State Laws on PFAS in Products Get Messier

With the end of the 2025 state legislative season, the already dizzying state regulatory picture for products containing PFAS has become even more complex.[1] Illinois adopted new prohibitions on select products, Minnesota proposed reporting regulations that are now in limbo following an administrative law judge decision, California’s governor vetoed potential new product prohibitions over affordability concerns, and New Mexico proposed a broad set of disclosure and labeling requirements covering all products. Without any federal laws to preempt these state rules, manufacturers, retailers, and importers of products containing PFAS will need to familiarize themselves with the patchwork of state statutes and regulations that restrict their ability to manufacture, import, sell, and distribute their products. 

Illinois Adopts New PFAS Product Prohibitions

In a first for the state, Illinois recently adopted new PFAS restrictions in consumer products. Signed by Governor Pritzker on August 15, 2025, the amendments to the Illinois PFAS Reduction Act banned the in-state sale of cosmetics, dental floss, juvenile products (products designed for children under age 12), menstrual products, and intimate apparel (garments intended to be worn under clothes, including includes bras, boxers, briefs, shapewear, sleepwear, thermals, loungewear, socks, and stockings) containing intentionally added PFAS.[2] These bans will take effect on January 1, 2032.[3] The prohibitions exempt used products offered for sale or resale.[4] Parties that do not comply with Illinois bans may be subject to civil penalties up to $5,000 for initial violations and up to $10,000 for subsequent violations.[5]

Illinois’ updates to the PFAS Reduction Act also direct the state’s Environmental Protection Agency to submit a report on the use of fluoropolymers by August 1, 2027.[6] The report must include an assessment of scientific data on the fluoropolymers as well as a review of fluoropolymer regulations passed by other states and the federal government.[7] This report will add to the growing state efforts to understand and differentiate classes of PFAS.

Minnesota Reporting Rules in Uncertain Position

In 2023, Minnesota passed a sweeping law regulating PFAS.[8] This law, known as Amara’s Law, added reporting requirements for intentionally added PFAS in all consumer products, prohibited intentionally added PFAS in a subset of product categories,[9] and prohibited intentionally added PFAS in all products beginning January 1, 2032, unless categorized as a currently unavoidable use of PFAS.[10] The effective date for the reporting requirements, initially set as January 1, 2026, was subsequently delayed to July 1, 2026.[11] 

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (“MPCA”) proposed a comprehensive set of rules implementing the reporting provision of the law.[12] However, on August 28, 2025, a state administrative law judge disapproved the proposed rules.[13] The judge disapproved the proposed rule package due to MPCA’s failure to assess the cumulative effect of the proposed rule with other state and federal regulations on PFAS reporting, as required by Minn. Stat. § 14.131(8). The judge ruled that MPCA’s regulations could not be approved in the absence of this analysis.[14] 

The judge also disapproved of several of the proposed rule provisions for violating state administrative law requirements.[15] Among the portions of the rule specifically disapproved, the judge determined that the proposed reporting fees would generate at least four times as much revenue as the estimated cost of program implementation. This exceeded the MPCA’s authority to charge fees that would only generate sufficient income to cover the reasonably expected costs of the regulatory system.[16]

MPCA must now address the defects and resubmit the rule for approval by the chief state administrative law judge.[17] If MPCA makes new changes to the rule that render the rule “substantially different” from its proposed form, the chief judge must evaluate whether the new rule would require a new rulemaking process or would follow an alternative approval process provided by state law.[18] Portions of the rule that are not found to be substantially different may be adopted as proposed.

This administrative law judge’s decision creates significant uncertainty for manufacturers seeking to comply with the state’s reporting framework. As of this writing, the reporting deadline remains July 1, 2026, but manufacturers will now be forced to await clarification on the regulations implementing Minnesota’s PFAS reporting requirements. The MPCA will need to take action soon to finalize the rules necessary to run an organized reporting process next year.

California’s Governor Vetoes New Product Prohibitions

On October 13, 2025, California Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed Senate Bill 682 (“SB 682”). This proposal would have prohibited the use of intentionally added PFAS in cleaning products, dental floss, an expansive set of juvenile products (for children under 12), food packaging, ski wax, and cookware over the next several years.[19] The cookware provisions of this proposal drew significant interest in the press, including the involvement of a variety of celebrity chefs.[20] While the state already has a chemical disclosure requirement that covers the use of PFAS in cookware,[21] this new requirement would have phased out the use of commonly used fluoropolymer-based nonstick cookware formulations by 2030. In his veto message to the California legislature, the Governor noted the “broad range of products that would be impacted by this bill would result in a sizable and rapid shift in cooking products available to Californians.”[22] He noted concern regarding the “impact this bill would have on the availability of affordable options in cooking products” as well as other “household products.”[23]

New Mexico Proposes Broad Labeling Requirement 

On October 6, 2025, the New Mexico Environment Department (“NMED”) released proposed regulations implementing state PFAS restrictions enacted earlier this year.[24] However, NMED’s proposed rules expand upon the bans and reporting requirements contained in HB 212,[25] and if passed, would usher in a first-in-the nation labeling requirement that covers all PFAS chemicals. As of this writing, only three PFAS chemicals are listed under California’s Proposition 65 and require warning labels.[26]

