District Attorney sues maker of Banana Boat and Hawaiian Tropic over “reef friendly” advertising claim
For release on March 25, 2025
CONTACT:
Christopher Judge
Deputy District Attorney
Consumer Protection Unit
(408) 792-2623
[email protected]
District Attorney sues maker of Banana Boat and Hawaiian Tropic
over “reef friendly” advertising claim
The Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office has filed a consumer protection lawsuit over a pair of popular sunscreens that were falsely advertised to Californians as being “reef friendly.”
The case against Edgewell is the first of its kind brought by prosecutors against a major sunscreen manufacturer for “reef friendly” or “reef safe” advertising. The marketing claim was spawned in 2020 after Hawaii banned two active ingredients that are harmful to reefs.
The complaint alleges that the company’s Banana Boat and Hawaiian Tropic sunscreens used other chemicals that were also harmful to reefs but failed to disclose that fact to consumers and made the claim without scientific support.
Between 2020 and 2022, Edgewell reported sales of at least 10 million Hawaiian Tropic and Banana Boat chemical sunscreens in California, generating at least $60 million in gross revenue. Edgewell is the market share leader in sun care products in the U.S.
The lawsuit seeks civil penalties from Edgewell and a court order to prohibit any “reef friendly” or “reef safe” advertising of its chemical sunscreens in the future.
“An environmental catchphrase may be profitable to the company’s bottom line,” said District Attorney Jeff Rosen, “but our bottom line is the law that protects consumers from irresponsible advertising.”
The toxic effects of chemical sunscreen ingredients on reefs and marine life have been documented for years in numerous articles and published scientific studies. Since 2018, a series of chemical sunscreen bans have been adopted in the state of Hawaii, the Republic of Palau, the island of Bonaire, the city of Key West, Florida, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Prosecutors allege that the defendant’s “reef friendly” advertising was misleading and took unfair advantage of the fact that California consumers are likely to consider the environmental impact of a product while shopping.
###