Michelle Wong @labmuffinbeautyscience) and a retailer reported that their social media sunscreen content decreased by 80% over 2 years.⁹

Some content creators said they only post once or twice a year about Australian sunscreens, or only in sponsored posts where the brand checks compliance and extra work is remunerated.

Again, this is the opposite of the intended effect – the ban has reduced less biased reviews, leaving mostly paid posts.

3. Australians are making less informed health choices

The ban has gone against another aim of the Ad Code – to support informed health choices.

Studies repeatedly show that even when people know sunscreen prevents skin cancer, they won’t use it regularly until they find one they enjoy.¹⁰

Our survey of 2008 people (including 1076 Australians) also found that look and feel were major barriers to sunscreen use.¹¹

• 10% of respondents didn’t wear sunscreen regularly – their top barriers were comfortable texture, appearance, and eye sting.
• 90% wore sunscreen regularly – one of the top reasons was finding one that felt comfortable.

A greater proportion of Australians had trouble finding sunscreens that felt comfortable and looked nice.¹²

This may be due to the testimonial ban. Social media influencers helped 50-60% of Australian respondents find a sunscreen that looked and felt nice enough to wear regularly. Overall, over 47% of Australians said influencers gave them information that allowed them to wear sunscreen regularly.¹³

Influencers were more trusted than brands for information on look and feel – but with the ban, influencers just repeat brands.¹⁴ Anonymous reviews can provide sensory information but there’s no track record – sunscreen reviews are far more useful if they come from someone who likes similar products to you.

More Australians seem to be using alternative products that aren’t in the ban (SPF makeup, sunscreens from overseas, tanning oils, DIY sunscreen), instead of therapeutic Australian sunscreens.¹⁵ This may be due to lower visibility and lack of sensory information.

4. Harder to fight skin cancer and misinformation

Less sunscreen content is harmful in other ways:

a. Sunscreen content is educational

According to our survey, influencers taught Australians that sunscreen makes skin look nicer, and prevents sunburn and skin cancer, as well as how to use sunscreen properly and when to use it.¹⁶

b. Influencers normalise sunscreen use and make it seem doable

These are important drivers of sunscreen uptake, especially for young people who may need to hear the message from someone they identify with to know they’re at risk.¹⁷

Influencers have been used in many public health campaigns, including skin cancer ones from Cancer Institute NSW and Cancer Council. ¹⁸ Influencer sunscreen posts were similarly shifting attitudes, but all year round and for millions of dollars less.

c. Sunscreen reviews can compete algorithmically with the flood of pro-tanning and anti-sunscreen posts

Sun safety messaging isn’t engaging enough to be pushed by social media algorithms, but sunscreen reviews are.

Young Australians report “never seeing” sun safety messaging, and only seeing tanning and tanning oil promotions.¹⁹

d. Sunscreen reviews can fight misinformation at scale

Positive posts about sunscreen can undo the effects of anti-sunscreen misinformation (“bypassing”) without the time and expertise needed for a debunk. In some cases, bypassing could even work better than debunking!²⁰

The concerns about allowing testimonials aren’t well-founded

The TGA’s concerns are outlined in the consultation report. They boil down to these:

1. The ban is necessary for honest and unbiased sunscreen reviews

It’s had the opposite effect – fear of legal trouble also conflicts with giving honest and unbiased reviews, and in practice has reduced negative opinions of sunscreens far more.

2/3. Buying sunscreens should be based on your own circumstances and professional health advice / You shouldn’t get sunscreen advice from people who aren’t health professionals and not familiar with your circumstances

This conflicts with public health messaging. Australians aren’t meant to ask our doctor if we should wear sunscreen!

Standard guidelines are everywhere, including the TGA website. They trust us to judge our own circumstances and preferences – which is much easier when more honest and unbiased reviews are available.

4. Sunscreen ads might not promote other forms of sun protection

This is already required by Ad Code s23(3). Allowing testimonials doesn’t change this.

Even if this change only increases therapeutic sunscreen use, it would still prevent skin cancer – the Nambour trial showed sunscreen decreased skin cancer, without adding other forms of sun protection.²¹

Thank you for reading! You can help by filling in the TGA public consultation survey – instructions are here.