Per NMED’s proposal, by January 1, 2027, any product made with intentionally added PFAS must feature a label informing customers of its PFAS content or else will be banned from sale in New Mexico.[27] Required labels must “clearly inform the customer,” using language and symbols to be approved by NMED, that products contain intentionally added PFAS. Labels must also be written in both English and Spanish, displayed in a clearly visible and conspicuous location on the product, and must remain affixed in legible form throughout the product’s “useful life.”[28] 

If products are sold in packaging that obscures the affixed label, then the packaging must be labeled as well; packaging must also feature a URL or QR code linking to an NMED web page providing information on PFAS.[29] For online product sales, required labeling information must visibly appear prior to final sale.[30] Used products offered for sale and resale are exempt from NMED’s proposed labeling requirements,[31] and the draft regulations create a slightly modified labeling regime for “complex durable goods” or products “composed of 100 or more manufactured components with an intended useful life of five or more years.”[32] 

New Mexico’s proposed labeling requirements represent a unique regulatory approach to PFAS in products. Manufacturers and other members of the public can comment on the rulemaking until NMED holds a final hearing, currently slated for March 2026.[33] 

Conclusion

As Illinois, Minnesota, California, and New Mexico demonstrate, state governments continue to adopt and amend legislation and regulations restricting PFAS in consumer products. To ensure effective compliance and avoid liability, businesses must be aware of the different timelines and impacted products in each state. Please contact members of Marten’s Consumer Products Practice, including James Pollack, Isabel Carey, and Zack Zahner if you have questions regarding state PFAS laws. 

[1] For previous coverage on state law developments, see our past articles on the topic. See, e.g., James B. Pollack & Zack J. Zahner, State Action on PFAS Expands with Bans, Labeling, and Reporting Requirements, Marten Law (June 14, 2024),  https://martenlaw.com/news/state-action-on-pfas-expands-with-bans-labeling-and-reporting-requirements. 

[2] Ill. Public Act 104-0231 § (45)(a). 

[3] Id. at § (45)(b)(2).

[4] Id. at § (45)(b)(2).

[5] Id. at § (45)(d).

[6] Id. at § (45)(c).

[7] Id.

[8] Marten Law, “Minnesota and Washington Blitz PFAS in Products; Maine Backpedals,” (June 15, 2023) https://martenlaw.com/news/minnesota-and-washington-blitz-pfas-in-products-maine-backpedals.

[9] The product categories where intentionally added PFAS must be phased out by January 2025 in Minnesota are: carpets or rugs; cleaning products; cookware; cosmetics; dental floss; fabric treatments; juvenile products; menstruation products; textile furnishings; ski wax semi: and upholstered furniture. Minn. Stat. § 116.943(5).

[10] Minn. Stat. § 116.943.

[11] Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Reporting PFAS in Products, https://www.pca.state.mn.us/air-water-land-climate/reporting-pfas-in-products.

[12] Office of the Revisor of Statutes: Administrative Rules, Proposed Permanent Rules Related to PFAS in Products; Reporting and Fees, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/c-pfas-rule1-06.pdf

[13] State of Minnesota Court of Administrative Hearings for the Pollution Control Agency, Order of the Chief Administrative Law Judge: In re the Proposed Rules Relating to Amara’s Law, PFAS in Products: Reporting and Fees, Minnesota Rules 7026.0010 through .0100, CAH 5-9003-40410, Revisor R-4828, Aug. 28, 2025, https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/c-pfas-rule1-07l.pdf [“Report”].

[14] Report at 19.

[15] Report at 48.

[16] Report at 47-48.

[17] Minn. R. 1400.2240(4).

[18] Id. at 1400.2240(7).

[19] S.B. 682.

[20] Hiroko Tabuchi, California Wants to Ban ‘Forever Chemicals’ in Pans. These Chefs Say Don’t Do It., NY Times (Sept. 12, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/12/climate/rachael-ray-david-chang-pfas-forever-chemicals-cookware.html.

[21] Cal. Health & Safety Code §109000, et seq.

[22] https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/SB-682-Veto.pdf

[23] Id.

[24] To be codified at NMAC 20.13.2.1 et seq.; https://www.env.nm.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/2025-10-06-PFAS-Protection-Act-Proposed-Rules.pdf 

[25] N.M. H.B. 212 (2025). 

[26] OEHHA, https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/proposition-65-list.

[27] To be codified at NMAC 20.13.2.13(A). 

[28] Id. at 20.13.2.13(C)(1-2). 

[29] Id. at 20.13.2.13(C)(3).

[30] Id. at 20.13.2.13(C)(4).

[31] Id. at 20.13.2.13(D).

[32] Id. at 20.13.2.7(C).

[33] NMED, “Rulemaking Pursuant to the Per- and Poly-Fluoroalkyl Substances Act,” (accessed Oct. 13, 2025), https://nmed.commentinput.com/?id=8mWdJ5uaj.