New Mexico Proposes First-Of-Its-Kind PFAS Labeling Requirements

/in , ,

On October 8, 2025, the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) proposed rules to implement the state’s PFAS Protection Act (HB 212).  In addition to phased-in prohibitions and reporting requirements, the proposal includes novel labeling requirements for all products containing intentionally added PFAS, with a compliance deadline of January 1, 2027.

HB 212 broadly defines PFAS as “a substance in a class of fluorinated organic chemicals containing at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom.”  This definition aligns with those adopted in other states—such as Maine and Minnesota—under their PFAS-in-products laws.

Labeling Requirements

Under the proposed rules, labels must:

  • Inform customers in both English and Spanish that the product contains intentionally added PFAS.
  • Use words and symbols approved by the department.
  • Be “likely to be seen, read and understood by an ordinary individual under customary conditions of purchase or use.”
  • Be “sufficiently durable to remain legible for the useful life of the product.”
  • Use a font size “no smaller than the largest font used for other consumer information on the product.”

For online or catalogue transactions, manufacturers or retailers must clearly disclose PFAS content to customers before purchase on sales literature, webpages, product specification sheets, and marketing materials, as applicable.  If product packaging obscures a label on the product itself, the packaging must be labeled in a compliant manner.

Example Labels

In a September 25, 2025, webinar, NMED shared preliminary label designs that would meet the proposed requirements, shown below.  The department emphasized that the graphics and language are not final.

Example labels for products and labels for product packaging

Exemptions and Special Cases

Used products are exempt from the proposed labeling requirements.  Manufacturers may also request a waiver for products in categories exempt from prohibition and reporting under HB 212—such as medical devices—if they can demonstrate that no PFAS will come into direct contact with consumers during intended use.

Complex durable goods and their components would be subject to alternative labeling requirements but would still need to inform customers of PFAS content.

If other states adopt PFAS labeling requirements, NMED’s proposal would allow manufacturers to comply by meeting comparable labeling rules in another state.

Opportunities for Engagement
  • Public comment period: Open through March 31, 2026.  Submit comments here.
  • Virtual public meeting: October 22, 2025, at 1pm MT (3pm ET).  Register here.
  • Public hearing: Expected around February 18, 2026, per NMED’s public involvement plan.
  • Final rule adoption: Expected by June 30, 2026.

For background on HB 212 and its broader PFAS restrictions, see our previous post.

Court Dismisses PFAS False Advertising Suit Against Coca-Cola – What Lessons Should Be Learned?

/in ,

On September 29, 2025, the Southern District of New York dismissed a PFAS false advertising suit against Coca-Cola over its Simply juice products, holding that the plaintiff lacked standing and failed to show a link between third-party PFAS testing and his actual purchases.  The court found no plausible economic or benefit-of-bargain injury.  The plaintiff alleged that Simply juices were falsely marketed as “All Natural” despite the presence of PFAS.

The court ruled that the plaintiff failed to allege the tested samples were from his purchases or that PFAS presence rendered the products less valuable.  Relying on precedents such as TransUnion v. Ramirez and Axon v. Florida’s Natural Growers, the court dismissed the complaint with prejudice for lack of standing.

The ruling reinforces that PFAS consumer mislabeling cases must connect laboratory testing to specific purchases and articulate a concrete injury to survive dismissal.  So, what lessons should be learned?

1. Laboratory Testing Link

Courts are dismissing PFAS mislabeling cases when the plaintiff fails to connect the specific product they purchased to the lab-tested sample.  Merely alleging that “testing of similar products” revealed PFAS, without tying that testing to the actual unit or batch purchased, is often viewed as too speculative.

2. Concrete Injury Requirement

Under TransUnion v. Ramirez and Spokeo v. Robins, plaintiffs must show a concrete, particularized injury, not just an abstract statutory violation or moral objection.  In PFAS suits, courts have required plaintiffs to allege:

  • That they overpaid for a product falsely marketed as “PFAS-free” or “non-toxic,” and
  • That the product they actually bought contained PFAS in measurable amounts.

Where plaintiffs only claim “fear of exposure,” “diminished value,” or cite general environmental harms, dismissal for lack of Article III standing is common.

3. Evidentiary and Pleading Implications

To survive Rule 12(b)(6):

  • Plaintiffs must plead chain-of-custody facts linking test results to the purchased item (e.g., same UPC, batch code, or manufacturing lot).
  • They should specify PFAS analytes and concentrations, not just allege “detectable PFAS” or presence of total organic fluorine.
  • Plaintiffs often rely on third-party advocacy testing (e.g., Mamavation, Environmental Working Group), but courts treat those as insufficient when plaintiffs fail to link the test results to the specific products they purchased.
4. Practical Takeaway for Defendants and Counsel

For companies facing PFAS labeling suits, early motions to dismiss can succeed by emphasizing:

  • Lack of product-specific testing linkage;
  • Lack of concrete injury or economic harm;
  • Compliance with trace-level detection limits (e.g., parts-per-trillion levels with no safety threshold exceeded).

