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. 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. ABIHPEC’s constitutional challenge was fully rejected; the 11 STF justices voted unanimously. The decision was subsequently applied in the STF’s assessment of Rio de Janeiro State Law No. 7.814/2017, where the Court confirmed state competence to prohibit animal testing while finding that a provision banning sales 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

Assigned Reduces Exploitation (impact direction) because the upheld Amazonas Law No. 289/2015 removes legal authorisation within that state for animal use in the development, experimentation, and testing of cosmetics, perfumes, and personal hygiene products. If implemented as written and enforced, the scale of cosmetic-purpose animal testing in Amazonas contracts relative to a scenario without such prohibition.

Assigned Alters Legal Basis (impact type) because the primary mechanism is the STF’s constitutional confirmation of Amazonas’ competence to maintain the prohibition — affirming the legal basis under which animal cosmetic testing is defined as prohibited conduct in that state. The decision confirms the validity of an existing legal prohibition rather than creating a new one.

Assigned Moderate significance because 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.

The duration and persistence of the scale change in cosmetic animal testing in Amazonas is not established in available sources; no quantitative data on animal testing volumes before or after the 2015 law or 2020 decision are reported in sources consulted.