/afaqs/media/agency_attachments/2025/10/06/2025-10-06t100254942z-2024-10-10t065829449z-afaqs_640x480-1-2025-10-06-15-32-58.png)
/afaqs/media/member_avatars/2025/08/14/2025-08-14t061335622z-anushka-jha-photo-2025-08-14-11-43-36.jpg )
Follow Us/afaqs/media/media_files/2025/10/26/main-image-spf-2025-10-26-22-45-33.png)
Noida-based influencer Nitin Joshi recently dropped a bombshell reel that sent India’s skincare community into SPF-induced panic. In his reel, which has already racked up over five million views, Joshi claimed that six out of ten popular sunscreen brands failed lab tests to meet their advertised SPF 50+ claims.
His findings, presented in a bold “Sunscreen Scam Exposed” visual, allege that some cult favourites didn’t even deliver half the promised protection. Brands such as Renee, WishCare, Dot & Key, Lotus, Deconstruct and Foxtale reportedly underperformed, while Lakme, Minimalist, Derma Co., and Aqualogica emerged as “SPF survivors”.
/filters:format(webp)/afaqs/media/media_files/2025/10/26/image-no1-2025-10-26-22-48-19.png)
The post, naturally, went viral because nothing gets the internet talking faster than the word “scam”.
But as the reel gained traction, the skincare community – particularly dermatologists and skincare enthusiasts – started asking tougher questions.
According to several social media-active dermats, including Dr Priyanka Reddy, the test Joshi referred to was conducted in vitro — meaning the sunscreen’s SPF was tested in a synthetic environment (on lab substrates), not in vivo (on human skin).
“An in vitro test can give an idea of SPF performance but can’t fully replicate how it behaves on real skin. Calling it a ‘scam’ based solely on that is misleading,” said one dermatologist on Instagram.
Interestingly, Dr Reddy also pointed out that this “SPF exposé trend” wasn’t new. It originally blew up in Australia, where independent labs started testing sunscreens and posting results online — a move that inspired similar creator-led experiments across markets.
Back in India, however, the narrative seems murkier.
Some creators like @indianskinblog questioned the authenticity of the test, suggesting it might have been a paid collaboration, noting that two of the “passing” brands, Minimalist and Dermaco, are owned by Honasa Consumer Ltd, while Lakme falls under HUL.
In his caption, Nitin claimed that the testing cost him over Rs 2.15 lakh. However, as skincare creator @indianskinblog pointed out, “SPF testing is expensive — not something creators typically fund themselves. If this was independently done, where’s the data? And if not, who funded it?”
Others added that while the reel succeeded in starting an important conversation around label transparency, it also amplified fear-based marketing, a recurring trend in the beauty influencer ecosystem.
The SPF saga has now become part of a larger cultural pattern — where science, virality, and brand rivalry collide. Much like past “ingredient exposes” (remember the parabens panic or the sulphate wars?), the sunscreen story reveals more about how social media shapes consumer trust than about what’s actually inside the bottle.
Whether or not this turns into a full-blown regulatory wake-up call for Indian skincare brands remains to be seen. But one thing’s clear: in the influencer era, sunlight may not always be the best disinfectant, but virality sure is.
