A sunscreen sold in Australia mainly for sun protection must be listed on the ARTG and show an AUST L number, and most popular Korean and Japanese sunscreens sold to Australians don't carry one.
In Australia, a product presented mainly to protect your skin from UV is a therapeutic sunscreen, regulated by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), not a cosmetic [1]. Before it can be supplied here it has to be entered on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods, the ARTG [12]. Sunscreens are "listed" medicines, which is why the number on an Australian pack starts with AUST L [1].
Every listing has an Australian sponsor, the company legally responsible for the product here [12]. Listed sunscreens can only use ingredients the TGA permits, and their SPF, broad spectrum and water resistance claims must be tested to the Australian standard, AS/NZS 2604:2021 [1][3].
You'll often hear "TGA approved". For sunscreens that isn't quite right: listed products aren't evaluated by the TGA before they go on sale [2]. The accurate phrase is "listed on the ARTG", and it's the one we use at Glass & Dew.
Korea regulates sunscreens as "functional cosmetics", and Australia regulates them as therapeutic goods [14]. Japan's SPF and PA labels come from its cosmetic industry standards [16]. So a sunscreen sold freely in Seoul or Tokyo has to go through a completely different system to be sold here as a sunscreen.
To be listed, a product needs an Australian sponsor, compliant manufacturing and testing to the Australian standard [12]. One Australian K-beauty retailer says most Korean sunscreens "aren't made in TGA-approved facilities, a local requirement, so they can't be sold as sunscreens here" [13].
Ingredients can matter too. The TGA's permitted list held 30 sunscreen active ingredients in 2025 [4]. Many filters popular in Asian formulas are on it: Tinosorb S, Tinosorb M, ethylhexyl triazone (Uvinul T 150), drometrizole trisiloxane (Mexoryl XL) and polysilicone-15 were all named as permitted in Australia in 2012 [24], and the TGA reviewed ethylhexyl triazone again in 2025 [4]. One that may not be permitted is diethylamino hydroxybenzoyl hexyl benzoate (Uvinul A Plus), a UVA filter widely used overseas. A US dermatologist's comparison lists it as not permitted in Australia [23], but we haven't confirmed that against the TGA's own ingredient records, so treat it as unconfirmed.
Australian sellers say the same thing about the bestsellers. Kosmetics, an Australian K-beauty shop, writes of the Beauty of Joseon sun range: "They are not TGA-approved in Australia, which is the case for most K-beauty sunscreens available here" [11]. That's the retailer's wording, not ours, and it's why we check the ARTG ourselves before we link to any sunscreen.
This section is general information, not legal advice. The rules are different for a shopper ordering for themselves and for a business selling to others.
The legal risk sits mainly with supply. Supplying or advertising a therapeutic good that isn't on the ARTG can breach Australian law [12]. Owning a sunscreen you bought overseas is a different situation.
For individuals, the TGA's personal importation rules allow you to bring in therapeutic goods that aren't on the ARTG for yourself or your immediate family, within limits [5][6]:
One honest caveat: the TGA guidance we read covers medicines and "other therapeutic goods" in general and doesn't mention sunscreens by name [5][6]. Primary sunscreens are therapeutic goods [1], so the scheme appears to apply, but we can't point you to a TGA page that says so in those words. "Three months' supply" isn't defined for sunscreen either; a few tubes for your own face is a very different thing from a carton.
The personal importation rules are written for the person importing, not for shops [6]. The TGA does act on sunscreen supply: in April 2026 it directed Australian company Veganic SKN to stop supplying sunscreens "not entered in the ARTG" and to relabel or destroy stock, because products were sold under names that didn't match its ARTG entry [7]. We don't make claims about whether any particular shop is acting lawfully. Whether a website that ships to you from overseas counts as supplying in Australia is a legal question we can't answer for you.
An AUST L number tells you the product is on the register, that it uses permitted ingredients, and that its Australian sponsor has certified it holds evidence for its claims [2][3]. It doesn't tell you the TGA tested the SPF. Every current sunscreen uses the listed pathway, which relies on self-certification, and the TGA can't verify claims before listing [3].
2025 showed why that matters. CHOICE tested 20 sunscreens sold in Australia and 16 didn't meet their SPF claims [8]. Results for Ultra Violette Lean Screen SPF50+ ranged from SPF 4 to 64, and the product was withdrawn [8]. By 30 September 2025 the TGA had identified 21 products sharing one base formula, which it said was "unlikely to have an SPF greater than 21", and those products had been recalled, paused or put under review [9]. The TGA also raised concerns about the reliability of the overseas laboratory that tested them [9]. In June 2026 it was still investigating 15 of the 16 products CHOICE flagged [10].
