Ultra Violette vs everyone: a crisis management case study
Jun 13, 2025
When did you last see a brand flat-out reject findings from a consumer watchdog?
Ultra Violette's response to Choice Australia's sunscreen investigation wasn’t just aggressive; it’s been pretty comprehensive. While other brands offered measured responses acknowledging Choice's findings, Ultra Violette called the results ‘not even remotely accurate,’ questioned the methodology, and provided counter-testing data showing SPF 61.7 on the same batch that Choice claimed was SPF 4.
The brand is discrediting Choice’s authority (‘the TGA, not Choice Magazine’ governs sunscreens) and accused it of releasing misleading information for headlines.
This kind of direct challenge to a respected consumer organisation is pretty rare.
While several other brands disputed Choice's findings – Bondi Sands said it doesn’t share Choice's assessment, and Banana Boat stood by its SPF claims – their responses were more muted. Cancer Council acknowledged concern and committed to further testing.
Ultra Violette's response was far more comprehensive and aggressive.
Let’s dig into why brands almost never fight back against consumer organisations and what Ultra Violette's crisis management case study reveals about the calculations that keep most companies silent.
The default response
When brands get publicly called out – by consumer groups, regulators, journalists or customers – most follow a well-established crisis management framework. It usually includes some form of:
· Acknowledging the findings
· Expressing concern for consumer safety
· Committing to immediate action (usually further testing/investigation)
· Promising transparency once investigations are complete.
Why? The risk calculation is brutal.
Fighting back requires absolute confidence in your evidence, unlimited resources for a prolonged battle, and tolerance for escalating media attention. Most brands (and their boards) fail at least one of these. And any good crisis management case study will tell you silence is not an option.
Let’s look at Cancer Council's response to Choice’s findings.
This response hits every typical note: it shows concern without admitting fault, demonstrates proactive action, and buys time for another investigation. The phrasing ‘out of an abundance of caution’ positions additional testing as responsible diligence rather than an acknowledgment of potential problems.
Aldi took a more technical approach, but to me, this statement has been crafted to subtly undermine Choice’s methodology – smart tactic.
‘All ALDI sunscreen formulations have been independently laboratory tested in accordance with the appropriate Australian/New Zealand Standard to ensure they meet their labelled SPF, broad spectrum and water-resistance claims. The formulas are regularly tested on an ongoing basis to ensure they continue to meet the strict industry standards. We have requested CHOICE's test report and methodology, so we can investigate the claims further.’
It's essentially saying, 'show us your working' rather than accepting the results at face value.
Conventional crisis management wisdom says acknowledge quickly and move on. But what happens when you're sure you’re not at fault?
Honestly, most brands still choose silence. Here's why:
The ongoing conversation.
The standard approach usually quietens the noise. Acknowledge concern, promise investigation and go quiet – journalists and customers have little else to talk about. Fight back aggressively and you're handing them weeks of follow-up coverage. Ultra Violette's response generated ongoing media analysis, social media debates, and regulatory commentary. Most brands would rather take the initial hit than fuel an extended news cycle.
Going it alone is risky.
Ultra Violette isn’t disputing Choice by itself. When one brand screams, ‘you're wrong,’ it looks defensive. When several brands raise concerns, it suggests potential testing issues. There's strategic safety in numbers.
The resource drain.
While Ultra Violette's leadership spends time managing this crisis, competitors are launching products and winning customers. Public companies struggle to justify that management distraction to shareholders when the alternative is accepting some reputational damage and moving on.
Board risk tolerance matters.
Fighting back means betting your reputation on being able to prove you are not at fault. If Ultra Violette's testing is later proven flawed, every aggressive statement becomes evidence of poor judgment. Most boards prefer the certain pain of accepting criticism to the potential catastrophe of being publicly wrong.
So, often, with strong evidence or belief (or both), most brands pick the easier option. Not Ultra Violette – and perhaps the brand had built specific conditions that made aggressive messaging not just possible, but potentially smart strategy.
Why Ultra Violette is an interesting crisis management case study
Ultra Violette had been building trust equity with its audience for months before Choice published its findings. Choice first contacted the brand in March.
That May Instagram post about spending ‘$150K on testing’ wasn't coincidental brand building; it was strategic crisis preparation. Ultra Violette had months to prepare, and it seems they used that time brilliantly.
The brand really gets today’s media landscape and knows how to talk to its customers – most keep development processes hidden until someone forces it to explain. Ultra Violette was already talking openly about the expensive, unglamorous work that goes into reliable sun protection and ramped up that messaging once they knew they'd need it.
Look across the brand’s content and comms, and you’ll spot consistent messaging about why sunscreen testing is expensive and complex, why they refuse to cut corners, and why quality control matters. It made sure its customers understood the brand's position on quality and testing standards.
Now the founder is publishing authoritative TikToks, showing testing documentation and continuing the transparency push across multiple platforms.
Crisis management preparation isn’t just about having your response statement ready. The real preparation happens before – building credibility for your values and product before anyone challenges them and establishing direct relationships with customers so you're not entirely dependent on how journalists interpret your story.
When Choice published its findings, Ultra Violette wasn't explaining its testing philosophy for the first time during damage control. Its audience already knew where the brand stood on quality and rigorous processes.
That foundation lets it respond in ways most brands simply can't.
What happens next
We're about to find out if Ultra Violette's aggressive strategy was brilliant or brand suicide. If independent testing proves their sunscreen performs as claimed, they'll have shown that fighting back can work when you have the evidence and preparation to support it. If they're wrong, this becomes a textbook case of how public overconfidence can amplify a crisis.
Either way, Ultra Violette has given us a rare example of a brand choosing confrontation over capitulation. Most companies will be watching closely to see whether this approach pays off or backfires spectacularly.
Speaking of crisis preparation...
Most brands discover their vulnerabilities during a crisis, not before. Ultra Violette's strategic response only worked because they'd identified and prepared for exactly this scenario months in advance.
What scenarios is your brand unprepared for?
My Amber Zone Audit helps you spot the reputation blind spots that could crash your business - before they’re splashed across the Daily Mail. This 3-step process shows you where your brand is exposed, so one mistake doesn't spiral into lost sales, trust, or control.
Spot your PR blind spots here.
