Lean screen.

"The one that actually ended up doing the worst was, ironically, the most expensive out of all of the sunscreens they tested. It was Ultra Violette's lean screen, which is a mineral sunscreen, and it cost $52 for 75 milliliters. It came in at an SPF of four. They advertise this at 50 plus, so obviously four is very low compared to what they're advertising. They tested it at another lab in Germany to validate the results, and in that test the results came back as an SPF of five."

"Worst of all was Ultra Violette's Lean Screen. Of the 16 products that failed to live up to expectations, Lean Screen's result was the most shocking. Despite being marketed as having an SPF rating of 50 plus, Choice revealed that their test returned an SPF rating of just four. This rating was so low that Choice actually sent a sample to another lab in Germany just to double check the results. That came back with an SPF rating for Lean Screen of five, so slightly better, I guess, but not the rating they promised. A drop from a rating of 50 plus to just four or five would be bad enough for any sunscreen product, but considering that Ultra Violette's products aren't cheap, it was even more disappointing to consumers. Ultra Violette immediately rejected these findings, releasing a statement the same day saying they did not accept the results as even remotely accurate and accusing Choice of releasing misleading information in the interest of generating headlines. They also reminded people that the TGA, the Therapeutic Goods Association, is the governing authority over sunscreens in Australia, not Choice magazine, and insisted that their original testing for Lean Screen in 2021 had provided results of SPF 64.32. When they retested it again in 2024, the results were similar for UVB, and they also received a UVA rating of PA4 plus, the highest possible."