Extracted from Law360
In the first quarter of 2025, seven states introduced or passed legislation that would significantly affect businesses within the beauty and cosmetic industry by eliminating PFAS-containing cosmetic, beauty, hair and skin products within those states over the next few years.
Each state's legislation aims to remove perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances from cosmetic products, while also providing room for PFAS-free alternatives to flourish.
The bills in six of those states are under review by their state legislatures, but given the ever-increasing political and regulatory focus on PFAS in consumer products, these bills may pass. Businesses that manufacture, distribute or sell PFAS-containing products within these states should prepare for any potential changes by reviewing products and supply chains, and related regulatory and enforcement risks.
PFAS Primer
PFAS are a group of thousands of synthetic chemicals that degrade slowly over time and are found in low concentrations in the environment and various commercial, industrial and consumer products such as waterproof mascara, eye shadow, liquid lipstick, foundation, blush, moisturizers, cleansers, creams, soaps, lotions, and other cosmetic, beauty and skin products. PFAS are often used in cosmetic products for their waterproof, grease-resistant, smudge-resistant and nonstick properties.
Not all PFAS in cosmetics can be readily measured, detected or quantified. That is one reason why there have been few studies on the presence of PFAS in cosmetics.
There is also limited research on whether PFAS in cosmetics can be absorbed through the skin at levels that could be harmful to human health. Data in published studies is limited and cannot be used to draw definitive conclusions about any potential health risks of cosmetics that contain PFAS.
Despite limited research and data, states have pressed ahead with regulating PFAS in beauty products.
Passed Legislation
In March, New Mexico passed H.B. 212 — coined the Per- & Poly-Flouroalkyl Protection Act — which prohibits the sale of PFAS-containing cosmetic products in the state by Jan. 1, 2028. New Mexico joined California, Colorado, Washington and Maryland in adopting a ban on intentionally added PFAS in cosmetics.
The New Mexico law defines "cosmetics" to include "a product or product component, other than soap, intended to be applied to the human body for cleansing, beautifying or promoting attractiveness."
Beginning Jan. 1, 2027, manufacturers must submit a report to the New Mexico Environment Department containing: (1) "a brief description of their products, including a universal product code," (2) the purpose of the PFAS being intentionally added to the products; (3) the amounts of each type of PFAS in the products, (4) contact information for the manufacturer; and (5) "any additional information requested by the department."
The act also imposes civil penalties of up to $15,000 for violations.
Introduced Legislation
Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, New York and Oregon introduced legislation in the first quarter of 2025 that would generally ban the manufacture, sale and distribution — and in some instances even the holding, delivery and use — of PFAS-containing cosmetic products in each state. Beyond the general ban, each state's legislature sets the unique date when the ban would take effect and, in some states, includes additional requirements that could affect compliance.
For example, in March, Florida's Legislature introduced S.B. 1744, which would have banned PFAS in cosmetics products beginning July 1, 2026, with an exception for retailers to sell their existing stock until July 1, 2027. S.B. 1744 also would have required the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation and the Florida Department of Health to assess and publicly disclose information about alternative chemicals that can serve similar functions to PFAS in cosmetics. However, on May 3, S.B. 1744 was indefinitely postponed and withdrawn from consideration.
The ban in Hawaii's S.B. 683, which was introduced in January, would take effect on Jan. 1, 2028, while the ban in Illinois' S.B. 0117, also introduced in January, would take effect on Jan. 1, 2026, and the ban in Illinois' H.B. 2516, introduced in February, would take effect on Jan. 1, 2032. The ban in Illinois' H.B. 3409 — which was introduced in February and would also ban the delivery and holding of PFAS-containing cosmetic products — is presumably set to take effect upon the bill becoming law.
Iowa's Legislature set its ban to begin on Jan. 1, 2026, in House File 588, which was introduced in February and would also require PFAS-containing cosmetic product manufacturers to submit certain product information — including a product description, the purpose of the PFAS in the product and the amount of PFAS in the product — to the Iowa Department of Natural Resources by the same date.
The ban in New York's S.B. 2057/A.B. 2054, which was introduced in January and would also prohibit PFAS in cosmetic or personal care products at or above certain determined levels as a nonfunctional byproduct or nonfunctional contaminant within two years of its passing, one year after its enactment. New York's S.B. 3205/A.B. 1635, which also were both introduced in January, if passed, would prohibit the sale of PFAS-containing personal care or cosmetic products and would take effect on June 1, 2026.
Lastly, Oregon's H.B. 3512, which was introduced in February, in addition to banning the manufacture, sale and distribution of cosmetic products in the state by Jan. 1, 2027, would also require PFAS-containing cosmetic product manufacturers to certify that their products do not contain PFAS.
Implications for Regulated Businesses
While most of the state bills are still under consideration, it is imperative that businesses in the beauty and cosmetics industry in these states begin preparing their current operations and compliance strategies for each bill's enactment. Businesses should also consider the broader implications of these bills on their business models. Some of these crucial steps and considerations are discussed below.
Product Testing and Supply Chain Adjustments
Businesses must identify which of their products contain PFAS and assess their exposure under each state's legislation. To ensure compliance with any certification and reporting requirements, internal testing by accredited laboratories may be critical to confirming whether certain cosmetic products contain PFAS and in what quantities.
Cosmetic companies often rely on third-party suppliers for raw materials and formulations. Businesses should revisit supplier contracts and require certifications that cosmetic products do not contain PFAS.
Performing testing and requesting certifications are also helpful for minimizing any litigation and enforcement risk. Plaintiffs are targeting cosmetic companies with class actions and consumer protection lawsuits alleging false advertising, failure to warn and unfair business practices related to undisclosed PFAS in consumer products. Several high-profile lawsuits have been filed in recent years based on third-party testing of cosmetics allegedly containing PFAS, even in the absence of intentional use.
The convergence of regulatory enforcement and private litigation underscores the need for proactive compliance and risk management strategies, which may include testing and supplier certifications.
Reformulation
Manufacturers may need to reformulate products to eliminate intentionally added PFAS, while preserving product performance. This process may be difficult and complex, particularly for long-wear or waterproof formulations. Reformulation must also account for substitutes that are compliant with other regulatory requirements.
Contractual Review and Liability Risks
Because these bans would — and in New Mexico's case do — apply broadly across each state's cosmetic and beauty industry, businesses should be prepared to explicitly address PFAS-related liability in all supply chain, manufacturing, distribution and retailing agreements. Businesses should also review any enforcement risks and financial penalties discussed in each ban and be prepared to adjust the language in their supplier agreements, including defense and indemnification provisions.
Marketing and Labeling Risks
Claims that a product is PFAS-free or nontoxic may invite scrutiny in litigation if they are found to be misleading. Companies should ensure that these claims are substantiated and supported by testing and supplier certifications. There may also be risk from trace contamination or the presence of PFAS as impurities in raw materials.
Conclusion
Despite the very limited research on PFAS in cosmetics, regulation is accelerating at the state level, with more jurisdictions expected to follow. Businesses in the cosmetic industry should act now to identify potential PFAS risks in their product lines, prepare for reformulation and ensure compliance with emerging legal requirements. Taking proactive steps today can reduce legal exposure and protect brand reputation tomorrow.