Consumer Products Watch

Tennessee lawmakers are setting a new precedent in chemical regulation, including per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), by signing into law an industry-backed bill that requires the use of the “best science available” when developing rules governing PFAS and other chemicals.

According to an anonymous US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) employee, the agency is considering whether to propose a rule that would require the agency to reevaluate the health and environmental risks of certain chemicals, including per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).

The California Senate Environmental Quality Committee passed California Senate Bill 682 aiming to ban the sale of products with intentionally added perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) unless deemed to have “essential uses” and without alternatives.

Prop 65 Counsel: What To Know

Earlier this month, California Governor Gavin Newsom directed the state’s recycling agency, CalRecycle, to restart the process of issuing regulations for California’s landmark plastic and packaging extended producer responsibility (EPR) law.

On the litigation front, a federal judge denied an attempt by the Cookware Sustainability Alliance (CSA) to halt Minnesota’s current ban on intentionally added per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in cookware. However, the industry group continues to advocate for cookware exemptions with a track record of success across the nation.

With 2025 underway, the AFS Consumer Products team highlights some of the most pressing legal issues facing the consumer products industry this year.

Amidst mounting per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) regulation and litigation, the Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) judge overseeing the federal litigation related to firefighting foam has scheduled a “Science Day.”

Prop 65 Counsel: What To Know

On January 6, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published in the Federal Register a notice announcing its determination that 35 previously authorized Food Contact Notifications (FCNs) for food contact substances containing per- or polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are no longer effective.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has continued its crackdown on false and misleading “Made in USA” claims. Since finalizing the Made in the USA Labeling Rule in 2021, which authorizes the agency to levy civil penalties against noncompliant companies, the FTC has brought 11 enforcement actions, resulting in over $15 million in judgments against parties found to have falsely labeled their products as being “Made in the USA.”

On December 6, 2024, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, the lead agency that implements Proposition 65, announced new amendments to the Proposition 65 “short-form” warning requirements.

California’s Proposition 65 requires businesses to provide warnings to California consumers about significant exposures to chemicals it has determined to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm when exposure to the chemicals exceeds an established safe harbor level in a consumer product.

After three years of various proposals, on December 6, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), the lead agency that implements Proposition 65, finally announced new amendments to “short-form” warning requirements. These amendments have been long anticipated, as OEHHA’s several prior proposals to modify the short-form warnings were unsuccessful.

In a December 2, 2024, press release, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced the filing of a court order requiring online marketplace GOAT to pay more than $2 million for violating FTC rules and the company’s own policies related to shipping and refunds.

As we reported last month, a California federal court recently dismissed a per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) class action complaint on the basis that the plaintiffs’ total organic fluorine (TOF) analysis testing method was insufficient to support their allegations that the defendants’ products contained PFAS. Prior to this, courts had dismissed similar lawsuits based on lack of standing, holding that the plaintiffs failed to allege that the specific products they purchased were found to contain PFAS.

Revisions to the Negative Option Rule make it easier for consumers to cancel unwanted recurring subscriptions and memberships.

On October 15, a California federal court handed down a ruling that significantly undermines the so-called “gold standard” of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) testing relied upon by most plaintiffs in similar types of litigation.

On September 30, Edgewell Personal Care Brands LLC was hit with a lawsuit in California superior court concerning its Carefree brand of menstrual liners.

The per- and polyfluorinated substances (PFAS) landscape is rapidly developing as manufacturers and sellers of consumer products face increased litigation.

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has just announced an eight-month postponement of the start of a major reporting requirement for past use of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in consumer products due to its own reporting software issues.

Per- and polyfluorinated substances (PFAS) include various synthetic chemicals that have been used in products ranging from cookware to clothing and carpets to cosmetics for decades.

Eight consumer products and technology companies were put on notice that restricting consumers’ right to repair violates federal law.

On June 20, Costco and Nice-Pak Products, Inc. were hit with a proposed class action in California federal court regarding Costco’s fragrance-free Kirkland Signature Baby Wipes.

For the past three years, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), the agency governing Proposition 65, has issued several proposed amendments to the Proposition 65 short-form warnings.