California Governor Blocks Bill Targeting Microbeads and Glitter

/in ,

A California bill that sought to expand state restrictions on the use of small plastic particles known as microbeads in consumer products was vetoed by Governor Gavin Newsom on October 11, 2025.

Beginning in 2029, AB 823 would have prohibited the sale of:

  • Personal care products containing plastic glitter.
  • Non-rinse-off personal care products that use microbeads as an abrasive to clean, exfoliate, or polish.
  • Cleaning products that use microbeads as an abrasive to clean, exfoliate, or polish.

Under the proposal, companies would have been permitted to sell their existing inventories of these products until 2030.

In his veto message, Newsom wrote:

“I support efforts to protect California’s waterways, ecosystems, and public health from the real and significant harms caused by the prevalence of microplastics in our environment.  However, I am not supportive of the approach this bill takes to ban specific ingredients, such as glitter, which may incidentally result in a prohibition on biodegradable or natural alternatives.”

Existing California law already prevents the sale of personal care products that use microbeads to exfoliate or cleanse in a rinse-off product, such as toothpaste.  Products containing less than one part per million by weight of plastic microbeads are exempt.

Two days after the veto, Newsom rejected a separate bill that would have expanded restrictions on the use of PFAS in many consumer products.  More on that can be found here.

California Governor Vetoes PFAS Bans, Citing Cookware Concerns

/in , ,

On October 13, 2025, California Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed SB 682, a high-profile bill that would have phased out the use of intentionally added PFAS across a wide range of consumer products.   The legislation represented one of California’s most comprehensive efforts to limit PFAS use, covering items from cookware to cleaning products.

In his veto message, Newsom wrote that “the broad range of products that would be impacted by this bill would result in a sizable and rapid shift in cooking products available for Californians.”  He added that “while this bill is well-intentioned, I am deeply concerned about the impact this bill would have on the availability of affordable options in cooking products.”

Under SB 682, the use of intentionally added PFAS would have been prohibited in cleaning products, dental floss, juvenile products, food packaging, and ski wax beginning in 2028.  The ban on PFAS-containing cookware was set to take effect in 2030.

More on SB 682 can be found in a previous post.

California Releases Preliminary List of Companies Covered by New Climate Disclosure Laws

/in ,

On September 24, 2025, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) released a preliminary list of covered entities under two new California climate disclosure laws that will require thousands of companies to report, with initial reporting deadlines beginning in 2026.

California’s SB 261 and SB 253, enacted in 2023, apply to companies formed under U.S. law that do business in California and have total annual revenues above certain thresholds:

  • SB 261 ($500 million threshold): Requires biennial disclosure of climate-related financial risk beginning January 1, 2026.
  • SB 253 ($1 billion threshold): Requires annual disclosure of scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas emissions for the prior fiscal year beginning in 2026, and scope 3 emissions beginning in 2027. CARB has proposed a June 30, 2026, deadline for the first submission.

For each company, the preliminary list indicates whether reporting is required under both laws or only under SB 261.

SB 261 Reporting Guidance

The preliminary list follows CARB’s September 2 release of draft guidance on compliance with SB 261, which clarifies what information covered entities must include in their biennial reports.

Under the draft guidance, covered entities can choose between three reporting frameworks to meet disclosure requirements for four different areas: governance, strategy, risk management, and metrics and targets.  For each reporting area, the draft guidance outlines minimum disclosure requirements.

The draft guidance acknowledges that disclosures “will vary depending on the company, the discretion of the preparers, and the chosen reporting framework.”  CARB also states that a “guiding principle in preparation of these reports should be meeting the needs of the users of the biennial reports,” such as “investors and other stakeholders.”

Notably, CARB is not currently requiring disclosure of scope 1, 2, or 3 emissions for the initial reporting period.  In addition, companies may submit disclosures based on either calendar year or fiscal year data for their first biennial report.

Prop 65 Warning for Titanium Dioxide Struck Down

/in ,

California’s Proposition 65 warning requirement for respirable titanium dioxide violates the First Amendment, the District Court for the Eastern District of California ruled on August 12, 2025, in The Personal Care Products Council v. Bonta, No. 2:23-cv-01006.

The decision is the latest in a series of rulings invalidating Prop 65 warnings for chemicals with disputed health risks. In 2023, the Ninth Circuit struck down a warning requirement for glyphosate, and in early 2025, the Eastern District of California invalidated a warning requirement for dietary acrylamide.  Blog posts on those cases can be found here and here.

The titanium dioxide order follows the same analytical framework. First, the court held that the warning failed the test set forth in Zauderer v. Office of Disc. Counsel, 471 U.S. 626 (1985), which allows for compelled commercial disclosures when they are “purely factual and uncontroversial.”

