As the cosmetics industry continues to face heightened scrutiny over the use of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), the regulatory landscape in the U.S. is shifting rapidly. Though federal policy remains in a holding pattern, states are taking the lead, enacting new laws and regulations that will have significant implications for manufacturers, importers and retailers of cosmetic products. Several states, including California, Colorado, Maine, Maryland, Oregon, Washington and Minnesota, have enacted or finalized bans and reporting requirements for PFAS in cosmetics, with effective dates ranging from 2025 to 2032. The next 12 to 24 months will be pivotal as additional states consider PFAS restrictions and federal policy continues to evolve, and those along the supply chain should be closely monitoring these developments.
Background: Why PFAS, Why Now?
PFAS, often called "forever chemicals" and defined differently by each regulatory body, are under global scrutiny due to mounting evidence of their persistence, bioaccumulation and potential adverse health effects. Internationally, the European Union and Canada are moving toward broad PFAS restrictions, and U.S. consumer advocacy has intensified. Against this backdrop, U.S. states are stepping into the regulatory void left by slow federal action, seeking to address both environmental and public health concerns.
Federal Developments: A Waiting Game
At the federal level, the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act (MoCRA) directed the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to assess the use of PFAS in cosmetic products and publish a report on their safety and risks by Dec. 29, 2025. However, there is currently no federal ban on PFAS in cosmetics, and the regulatory process is moving slowly.
Congressional efforts to strengthen federal oversight have centered on the "Safer Beauty Bill Package," a set of four bills reintroduced by Reps. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), Lizzie Fletcher (D-Texas), Doris Matsui (D-Calif.) and Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.). These bills propose to expand FDA authority, increase reporting and facility registration requirements, and broaden the definition of "hazardous chemicals." Notably, the Toxic-Free Beauty Act of 2025 (H.R. 4433) lists 18 prohibited chemicals but does not include PFAS. Other bills in the package, such as the Cosmetic Supply Chain Transparency Act (H.R. 4434) and Cosmetic Hazardous Ingredient Right to Know Act (H.R. 4435), would require more comprehensive ingredient disclosure and could capture PFAS under broader definitions of hazardous substances.
Despite these proposals, the package has limited support and no U.S. Senate counterpart, making near-term federal action unlikely. The lack of federal preemption means that state laws will continue to drive compliance obligations, and any future federal action could disrupt established compliance programs, requiring rapid adaptation by industry.
State Actions: A Patchwork of Bans and Reporting Requirements
In the absence of federal preemption, states are moving forward with their own PFAS regulations. Several states have finalized bans on the sale of cosmetics containing intentionally added PFAS, with effective dates as early as Jan. 1, 2025. Below is a summary of key state laws:
- California. Assembly Bill (AB) 2771 (PFAS-Free Beauty Act of 2022) prohibits the manufacture, sale or delivery of any cosmetic product containing intentionally added PFAS, effective Jan. 1, 2025. AB 2762 (Toxic-Free Cosmetic Act of 2020) bans 24 toxic chemicals, including certain PFAS, from cosmetics sold in the state. This law served as a model for subsequent state legislation.
- Colorado. House Bill (HB) 22-1345 (Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Chemicals Consumer Protection Act of 2022) prohibits the sale and distribution of cosmetics and other consumer products containing intentionally added PFAS, effective Jan. 1, 2025.
- Connecticut. Public Act No. 24-59 (An Act Concerning the Use of PFAS in Certain Products) prohibits the sale or distribution of cosmetics and other consumer products containing intentionally added PFAS, effective July 1, 2026, unless specific procedures are followed.
- Maine. Legislative Document (LD) 1503 (Act to Stop PFAS Pollution) requires manufacturers to report products containing intentionally added PFAS and phases out the sale of such products, with a ban on most products effective Jan. 1, 2030. Certain categories, including cosmetics, are subject to earlier restrictions.
- Maryland. HB0643 prohibits the sale of cosmetic products containing intentionally added PFAS, effective Jan. 1, 2025.
