SB1031 would create a new article in Arizona law governing cosmetic sales and animal testing. The bill defines “cosmetic,” “cosmetic product,” “cosmetic ingredient,” “supplier,” and “cosmetic animal testing,” and then makes it unlawful for a manufacturer to knowingly sell or offer for sale in Arizona a cosmetic that was developed or manufactured using cosmetic animal testing conducted by the manufacturer, its suppliers, or contractors. The prohibition is aimed at products sold in the state and is designed to phase in on and after December 31, 2025.
The bill includes several exceptions. It would not apply to certain testing required by foreign regulators, testing tied to products regulated under the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or testing of ingredients used for non-cosmetic purposes when specific conditions are met. It also allows testing requested or required by a federal or state regulator under narrow circumstances, such as when no recognized non-animal alternative exists and there is a serious human health risk. In addition, the bill exempts cosmetics and ingredients tested on animals before January 1, 2026, so long as no new prohibited testing occurs after December 31, 2025, and it allows manufacturers to review or retain evidence from animal testing.
SB1031 would also make regulation of cosmetic sales a matter of statewide concern and expressly preempt counties, cities, towns, other political subdivisions, and inconsistent public-employer policies from imposing additional regulation on the sale of cosmetics under this article. A manufacturer that violates the law would face civil penalties of up to $1,000 for the first day and $500 for each additional day the violation continues. The act includes a severability clause and becomes effective after December 31, 2025.
The overall sentiment in the available voting history appears generally favorable but not unanimous. The bill advanced through the Senate with a 20-6 third-reading vote and received committee support in the Senate Natural Resources Committee and the House Government Committee. At the same time, the House Rules Committee later held the bill, suggesting some procedural or substantive hesitation despite earlier support.
The main point of contention is the scope and enforceability of the animal-testing ban, especially the exceptions for foreign-required testing, federally regulated products, and regulator-requested testing under limited conditions. Another likely issue is the preemption language, which removes local authority to impose additional cosmetic-sale rules and may concern those who favor local or more stringent animal-welfare or consumer-protection standards.
SB1031 would add a new statewide regulatory framework to Title 44 governing cosmetic sales and animal testing, creating a direct prohibition on selling cosmetics in Arizona if the products were developed or manufactured using prohibited animal testing. It would affect cosmetic manufacturers, suppliers, and contracted testing entities, while also limiting local governments and other political subdivisions from adopting inconsistent rules on cosmetic sales. The bill would impose civil penalties for violations and establish statutory definitions and exceptions that would guide enforcement and compliance.
The bill appears to have a generally supportive but not unanimous reception. It passed the Senate on third reading by a 20-6 vote and received committee approval in both chambers’ early review stages, indicating meaningful backing for the policy. However, the House Rules Committee later held the bill, which suggests some members or procedural reviewers had reservations about the measure’s scope, exceptions, or preemption provisions.
The most notable contention centers on whether the bill’s animal-testing prohibition is too broad or too narrow. Supporters of stronger animal welfare protections may favor the ban, while critics may focus on the exceptions for foreign regulatory requirements, federal regulatory testing, and narrow safety-risk carveouts, arguing they weaken the policy or create compliance complexity. The statewide preemption clause is another likely flashpoint because it prevents counties, cities, towns, and other political subdivisions from imposing stricter cosmetic-sale regulations, which could draw opposition from local governments or advocates of local control.