The case is Lurenz v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 7:22-cv-10941 (S.D.N.Y.), filed 12/28/2022.  More details are available in a previous post.

EPA Adds PFAS to TRI List for 2026 Reporting

/in , ,

On October 7, 2025, EPA announced the addition of a new PFAS to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI): PFHxS-Na (CASRN 82382-12-5).  PFHxS-Na is a salt associated with the PFAS PFHxS (CASRN 335-46-4).

The addition takes effect January 1, 2026.  EPA will likely publish the formal amendment to the list of TRI-reportable chemicals in the Federal Register shortly.

Why Was This PFAS Added?

PFHxS-Na was automatically added to the TRI list after EPA finalized a toxicity value for PFHxS and its salts in a 2025 Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) report.  Under the FY 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), PFAS must be added to the TRI list when certain criteria—such as a finalized toxicity value—are met.

According to the announcement, the other PFAS identified in that IRIS assessment are already on the TRI list.

Implications for Reporting Entities

Supplier notifications for PFHxS-Na will be first required as of January 1, 2026, and reporting companies will be required to include PFHxS-Na in their Reporting Year 2026 reports, according to an EPA webpage.

With this update, EPA says that a total of 206 PFAS are now subject to TRI reporting.  The agency previously added nine PFAS to the TRI list in January 2025 for Reporting Year 2025 reports, which are due July 1, 2026.

In addition, EPA has proposed a rule to add 16 individual PFAS and 15 PFAS categories to the TRI list, while also formalizing the criteria for automatic PFAS additions.  The Trump administration’s Spring 2025 Unified Agenda indicates that EPA will finalize the rule in February 2026.

More on that rulemaking and EPA’s other TRI PFAS actions can be found in our TRI archive.

Judge Tosses PFAS Carpet Class Action for Lack of Standing

/in ,

A proposed class action against 3M and Chemours for concealing the risks of PFAS carpet treatments failed to establish standing, a Minnesota federal judge ruled on September 30, 2025.

As discussed in a previous post, the suit alleged violations of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), conspiracy to commit various state-law torts, and over one hundred other state-law claims.  Plaintiffs claimed 3M and Chemours conspired to hide PFAS hazards from carpet manufacturers and consumers, deceiving purchasers and causing property damage from PFAS contamination.

These allegations never made it off the starting block.  In its order, the Minnesota District Court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish that they suffered an injury in fact or that the injury was fairly traceable to the defendants’ conduct—two requirements for Article III standing.

“Plaintiffs never allege that the carpet they purchased actually has been treated with PFAS products,” the order states.  Moreover, “none of the allegations in the Complaint trace any potential injury to Defendants’ products, as opposed to the products developed by…nonparties.”

According to the court, the complaint relied on a report produced by California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) to argue that “most residential and commercial carpets are treated” with PFAS.  But since “most” could mean “a mere majority,” it “cannot support a reasonable inference that Plaintiffs’ carpets were treated with PFAS,” the order states.

Although these deficiencies alone warranted dismissal, the court went a step further, expressing concerns with the plaintiffs’ RICO charges and elements of their Minnesota common law claims.  For example, the court observed that “many courts” require that plaintiffs purchase products directly from the alleged antitrust violator to establish standing under RICO, while the plaintiffs in this case purchased their carpets from a third-party retailer.

The case is Peterson v. 3M Co., No. 24-CV-03497 (D. Minn.), filed 8/30/2024.

EPA Not Required to Regulate PFAS in Sewage Sludge, Court Rules

/in ,

EPA is not required to identify and regulate PFAS in sewage sludge under the Clean Water Act (CWA), a federal judge ruled on September 29, 2025, in Farmer v. EPA, No. 24-cv-1654.

The CWA defines sewage sludge as “solid, semi-solid, or liquid residue generated during the treatment of domestic sewage in a treatment works.”  Every two years, the law mandates that EPA review its sewage sludge regulations and release a report “for the purpose of identifying additional toxic pollutants [in sewage sludge] and promulgating regulations for such pollutants.”

The case was brought by a group of farmers, a nonprofit that promotes organic agriculture, and an organization representing Potomac River watershed residents.  The plaintiffs argued that the widespread use of sewage sludge as fertilizer introduces PFAS into the food chain and contaminates water and property.  “EPA’s failure to identify and regulate PFAS in sewage sludge exposes Plaintiffs to continuing harm from future applications of sewage sludge on nearby properties,” their June 2024 complaint states.