In March 2026 the TGA consulted on reforms, including accredited testing labs, finished product testing and simpler SPF labels [3]. By June 2026 it was prioritising new SPF testing methods, with labelling changes likely to take longer [10]. We haven't seen a final decision.
So treat AUST L as proof of legal supply inside a system that can test, recall and act, not as a lab result. Imported sunscreens aren't immune to the same problem: when Hong Kong's Consumer Council tested 30 daily sunscreens in 2020, more than 80% performed below their labelled efficacy, and two labelled SPF50+ tested below SPF15 [26]. For an unlisted import, the SPF on the pack is the maker's claim rather than an independently assessed figure [15].
Australia sorts sun protection by what a product is mainly for. A "primary" sunscreen is presented mainly to protect skin from UV and is therapeutic. A "secondary" sunscreen has another main job and may be treated as a cosmetic, within limits [1][2]:
Korean tone-up creams and Japanese UV milks sit in a grey zone. One sold mainly as "SPF50+ PA++++" UV protection looks like a primary sunscreen; one presented as a tinted base might be a cosmetic. It depends on how the product is represented, and the sources we read don't settle where tone-up creams fall.
Either way, Cancer Council's advice is practical. Cosmetics with SPF50 or higher give good protection when first applied, but only for a limited time, and a dedicated sunscreen is recommended for long periods outdoors or swimming [19]. SPFs don't add up when you layer products: you're protected only to the highest single SPF, so apply your sunscreen first on clean skin [20].
Plenty of readers will keep wearing a Korean or Japanese sunscreen because it's the one they'll actually reapply. If that's you, these steps lower the risk:
Remember that the SPF on an unlisted import is the maker's claim, not one assessed against the Australian standard [15].
We're searching the ARTG by hand for the Korean and Japanese sunscreens Australians ask us about most. A product appears here only after we've seen it on the ARTG ourselves, with its AUST L number, its name as listed and the date we checked. Listings change, so check the number yourself before you buy.
Until a product appears in this list, use the 2-minute check above.
General information, not legal advice: the TGA's personal importation rules let you import therapeutic goods that aren't on the ARTG for yourself or your immediate family, up to 3 months' supply per order, with no reselling [5][6]. The guidance we read doesn't name sunscreens specifically. The bigger legal risk is with supply: selling or advertising an unlisted therapeutic good can breach Australian law [12].
Australian retailer Kosmetics says the Beauty of Joseon sun range is "not TGA-approved in Australia" [11]. We haven't confirmed its ARTG status ourselves yet. Check our list of sunscreens we've checked, or look for an AUST L number on the pack and search it on the ARTG.
Some do, and Australian sources note that supplying or advertising unlisted therapeutic goods can breach Australian law [12]. The TGA has taken action over sunscreen supply, for example its April 2026 direction to Veganic SKN [7]. We don't comment on whether any individual shop is acting lawfully.
Not exactly. PA++++ is a Japanese grade meaning a UVA protection factor of 16 or more [16]. Broad spectrum is Australia's pass or fail UVA claim, tested by a different method [2]. Both describe UVA protection, but they aren't interchangeable labels.
They're close but not identical. Both use the ISO 24444 human test, but Australia needs a tested SPF of 60 or more for "SPF 50+" [2], while Japan uses a lower 95% confidence limit of 51 or above [16]. An overseas SPF50+ also hasn't been checked within the Australian system.
No. Listed sunscreens are self-certified by their sponsors and the TGA can't verify claims before listing [3]. In 2025, 16 of 20 sunscreens CHOICE tested missed their SPF claims [8]. AUST L means legal supply inside a system that can recall products, not a lab result.
Cancer Council says cosmetics with SPF50 or higher protect well when first applied, but only for a limited time [19]. SPFs don't add up when layered [20]. For time outdoors, use a dedicated sunscreen and reapply every 2 hours [18].
Most don't claim to be [13]. Japanese packs may show one star (40 minutes) or two stars (80 minutes) [16]. For swimming and sport, Cancer Council recommends a water resistant sunscreen [18].
SPF30 blocks about 96.7% of UV and SPF50 about 98% [21]. Cancer Council recommends SPF50 or SPF50+, and applying enough matters more than the number [18][19].
At least a teaspoon, about 5 mL, for your face, neck and ears, reapplied every 2 hours outdoors [18][20].
General information only, not medical advice.