A new class action lawsuit claims Supergoop misled shoppers by marketing certain “mineral” sunscreens as free from synthetic ingredients, while allegedly using a mix of mineral, non-mineral, and chemically processed components in those formulas.
What the lawsuit alleges
Filed in December 2025 in California, the case Wayne v. Supergoop, LLC, et al. accuses Supergoop of falsely presenting several products as purely mineral and natural.
According to the complaint, the brand’s packaging and marketing emphasize phrases like “100% non-nano-minerals,” “mineral SPF protection,” and “mineral broad-spectrum sunscreen,” which plaintiffs say lead consumers to believe every ingredient is mineral-based or from a natural source.
The lawsuit alleges that, despite this positioning, the formulas actually contain “a plethora” of synthetic, processed, and chemically altered ingredients that are not mineral at all.
Plaintiffs argue that reasonable shoppers would interpret the “mineral” messaging to mean the overall composition is fully mineral and natural, not just the active UV filters.
Products named in the complaint
The filing targets a group of Supergoop products sold as mineral or “100% mineral” sunscreens.
Named examples include Supergoop (Re)setting 100% Mineral SPF 25, Bright-Eyed 100% Mineral Eye Cream SPF 40, Zinc Screen 100% Mineral Lotion, and Mineral Unseen Sunscreen, along with other mineral-labeled SKUs sold during the four years before the complaint was filed.
The proposed class covers California residents who purchased one or more of these mineral-labeled products in the four-year period leading up to the filing date.
The suit seeks damages, restitution, and injunctive relief that would bar Supergoop from continuing the allegedly misleading marketing around these mineral sunscreens.
Why mineral and “natural” claims matter in beauty
The complaint argues that mineral sunscreens command a premium because shoppers increasingly look for “clean,” eco-conscious formulas and are willing to pay more to avoid synthetics.
By presenting these products as purely mineral and natural, Supergoop was allegedly able to charge higher prices “at the expense of unwitting consumers and lawfully acting competitors.”
Mineral-only formulas typically rely on zinc oxide and titanium dioxide as UV filters, and are marketed as an alternative to chemical filters and certain synthetic additives.
The lawsuit claims that when non-mineral, synthetic, or chemically processed ingredients appear alongside those mineral actives, brands must not imply the entire product is mineral or made only from natural sources.
How this fits into Supergoop’s wider scrutiny
This new case follows other legal and regulatory pressure on Supergoop over how it markets sunscreen benefits and ingredient profiles.
In June 2025, Santa Clara County prosecutors announced that Supergoop agreed to a $350,000 civil settlement over what officials called misleading “reef-safe” or “reef-friendly” claims on certain chemical sunscreens.
Separately, an earlier class action filed in New York alleges that Supergoop Unseen Sunscreen SPF 40 for face and body delivers an SPF “significantly lower” than the advertised SPF 40, with the plaintiff claiming tests showed SPF 23 for the face product and SPF 20 for the body version.
In that case, the plaintiff argues that Supergoop knew or should have known the true SPF, given FDA testing requirements for over-the-counter sunscreen drugs.
What Supergoop says about its ingredients
On its own site, Supergoop highlights a “No List” of ingredients it says it never uses, such as oxybenzone, octinoxate, parabens, phthalates, and synthetic fragrances, positioning its formulas as safer and more thoughtful.
The brand also promotes Mineral Unseen Sunscreen SPF 40 as a “sheer, weightless, scentless mineral sunscreen” designed for sensitive skin, doubling as a makeup-gripping primer with 40 minutes of water and sweat resistance.
The new class action does not claim Supergoop fails to include mineral filters, but focuses instead on whether the “mineral” and “natural” messaging accurately reflects all of the ingredients in the formula.
At this stage, the allegations have been filed in court but not proven, and Supergoop has not publicly filed a detailed response in this specific mineral-sunscreen case as of December 2025.
