Claims assessment · Product claim
Cruelty-free
Typical treatment across five regimes. Every verdict below is tied to a stated legal hook.
Market comparison
How this claim is typically treated
Five major markets · one reviewed comparison
| Market | Typical treatment | Legal basis | What is required |
|---|---|---|---|
| European UnionEU | Conditional | View legal reasoningCosmetics Reg 1223/2009 (testing ban); UCPD | Animal-testing ban context makes bare claims potentially trivially true — must distinguish vs legal baseline; global supply-chain testing (e.g. China legacy rules) disqualifies. |
| United KingdomUK | Conditional | View legal reasoningCMA Code | Certification scope clear; 'not tested on animals' wording vs 'cruelty-free' distinction. |
| United StatesUS | Conditional | View legal reasoningFTC Act s.5 | No US ban — claim must be substantiated across ingredients and suppliers. |
| CanadaCA | Conditional | View legal reasoningCompetition Act s.74.01(1)(b.1) | Supplier attestations and audit trail. |
| AustraliaAU | Conditional | The cited source is recorded in the assessment. View legal reasoningACL s.18 | Evidence across whole supply chain. |