Rio Court Rejects New Appeal Against Bombril Over Krespinha Ad

By James Calloway

The Rio de Janeiro Court of Justice has unanimously rejected a fresh appeal seeking to hold Bombril civilly liable for a campaign that critics said linked Black women's hair to steel wool.

The case centers on Krespinha, a product Bombril launched in 2020 with the slogan "ideal for limpeza pesada" — heavy-duty cleaning. The public civil action sought R$ 1 million in collective moral damages plus a public retraction.

What did the court decide?

On October 27, the Órgão Especial of the TJ-RJ turned down the internal appeal (agravo interno) filed by the NGO Criola and the Movimento Nacional de Direitos Humanos (MNDH). The ruling also blocked their attempt to have the case reviewed by Brazil's Supreme Federal Court (STF).

The justices found the organizations failed to explain specifically why the earlier decision — which had already barred sending the case to the STF — should be revisited.

In prior rulings, the courts held that neither active discriminatory advertising nor intent by the company to promote racial discrimination had been proven.

What happened to the product?

The backlash forced Bombril's hand. The company pulled Krespinha from its portfolio after the negative reaction, and Conar, Brazil's advertising self-regulatory body, issued a warning to the company.

The timing stings for the plaintiffs: the new decision landed in November, the month of Black Consciousness (Consciência Negra) in Brazil.

Who is behind the case?

Criola and the MNDH coordinate the action through Lucia Xavier of Criola and Monica Alkimim of the MNDH. Their legal team consists of Carlos Nicodemos, Maria Fernanda Fernandes and Rafaela Batistone.

The organizations aren't done. They say they will keep appealing — next to the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), and beyond that to international bodies.

That means the Krespinha dispute, now more than four years old, could yet move from state courts in Rio to federal and even international forums. For brands, the takeaway is blunt: a pulled product and a Conar warning closed the regulatory chapter, but the legal fight over where the line sits between provocative advertising and racial discrimination is still open.