They sought a court order requiring EPA to identify 18 specific PFAS in its next biennial report and to regulate 11 PFAS that the agency had already identified in previous reports—including PFOA and PFOS.

In its opinion, the D.C. District court concluded that the plaintiffs’ request exceeds the CWA’s requirements because the statute does not impose date-certain deadlines on the agency.  “Although the plain language of the CWA imposes a non-discretionary duty on EPA to review its regulations on a biennial basis, it does not mandate that EPA also identify and regulate sewage-sludge pollutants within the same time frame,” the opinion states.

The court further held that neither the biennial report nor EPA’s failure to list pollutants in that report constitutes a final agency action subject to Administrative Procedure Act (APA) review.  However, the court noted that the plaintiffs could challenge EPA’s inaction through a CWA petition, the denial of which “could constitute a final agency action” under the APA.

EPA Stands by CERCLA PFAS Designation Amid Legal Challenge

/in , ,

EPA under the Trump administration will defend a rule issued by the Biden administration designating two PFAS as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), the agency told the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on September 17, 2025.

“EPA has completed its review and has decided to keep the Rule in place,” the agency wrote in a court filing.

The case, Chamber of Commerce of the USA v. EPA, No. 24-1193, consolidates challenges to the May 2024 rule.  It has been held in abeyance since February at EPA’s request while the Trump administration determined how to proceed.

EPA’s decision to defend the rule is somewhat unexpected.  Last month, the New York Times reported that internal EPA documents recommended its repeal, stating that its “cons outweigh pros.”

Key Impacts of the CERCLA Designation

The rule has significant consequences for EPA’s ability to respond to contamination and assign cleanup responsibility for PFOA and PFOS, the two PFAS covered by the designation.

“Designating PFOA and PFOS as CERCLA hazardous substances eliminates barriers to timely cleanup of contaminated sites, enables EPA to shift responsibility for cleaning up certain sites from the Fund to [potentially responsible parties (PRPs)], and allows EPA to compel PRPs to address additional contaminated sites,” the rule states.

Due to the designation, entities that release PFOA and PFOS above reportable quantities must notify authorities.  When releases occur, EPA (and other agencies) can more quickly respond, because they no longer need to first determine that the release “may present an imminent and substantial danger.”

Crucially, the designation also allows EPA to compel PRPs to take action in response to significant PFOS or PFOA contamination—often at their own expense.

The rule justifies listing PFOA and PFOS based on their health hazards, persistence and mobility in the environment, and bioaccumulation in humans and other organisms.  EPA also conducted a “totality of the circumstances” analysis, which weighed the pros and cons of their designation.

More on EPA’s PFAS and CERCLA actions can be found on our CERCLA archive.

New Mexico to Hold Webinar on PFAS Labeling on September 25

/in ,

On September 25, 2025, the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) will hold an informational webinar on product labelling requirements for PFAS at 1pm MT (3pm ET).  To register, email NMED-PFAS@env.nm.gov.

Under HB212, enacted in April 2025, NMED is authorized to adopt rules requiring that manufacturers label products containing PFAS.  Earlier this month, New Mexico’s Environmental Secretary reportedly told lawmakers that NMED would soon release draft regulations to implement HB 212, including labeling requirements.

PFAS Restrictions and Reporting Under HB 212
  • Labeling authority: NMED may require PFAS labeling.
  • Phased bans: Restrictions on intentionally added PFAS begin in 2027, expand to more product types in 2028, and culminate in a ban on most products in 2032. Exemptions apply for certain products, such as medical devices, and for uses designated by NMED as “currently unavoidable.”
  • Reporting requirement: By January 1, 2027, manufacturers must report information on intentionally added PFAS, including purpose of use and amount (by CASRN).

More details are available on NMED’s PFAS webpage.

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 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.

Irene Hantman to Present at Chemical Watch Summit in September

/in , ,

Verdant Law is pleased to announce that Irene Hantman will present on litigation over green marketing claims at Chemical Watch’s Regulatory Summit North America 2025.

Ms. Hantman’s September 18 presentation will cover noteworthy recent cases, including suits against manufacturers of everyday consumer products over alleged PFAS content.  The presentation will also discuss possible impacts from state-level PFAS disclosure laws, which may lead to a floodgate of new lawsuits.

Following the 3:05pm presentation, Ms. Hantman will be joined by other experts for a Q&A session.

The Regulatory Summit will be held in Alexandria, Virginia, from September 15–18.  Virtual attendance options are available.

Update – November 11, 2025

Slides from Ms. Hantman’s presentation, “Green Marketing Claims, PFAS, and Litigation,” are now available here.