New Mexico PFAS Labeling Rule Faces Appeal Over Free Speech, Agency Authority
A docketing statement has been filed in a state-court challenge to New Mexico’s near-universal PFAS labeling requirements, finalized by the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board (EIB) in April as part of a broader rule implementing the state’s PFAS Protection Act (HB 212).
The docketing statement, filed June 22, 2026, identifies four issues on appeal:
- First Amendment. The rule requires manufacturers to affix a PFAS label—an Erlenmeyer flask bearing the term “PFAS”—to products containing any substance meeting HB 212’s definition of PFAS. The appellant argues that the definition is among the broadest in use by any government or regulatory body, and “encompasses substances whose status as PFAS is subject to robust scientific debate, compelling businesses to make untrue and misleading claims on their products.”
- Exceedance of statutory authority—exemptions. HB 212 expressly exempts sixteen categories of products from its prohibitions and reporting requirements. The appellant contends that the rule nevertheless requires labeling for most of those exempt products, extending the rule’s reach beyond the enabling statute.
- Arbitrary deadline. The rule requires labels on products manufactured on or after January 1, 2027, less than nine months after the rule’s adoption. According to the appellant, relabeling requires packaging redesign, legal and regulatory review, coordination with printers and suppliers, and production schedule alignment. The administrative record showed manufacturers need at least 18 months to comply, but the EIB arbitrarily rejected that evidence, the appellant argues.
- Fee authority. The rule imposes fees for PFAS reporting submissions, currently unavoidable use applications, and label waivers. The appellant contends that HB 212 does not grant the EIB authority to impose fees.
The case is Diamond Vogel, Inc. v. New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board, No. A-1-CA-43483 (N.M. Ct. App.), filed 05/22/2026.