“[T]he parties admit that there is a clear debate over whether Listed Titanium Dioxide cases cancer in humans,” the order states.  “The Court finds the Prop 65 warning would likely improperly elevate ‘one side of a legitimately unresolved scientific debate.’”

As in the glyphosate and acrylamide cases, the court focused on how an average consumer would perceive the warning, not just whether each sentence was literally accurate.  “Even though each sentence on its own may be factually true, ‘the totality of the warning’ is nonetheless misleading,” the order states.

Second, the court found that the warning failed intermediate scrutiny under Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of New York, 447 U.S. 557 (1980) and was therefore unconstitutional.  The court concluded that the warning does not advance California’s interest in public health because titanium dioxide’s risks are not confirmed, and the state has less burdensome alternatives—such as making information available online.

Titanium dioxide is commonly used as a whitening pigment in cosmetic and personal care products. Its Prop 65 listing applies only to “airborne, unbound particles of respirable size.”

California Legislature Moves to Ban PFAS in Many Consumer Products

/in , ,

On September 12, 2025, California’s Assembly and Senate approved SB 682, a bill imposing sweeping prohibitions on the use of intentionally added PFAS in a wide range of consumer products.  The legislation now heads to Governor Gavin Newsom for consideration.

As reported in a previous post, SB 682 would prohibit the distribution, sale, or offering for sale of cleaning products, dental floss, juvenile products, food packaging, and ski wax with intentionally added PFAS starting in 2028, and cookware beginning in 2030.

Since that earlier update, lawmakers amended the bill to exempt certain components of cleaning products until 2031.  The final version also clarifies that, beginning in 2028, cleaning products must comply with California Air Resources Board volatile organic compound (VOC) regulations without reliance on regulatory variances.

Governor Newsom has until October 12, 2025, to act on the bill.

California Packaging EPR Rulemaking Resumes With Key Deadlines Ahead

/in , ,

On August 22, 2025, CalRecycle published proposed regulations to implement California’s SB 54, which imposes a state extended producer responsibility (EPR) program for single-use packaging and plastic food service ware.  Public comments on the proposal are due October 7, 2025, the same day CalRecycle will hold a hybrid public hearing.

The rulemaking is CalRecycle’s second attempt to implement SB 54.  In March 2025, California Governor Gavin Newsom directed CalRecycle to restart the rulemaking process, citing concerns with its costs.

What does SB 54 Require?

SB 54 is designed to shift the burden of plastic pollution from consumers to producers, which are “typically the companies that create—or package their products in—single-use packaging and single-use plastic food service ware,” according to CalRecycle.  Beginning in 2027, producers will pay fees totaling $500 million per year to offset recycling costs and environmental impacts.

By 2032, all covered materials must be recyclable or compostable, and at least 65% must actually be recycled.  SB 54 also mandates a 25% source reduction in plastic covered material compared to 2023.

Upcoming Compliance Deadlines for Producers

Producers face several near-term obligations under the program:

  • September 5, 2025: Deadline to register with California’s inaugural producer responsibility organization (PRO), Circular Action Alliance (CAA), which will oversee program administration and fee collection.
  • September 15, 2025: CAA opens its reporting portal.
  • November 15, 2025: Deadline to submit 2023 supply data through the portal.

As discussed in a previous blog post, an increasing number of states are implementing packaging EPR laws.  Our team is available to help businesses navigate this evolving regulatory landscape.

California Legislature Advances Bill to Expand PFAS Product Prohibitions

/in , ,

California has taken another significant step towards restricting the use of PFAS in consumer products with the advancement of SB 682, a bill that would add several new product-category PFAS bans beginning in 2028.  SB 682 has already passed the state Senate and is pending in committee in the Assembly.

What Products Would be Affected by SB 682?

Starting in 2028, SB 682 would prohibit the sale of products with intentionally added PFAS for the following product categories:

  • Cleaning products;
  • Dental floss;
  • Juvenile products;
  • Food packaging; and
  • Ski wax.

Starting in 2030, SB 682 would also prohibit the sale of cookware containing intentionally added PFAS.  Used products are exempt from the scope of the bill.

Existing Restrictions

SB 682 would not be the first California law to address the use of PFAS in the above product categories.  Since 2023, the state has prohibited the sale of plant fiber–based food packaging containing intentionally added PFAS, and beginning in 2024, cookware manufacturers have been required to disclose PFAS use on food contact surfaces.

California also enacted a ban on intentionally added PFAS in certain juvenile products in 2023.  SB 682 would broaden that restriction, extending it to any “product designed for use by infants and children under 12 years of age,” with limited exceptions.

Looking Ahead

If enacted, SB 682 would be California’s most far-reaching PFAS law to date, and its full Democratic support among voting senators signals a strong likelihood of passage in the Assembly.  Given California’s outsized market influence, the bill could also have spillover effects beyond state borders, encouraging broader adoption of PFAS-free product formulations.

