Cruelty-free: Beauty industry’s most abused claim

New Delhi: Walk down any beauty aisle in India today, and you will see the same reassuring words repeated again and again: cruelty-free on shampoos, face creams, makeup, and even soaps. For many consumers, the label signals a clear promise: no animals were harmed, anywhere, ever.

But that assumption is often wrong. Yes.

The uncomfortable reality is that “cruelty-free” has slowly become a marketing gimmick, rather than a guaranteed ethical standard. And some of the world’s biggest beauty brands have benefited from this confusion.

1st red flag: Lack of regulation

“Cruelty-free” is not a legally regulated term in many countries, including India. There is no single global law that clearly defines what qualifies as cruelty-free, how it should be verified, or who gets to police its use. This regulatory vacuum allows brands to interpret the term in ways that suit their commercial interests. A company may say its finished product is not tested on animals while remaining silent on whether its ingredients were tested on animals, whether testing was done by third-party suppliers, or whether animal testing was conducted to meet foreign regulatory requirements.

Technically, such brands may still call themselves cruelty-free. Ethically, the claim becomes questionable.

2nd red flag: Logo means little or nothing

Consumers often rely on visual cues like a bunny icon, a cruelty-free stamp, or a reassuring line on the packaging. But not all cruelty-free logos are created equal.

Some are backed by independent organisations with documented standards and supplier checks. Others are self-declared by the brand, based on loosely defined criteria, or limited to only one part of the supply chain.

Crucially, many of these logos are not verified by any government authority. There is no mandatory audit, no uniform checklist, and no penalty for vague claims. The label looks official, but in reality, it may simply reflect what the brand chooses to disclose.

3rd red flag: The China contradiction

Nowhere is the gap between cruelty-free messaging and market reality clearer than in how global beauty brands operate across China. For years, selling cosmetics in mainland China meant complying with mandatory animal testing for most imported products. While regulations have evolved and limited exemptions now exist, animal testing can still occur, particularly through post-market checks or for specialised product categories.

This has created a familiar pattern. A brand may comply with animal testing requirements in China to access one of the world’s largest beauty markets, while simultaneously marketing the same products as cruelty-free in markets such as India, Europe, or the US, where animal testing is banned or discouraged.

Legally, this is permissible. Strategically, it allows brands to expand without changing their global positioning. But from a consumer trust standpoint, it is deeply problematic. The same cruelty-free claim can be true in one geography and conditional in another, without that nuance being disclosed on packaging. The contradiction is not accidental. It is built into how global beauty markets operate.

How “cruelty-free” became contentious

Global brands operate differently in different markets, but market themselves with one clean, feel-good message. A widely discussed example is NARS Cosmetics.

For years, NARS was widely regarded by consumers as a cruelty-free brand. That perception shifted when it entered mainland China, a market that, at the time, required animal testing for most imported cosmetics. NARS publicly stated that it complies with local regulations, even where this could involve animal testing.

The decision sparked fan backlash, boycott calls, and the loss of its cruelty-free status, as the brand accepted mandatory third-party animal testing for market access. NARS maintained that the step was taken to reach a wider audience, while critics said it prioritised growth over animal welfare. Supporters countered that it reflected a pragmatic approach to global expansion and, potentially, a pathway toward broader acceptance of non-animal testing methods.

While the move was legally compliant, it highlighted the ethical disconnect between consumer expectations of “cruelty-free” and the regulatory realities of global expansion.

Brands like Maybelline and Neutrogena are often cited in cruelty-free discussions for the same reason: they sell in markets where animal testing has historically been required. These brands do not hide their position. They typically state that they do not test on animals unless required by law. That single sentence is crucial and often overlooked.

Because what it really means is the brand may be cruelty-free in India or Europe, but not necessarily cruelty-free everywhere. Yet on shelves, many consumers see only the comforting language, not the legal caveat.

Here’s where the gimmick creeps in

Because “cruelty-free” is not legally defined in India, brands are free to interpret it narrowly. Some common tactics include claiming the finished product wasn’t tested while ignoring ingredient testing, using cruelty-free language in markets where testing is banned anyway, or avoiding discussion of global operations altogether.

The label sounds ethical but often reflects minimum legal compliance, not a moral stance. Over time, the term has been softened, stretched, and diluted until it reassures without informing.

What this means for India

India banned animal testing for cosmetics in 2014, a strong regulatory milestone. But as Indian consumers increasingly buy global beauty brands, a cruelty-free label on products sold here often only confirms compliance with Indian law, not the brand’s practices worldwide. That distinction matters. Instead of trusting the label alone, consumers need to look deeper: does the brand sell in markets like mainland China, and if so, how does it navigate animal testing laws? Silence on this is a red flag. Does the brand clearly explain its animal testing policy or rely on vague, flexible language? Is the cruelty-free claim backed by independent certification ,such as Leaping Bunny, which typically covers suppliers and ingredients? And finally, is the brand willing to limit expansion to uphold ethical commitments? Brands that forgo certain markets to remain cruelty-free are making a real trade-off, and that choice speaks louder than any logo.

The bottom line

The tragedy is not that brands operate globally. It’s that a sensitive ethical issue has been flattened into a feel-good label. “Cruelty-free” now often functions less as a moral guarantee and more as a comfort word, designed to calm consumers, not fully inform them. When ethics become trendy, they also become vulnerable to misuse. So, if cruelty-free really matters to you, the label alone is not enough. Because in today’s beauty market, cruelty-free is no longer just an ethical stance; it’s a marketing strategy.