Amazonas state cosmetic animal testing ban
Court Decision
In Effect
April 15, 2020
Summary
On 15 April 2020, the Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF) of Brazil, sitting in plenary, unanimously rejected Ação Direta de Inconstitucionalidade (ADI) No. 5.996, filed in September 2018 by the Associação Brasileira da Indústria de Higiene Pessoal, Perfumaria e Cosméticos (ABIHPEC), thereby upholding the validity of Amazonas State Law No. 289/2015. Law No. 289/2015 prohibits the use of animals for the development, experimentation, and testing of cosmetics, perfumes, and personal hygiene products within the state of Amazonas. ABIHPEC had argued that only the federal legislature held competence to regulate animal experimentation and cosmetic regulation, and that the state law conflicted with federal norms on scientific research and consumer products. The STF’s unanimous rejection of ADI 5.996 confirmed that Brazilian states have constitutional competence to prohibit animal use in cosmetic testing without infringing federal legislative competence over general norms. Law No. 289/2015 had been in force in Amazonas since 2015; the 2020 STF decision maintained rather than introduced the prohibition.
Background Context
Before the 2020 STF decision, an emerging pattern of Brazilian states had adopted cosmetic animal testing bans — including São Paulo (Law 15.316/2014), Amazonas (Law 289/2015), Mato Grosso do Sul, Paraná, Pará, and others. ABIHPEC filed ADI 5.996 in September 2018 challenging the constitutional validity of the Amazonas law on grounds of federal legislative exclusivity over animal experimentation and cosmetic regulation. The STF’s decision in ADI 5.996 was the first federal constitutional ruling on the competence of Brazilian states to enact such bans. Humane Society International and its Brazilian affiliate had conducted the #BeCrueltyFree / #LiberteseDaCrueldade advocacy campaign supporting Brazilian state-level cosmetic testing bans.
System Impact
System Scale Direction
System Contraction
Type
Alters Legal Basis
Significance
Moderate
The STF plenary unanimously rejected ADI 5.996 on 15 April 2020, confirming that Amazonas Law No. 289/2015 is constitutionally valid and that Brazilian states hold competence to prohibit animal use in cosmetic testing within their territories; all 11 STF justices voted unanimously.
Law No. 289/2015 remained operative as a prohibition on the use of animals for development, experimentation, and testing of cosmetics, perfumes, and personal hygiene products within Amazonas from its entry into force in 2015, and the STF decision maintained this prohibition against the industry challenge.
The decision was subsequently applied in the STF’s assessment of Rio de Janeiro State Law No. 7.814/2017 (ADI decided May 2021, documented in a separate Development record), where the Court confirmed state competence to prohibit animal testing while finding that a separate provision banning the sale of animal-tested cosmetics exceeded state competence. No subsequent ruling annulling ADI 5.996 or reverting the Amazonas ban has been documented in sources consulted.
A federal law banning cosmetic animal testing across Brazil was enacted in 2025, supplementing rather than superseding state-level bans. Implementation details — including enforcement mechanisms, inspection activity, and compliance rates within Amazonas — are not documented in available sources.
Anticipated Effects
If implemented as written and consistently enforced by Amazonas state authorities, Law No. 289/2015 would restrict or eliminate the use of live animals for testing of finished cosmetics, perfumes, and personal hygiene products and for related ingredient testing conducted for cosmetic purposes within the state, directing companies toward alternative test methods or relocation of testing activities outside Amazonas.
If the STF’s constitutional reasoning on state competence is applied consistently in future cases, other Brazilian states would be expected to maintain or adopt similar cosmetic testing bans without facing successful federal constitutional challenges.
Whether the Amazonas prohibition has produced a measurable reduction in animal use for cosmetic testing within the state — versus redirection to other Brazilian states or jurisdictions without equivalent bans — is not established in available sources.
Significance Rationale
The decision concerns one Brazilian state and one sector (cosmetics and personal care testing); Amazonas hosts a limited share of Brazil’s cosmetic testing industry. However, the decision establishes constitutional precedent at the federal Supreme Court level that was directly referenced and applied in subsequent state-level constitutional proceedings, giving it structural significance as the foundational ruling in Brazil’s cosmetic testing ban jurisprudence and supporting Moderate significance.
Within The System
Key Actors
The Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF), sitting in plenary, decided ADI No. 5.996 on 15 April 2020 with 11 justices voting unanimously. ABIHPEC (Associação Brasileira da Indústria de Higiene Pessoal, Perfumaria e Cosméticos) was the claimant, challenging the Amazonas law’s constitutionality. The state of Amazonas was the respondent. Humane Society International (HSI) and its Brazilian affiliate publicly supported the law and reported on the STF decision. CONCEA (National Council for the Control of Animal Experimentation) is the federal body regulating animal experimentation in Brazil, whose existence underpinned ABIHPEC’s argument about federal legislative exclusivity.
Notice an inaccuracy or omission?
If you believe information on this page is incorrect, incomplete, or missing important context, you may submit a suggested correction for review.