Key Points

• State PFAS restrictions are rapidly expanding, creating compliance obligations for apparel, textile, footwear, cosmetics, manufacturing, import and distribution businesses nationwide.
• PFAS requirements vary by state and product category, including bans, reporting, disclosure, labeling and phased implementation timelines.
• Companies face increasing regulatory enforcement and consumer litigation risk, making PFAS supply chain diligence and compliance planning essential.

The United States regulatory environment for fashion and beauty brands is becoming increasingly difficult to navigate as companies confront a growing patchwork of federal and state requirements governing product safety, labeling and disclosure, packaging, environmental claims, forced-labor controls and supply-chain practices.

The trend is particularly pronounced in the apparel, footwear and cosmetics industries. PFAS regulation provides a prominent example of an area that has been receiving heightened attention from regulators and state legislators. Brands operating in the United States need to be aware of the state-by-state PFAS restrictions, reporting obligations, disclosure requirements, and product-specific prohibitions on different timelines and with varying definitions, exemptions, and compliance mechanisms.

State governments throughout the United States are moving to restrict chemicals known as PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) — a large group of man-made chemicals used to make various consumer products resistant to water, heat, oil and grease.

PFAS regulation is no longer a niche concern. It is a front-line business risk for anyone operating in the global apparel, textiles and cosmetics supply chain.

A Patchwork of Compliance Challenges

The new laws vary significantly. Some impose outright bans on products containing intentionally added PFAS, while others require disclosure or labeling before full prohibitions take effect. Deadlines differ from state to state, with some requirements already in force and others phasing in over the next several years.

For companies that manufacture, import, distribute or sell these products — whether based in the United States or abroad — this patchwork creates real compliance challenges. The stakes extend beyond regulatory fines. Businesses also face litigation and enforcement actions, including consumer lawsuits and state investigations targeting companies whose products contain undisclosed PFAS.

This alert provides an overview of the current state-by-state regulatory landscape, highlights the key differences companies need to understand, and outlines steps to identify and reduce exposure.

Apparel

State laws restricting PFAS in apparel, footwear and textiles have also been proliferating rapidly (see chart below). These laws differ from state to state in several important dimensions, including scope of products covered, the type of prohibition (outright ban vs. disclosure), threshold levels, exemptions, phasing timelines, and compliance mechanisms.

Some of the laws apply broadly to "textile articles," which include not just clothing but also accessories, handbags, backpacks, draperies, shower curtains, furnishings, upholstery, bedding, towels, napkins, and tablecloths. Other laws apply only to "apparel" — clothing items intended for regular or formal wear, such as undergarments, shirts, pants, skirts, dresses, and similar items. In several states, footwear is included within the apparel category.

Summary of Select Laws (as of September 2026)

Cosmetics

Bans and other restrictions on the sale of cosmetics with intentionally added PFAS have been adopted by numerous states (see the chart below). The scope of the bans and applicable exemptions, such as prescription drugs approved by the FDA, varies from state to state.

Summary of Selected Laws (as of September 2026)

Litigation and Enforcement Risks

Companies manufacturing, importing, or distributing products containing PFAS also face consumer litigation and enforcement risk. Plaintiffs typically allege false representations, such as marketing products as "all natural” or "clean,” or failure to disclose PFAS content.

State attorneys general are also active; Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, for example, issued a civil investigative demand to a maker of athletic clothing to examine whether its apparel contains PFAS that health-conscious consumers would not expect. California’s Proposition 65 requires a clear and reasonable warning label if consumer exposure to listed PFAS (currently PFOA, PFOS, PFNA and PFHxS) exceeds a safe-harbor level. Violations can lead to penalties of up to $2,500 per day. The law’s private-enforcement provision has spawned a cottage industry of plaintiff attorneys.

Identify and Mitigate the Risks

The evolving scope of PFAS regulation demands proactive attention. Companies should work with counsel on the process of identifying the potential for any intentionally added PFAS in their products and to implement procedures to comply with applicable laws and to mitigate potential risks. Consideration should be given to whether products should be tested for the presence of PFAS, terms to include in supply agreements, and when companies should seek PFAS compliance certifications from their suppliers.

For information, please contact Karen Davis at kdavis@foxrothschild.com or Adam Cutler at acutler@foxrothschild.com from the firm's Environmental Practice Group or Erika Levin at elevin@foxrothschild.com from the firm’s International Trade and Fashion practice groups.

This information is intended to inform firm clients and friends about legal developments, including the decisions of courts and administrative bodies. Nothing in this alert should be construed as legal advice or a legal opinion. Readers should not act upon the information contained in this alert without seeking the advice of legal counsel. Views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily this law firm or its clients.