- Oregon. Senate Bill 546 (SB546) (Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act of 2023) bans the sale and distribution of cosmetics containing intentionally added PFAS and other hazardous chemicals, effective Jan. 1, 2027.
- Washington. HB 1047 (Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act of 2023) prohibits the manufacture, sale and distribution of cosmetics with intentionally added PFAS, effective Jan. 1, 2025.
- Minnesota. The 2023 PFAS Reporting Law requires manufacturers to report the use of intentionally added PFAS in products sold in the state. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) recently extended the initial reporting deadline to July 1, 2026, to allow for more comprehensive data collection and stakeholder engagement. The state's broader PFAS Blueprint aims to phase out avoidable PFAS use by 2032.
These laws generally prohibit the sale of cosmetics with intentionally added PFAS and impose varying reporting and disclosure requirements. States differ in how they define PFAS and "intentionally added," complicating compliance and increasing the risk of inadvertent violations. Bans and reporting requirements take effect between 2025 and 2032, requiring companies to track multiple timelines and adjust compliance strategies accordingly. Some states require reporting as a precursor to bans, while others move directly to prohibition, creating a need for dynamic compliance protocols. The result is a fragmented regulatory environment that poses significant compliance challenges for companies operating across multiple states.
Enforcement and Litigation Risk
State attorneys general are expected to actively enforce new bans, with potential for significant penalties and public enforcement actions. Plaintiffs' attorneys are increasingly targeting PFAS in consumer products under state consumer protection statutes, raising the risk of class actions and reputational harm. Companies may face liability for legacy products, especially where reporting uncovers historical PFAS use.
Spotlight: Minnesota
Minnesota has emerged as a leader in PFAS regulation, with a comprehensive approach that combines reporting requirements and long-term phaseout goals. The MPCA is implementing a 2023 law requiring manufacturers to report on intentionally added PFAS in products sold in the state. This initiative is part of Minnesota's broader PFAS Blueprint, which aims to phase out avoidable PFAS use by 2032.
In response to stakeholder feedback, the MPCA recently extended the initial reporting deadline from Jan. 1, 2026, to July 1, 2026, giving manufacturers a full three years to prepare and submit their reports. The agency's goal is to ensure more complete and higher-quality data, which will inform future regulatory actions and support efforts to manage and remediate PFAS contamination.
What This Means for Industry
The divergence between state and federal action and regulations on PFAS in cosmetics is creating a challenging compliance landscape. Companies must navigate a growing patchwork of state laws, each with its own definitions, reporting requirements and effective dates. The trend toward state-level bans and enhanced reporting is expected to continue, especially as federal action remains uncertain. Given the variation in state requirements – including differences in effective dates, scope of products covered and reporting mechanisms – companies should develop state-by-state compliance matrices and update internal protocols to ensure timely and accurate reporting.
Recommended Actions
- Monitor Regulatory Developments. Regularly review updates on PFAS-related laws and regulations in key states.
- Assess Supply Chains. Identify and document the presence of PFAS in products and materials, and communicate expectations to suppliers.
- Prepare for Reporting. Establish processes to collect and submit required information in jurisdictions with reporting mandates.
- Engage with Stakeholders. Stay involved in relevant regulatory and industry discussions to anticipate and adapt to changes.
- Align Compliance Efforts. Where feasible, harmonize practices to meet the most stringent applicable requirements.
- Utilize Compliance Tools. Consider technology solutions to support tracking and reporting obligations.
Conclusion
Additional states are expected to introduce PFAS bans and reporting mandates, further complicating the compliance landscape. Future federal action could preempt or conflict with state laws, requiring rapid adaptation. As scientific understanding of PFAS risks evolves, regulatory definitions and thresholds may change, impacting compliance obligations.
With federal policy in flux, states are setting the pace on PFAS regulation in cosmetics. Companies should take proactive steps to understand and comply with evolving state requirements, and prepare for the possibility of future federal action. The next 12 to 24 months will be critical as both state and federal authorities refine their approaches to PFAS oversight in the cosmetics sector.