1. Olsen CM, Pandeya N, Green AC, Ragaini BS, Venn AJ, Whiteman DC. Keratinocyte cancer incidence in Australia: a review of population-based incidence trends and estimates of lifetime risk. Public Health Res Pract. 2022;32(1):3212203; Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Cancer Data 2022–2023.
2. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Sun protection behaviours: Nov 2023 to Feb 2024. September 3, 2024.
3. Olsen CM, Wilson LF, Green AC, et al. How many melanomas might be prevented if more people applied sunscreen regularly? Br J Dermatol. 2018 Jan;178(1):140–147; Olsen CM, Wilson LF, Green AC, et al. Cancers in Australia attributable to exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation and prevented by regular sunscreen use. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2015;39(5):471–476.
4. Julian AK, Ferrer RA, Perna FM. Sun protection behavior: Health impact, prevalence, correlates and interventions. Psychol Health. 2023;38(6):701–725; White KM, Zhao X, Sutton LCS, et al. Sun protection and young female beachgoers: A formative theory-based approach to identifying key sun safe beliefs. Health Promot J Austr. 2019;30(2):263–266; Tong E, Phan K, Smith SD. A cross-sectional study of sun-related behaviours in the internet era. J Dermatolog Treat. 2022 Feb;33(1):314–323.
5. e.g. Therapeutic Goods Administration. How to choose a sunscreen. December 19, 2025; Bureau of Meteorology. About the UV Index. August 2024; Australian College of Dermatologists. Sun Protection & Sunscreens. November 2025; Healthdirect Australia. Sunscreen. February 2025.
6. Wong M, English H, Isaac M, Boudewyns V. Influencing Sunscreen Use: Influencers and Promotion of Sunscreen in Australia. BeautySciComm; 2026: pp 26-27, 33.
7. Wong M, English H, Isaac M, Boudewyns V. Influencing Sunscreen Use: Influencers and Promotion of Sunscreen in Australia. BeautySciComm; 2026: p 20.
8. Wong M, English H, Isaac M, Boudewyns V. Influencing Sunscreen Use: Influencers and Promotion of Sunscreen in Australia. BeautySciComm; 2026: pp 26-27.
9. Wong M, English H, Isaac M, Boudewyns V. Influencing Sunscreen Use: Influencers and Promotion of Sunscreen in Australia. BeautySciComm; 2026: pp 26-27, 33.
10. Julian AK, Ferrer RA, Perna FM. Sun protection behavior: Health impact, prevalence, correlates and interventions. Psychol Health. 2023;38(6):701–725; White KM, Zhao X, Sutton LCS, et al. Sun protection and young female beachgoers: A formative theory-based approach to identifying key sun safe beliefs. Health Promot J Austr. 2019;30(2):263–266; Tong E, Phan K, Smith SD. A cross-sectional study of sun-related behaviours in the internet era. J Dermatolog Treat. 2022 Feb;33(1):314–323.
11. Wong M, English H, Isaac M, Boudewyns V. Influencing Sunscreen Use: Influencers and Promotion of Sunscreen in Australia. BeautySciComm; 2026: pp 15-16.
12. Wong M, English H, Isaac M, Boudewyns V. Influencing Sunscreen Use: Influencers and Promotion of Sunscreen in Australia. BeautySciComm; 2026: pp 15-16.
13. Wong M, English H, Isaac M, Boudewyns V. Influencing Sunscreen Use: Influencers and Promotion of Sunscreen in Australia. BeautySciComm; 2026: pp 18-19.
14. Wong M, English H, Isaac M, Boudewyns V. Influencing Sunscreen Use: Influencers and Promotion of Sunscreen in Australia. BeautySciComm; 2026: p 23.
15. Wong M, English H, Isaac M, Boudewyns V. Influencing Sunscreen Use: Influencers and Promotion of Sunscreen in Australia. BeautySciComm; 2026: pp 29-30.
16. Wong M, English H, Isaac M, Boudewyns V. Influencing Sunscreen Use: Influencers and Promotion of Sunscreen in Australia. BeautySciComm; 2026: pp 18-19, 22.
17. Julian AK, Ferrer RA, Perna FM. Sun protection behavior: Health impact, prevalence, correlates and interventions. Psychol Health. 2023;38(6):701–725
18. Cancer Council. The End The Trend Challenge: How did our influencers go?; @endthetrendaus Instagram account; Sugden C, Dubois S, Maynard P, et al. UV arrows descend from above: lessons from a mass media campaign to improve sun protection behaviours among young adults. Public Health Res Pract. 2024;34(3):3422416.
19. Robinson L, Matthews C, Gordon S. Young Australians love tanning. What will it take to change their minds? ABC News. February 7, 2024.
20. Calabrese C, Albarracín D. Bypassing misinformation without confrontation improves policy support as much as correcting it. Sci Rep. 2023;13(1):6005; Granados Samayoa JA, Albarracín D. Bypassing versus correcting misinformation: Efficacy and fundamental processes. J Exp Psychol. 2025;154(1):18–38; Granados Samayoa JA, Albarracín D. Bypassing as a non-confrontational influence strategy. Curr Opin Psychol. 2024;59:101855.
21. Green A, Williams G, Neale R, et al. Daily sunscreen application and betacarotene supplementation in prevention of basal-cell and squamous-cell carcinomas of the skin: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 1999;354(9180):723-729; Green AC, Williams GM, Logan V, Strutton GM. Reduced melanoma after regular sunscreen use: randomized trial follow-up. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(3):257-263.