California Proposes Listing Microplastics as an SCP Candidate Chemical

/in , , ,

California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has proposed to designate microplastics as a “candidate chemical,” a move that could lead to future regulation of products that contain or generate microplastics under the state’s Safer Consumer Products (SCP) program.

Adding microplastics to the SCP candidate chemical list would not in itself create new regulatory requirements.  However, it would allow SCP to evaluate specific types of products containing microplastics for possible designation as a “priority product,” which could ultimately result in restrictions or other regulatory measures.

“Microplastics are pervasive, persistent, and increasingly linked to potential risks to human health, wildlife and the environment,”  DTSC stated in a June 20 press release.  “They have been found in nearly every corner of the planet, including oceans, soil, indoor air, and even on the highest mountain peaks.”

The press release also highlights the “economic burden” of microplastic pollution, noting that “healthcare costs linked to plastic-associated chemicals are projected to exceed $144 billion by 2025” in California.

A technical document accompanying the proposal defines microplastics as “plastics that are less than 5 millimeters (mm) in their longest dimension, inclusive of those materials that are intentionally manufactured at those dimensions or are generated by the fragmentation of larger particles.”

The document acknowledges the “structural heterogeneity and complexity of different plastic polymers,” but argues that microplastics still constitute a “chemical” under SCP’s governing regulations.

The proposal was foreshadowed by SCP’s most recent priority products work plan, released in 2024 and discussed in a previous blog post.  For the first time, the work plan identified products containing or generating microplastics as a consumer product category warranting evaluation for priority products.

Comments on the proposal will be accepted through August 4 via CalSAFER.

Court Blocks Prop 65 Acrylamide Warning for Food Products

/in , ,

On May 2, 2025, the District Court for the Eastern District of California ruled that California’s Proposition 65 (Prop 65) warning requirement for dietary acrylamide constitutes unconstitutional compelled speech, granting a permanent injunction barring its enforcement in California Chamber of Commerce v. Bonta, No. 2:19-cv-02019.

The court acknowledged that the entirety of the warning requirement—which included a notice of possible exposure to acrylamide and a reference to findings by one of several organizations regarding its cancer risks—was literally true. However, the court held that the warning was nonetheless “misleading and controversial,” and therefore unconstitutional, because it ignored a “vigorous scientific debate” over whether acrylamide’s cancer findings in rodents can be extrapolated to humans.

“[M]isleading statements about acrylamide’s carcinogenicity do not directly advance” California’s interest in “preserving the health of its citizens,” the ruling states.  “Accordingly, Prop 65’s warning requirement as to acrylamide in food fails intermediate scrutiny under the First Amendment.”

The court also rejected California’s arguments that the warning was not compelled because businesses are exempted if they can demonstrate that the chemical does not pose a significant risk at the product’s exposure levels.  Because businesses relying on the exemption “run the risk of incurring substantial costs in defending against enforcement actions,” the court held that the exemption does not offer a true “reprieve from Prop 65’s warning requirement.”

The court had previously enjoined a Prop 65 warning for dietary acrylamide in 2021. The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) subsequently revised the warning language and weakened it further following a 2023 Ninth Circuit decision striking down a similar Prop 65 warning for glyphosate.

That Ninth Circuit decision provided the basis for much the court’s ruling, including its position that a literally true disclosure can still be misleading in context.  A blog post on that case can be found here.

DTSC Finalizes SCP Priority Product Work Plan

/in , , ,

This October, California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) released the final version of the Safer Consumer Products (SCP) Program’s Three-Year Priority Product Work Plan for 2024–2026.  The work plan identifies eight categories of consumer products that DTSC will evaluate to determine whether specific products within those categories should be designated as Priority Products—product-chemical combinations that may be subject to regulation.

Four categories remain largely unchanged from the 2021-2023 work plan:

  • Beauty, personal care, and hygiene products;
  • Cleaning products;
  • Building products and materials used in construction and renovation; and
  • Children’s products.

Two existing categories have been expanded:

  • Food packaging—expanded to include food contact articles; and
  • Motor vehicle tires—expanded to include motor vehicle parts, accessories, maintenance, and repair materials.

Finally, two new categories have been added:

  • Paints (previously included under building products); and
  • Products that contain or generate microplastics.

The work plan also touches on Senate Bill 502.  That 2022 California law expanded DTSC’s authority under the SCP Program, granting DTSC greater power to require product manufacturers to disclose product ingredients.  Importantly, the bill also established a process for DTSC to move directly to regulatory response for a Priority Product, bypassing an Alternatives Analysis.

A full list of Candidate Chemicals—substances that may lead to a product’s prioritization—is available on DTSC’s website.