Sunscreen and Standards: Lakmé’s BIS push follows creator Nitin Joshi’s SPF debate

The ongoing sunscreen controversy has taken a fresh turn after Lakmé India and journalist Faye D’Souza released a joint social media post this week highlighting new Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) guidelines mandating in-vivo testing for sunscreens sold in India.

In a post captioned “Know Your Sunscreen Labels”, D’Souza explained that under the revised BIS standard, SPF values printed on product labels must now reflect results from human-skin (in-vivo) testing rather than laboratory-surface (in-vitro) methods. The collaboration, also credited to Beatroot News, marked Lakmé’s first major educational push since April, when its parent company Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) was drawn into a legal dispute with Honasa Consumer Ltd. over ad claims around SPF efficacy.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Faye D’Souza (@fayedsouza)

Read On: Legal disputes & lavish budgets: Summer skincare market turns hotter than the sun

How It Began: The October Exposé

The current wave of public debate can be traced to content creator Nitin Joshi’s viral video posted in October 2025. In the video, Joshi alleged that “in the name of SPF 50 sunscreen, there’s a scam going on in the market.”

He said he had independently commissioned tests for ten popular sunscreens at “two government-certified laboratories” and claimed that “six out of ten brands failed the SPF test.” According to Joshi, “five out of those six brands that are selling more than SPF 50 turned out to be less than SPF 20.”

He named four brands - Minimalist, Lakmé, The Derma Co. and Aqualogica, that he said had passed the test, while several others allegedly fell short. Calling the results a matter of public health rather than beauty, Joshi said, “Sunscreen is not a beauty product. It’s my skin’s medicine… you can call it a scam or a lie, but ultimately, it’s us consumers who are suffering.”

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Nitin Joshi (@ji_nitinjoshi)

Joshi also addressed criticism from dermatologists and creators who questioned his methods, acknowledging that his test used in-vitro procedures, applying sunscreen on PMMA glass plates rather than human skin, but argued that several brands had “printed SPF 50 without any in-vivo testing.”

Read On: Honasa Consumer's Ghazal Alagh ignites fued with HUL's Lakmé over sunscreen 'plagiarism'

“The real test is the in-vivo test, which is done on human trials and that only can tell the correct SPF, and that only is the global and gold standard,” he said.

“A small request to the sunscreen brands: you threaten me legally, and instead of running a ChatGPT campaign on social media, come and show your in-vivo test publicly to everyone.”

His remarks triggered widespread consumer backlash and forced several beauty brands to clarify their testing practices on social media.

Questions Of Credibility

Soon after Joshi’s video went viral, several online creators and users raised questions over its timing and sponsorship. Screenshots and commentary circulating across social platforms pointed out that two of the brands that passed Joshi’s test - Aqualogica and The Derma Co., belong to Honasa Consumer Ltd., which had earlier been in a legal dispute with HUL over sunscreen claims.

The same document also noted that “in his test report, there is a sponsor company which is Nitin’s own company.” While Joshi had presented the results as independently commissioned, critics claimed that “he didn’t do it with his name, but got it done through his own company,” suggesting a potential conflict of interest.

Read On: Sunscreen war heats up after Delhi HC calls out Lakmé ad in Mamaearth dispute

It was further observed that his reported methodology followed ISO 24443 (in-vitro testing) rather than ISO 24444 (in-vivo), which many dermatologists consider the global benchmark. The SPF value of 146 attributed to Aqualogica in Joshi’s video was also questioned by commentators, who called it “scientifically improbable” given that values above SPF 100 offer negligible added protection.

Although no official confirmation has emerged linking the influencer to any brand or campaign, the debate intensified around whether the viral exposé was a case of genuine consumer advocacy or a strategically timed promotional push connected to ongoing corporate rivalries in the sunscreen market.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Nitin Joshi (@ji_nitinjoshi)

Backstory: HUL vs Honasa

The influencer’s claims revived memories of the courtroom clash earlier this year between HUL and Honasa Consumer Ltd., the parent of The Derma Co. and Aqualogica, both named in Joshi’s test list.

The April 2025 case stemmed from Lakmé’s ‘Sun Superiority’ campaign, which implied that certain “online bestseller” sunscreens were overstating their SPF protection. Honasa challenged the campaign before the Delhi High Court, arguing that it disparaged competing brands through indirect visual cues.

The matter was settled after HUL agreed to modify its advertising. The company stated that the campaign was intended “to raise awareness around SPF efficacy, transparency, and accountability in the sun-care category, keeping consumer interest and safety at the core.”

Read On: Honasa vs HUL: Lakme to modify its sunscreen ad

Industry At Crossroads

With BIS now introducing in-vivo testing as the standard protocol, the same method used in the EU and ASEAN markets, India’s sun-care segment faces renewed scrutiny.

Lakmé’s latest post with Faye D’Souza was interpreted by industry observers as an attempt to reposition the brand on the side of scientific accuracy and regulation, distancing it from earlier controversies.

The post reads: “The new standard ensures that SPF values printed on the product label accurately represent the protection provided… It tests the product as it would actually behave on human skin, including how it spreads, absorbs, and protects from measured UV light.”

While brands directly named in Joshi’s video have not released official statements, several have limited comments on social media to clarifying that their sunscreens are “tested as per approved BIS methods” or that they “adhere to Indian cosmetic rules, 2020.”

For consumers and regulators alike, the episode has highlighted long-standing ambiguities in sunscreen testing norms and marketing claims in India.

As the debate intensifies, one line from Joshi’s video continues to circulate widely: “There is no right way to do a wrong thing, the more you try to correct it, the more it will be wrong for you.”