Is it Allowed? Companies Face New Challenges with an Ever-Evolving List of “Off Limits” Ingredients in Cosmetic Products
Client Alert | 14 min read | 05.07.24
As we have previously discussed, in recent years, consumers have increasingly demanded “cleaner” beauty products and more transparency in product labeling. In addition to the FDA’s increased authority to regulate cosmetics under MoCRA, a number of states have now taken steps to regulate ingredients in cosmetics by limiting, and in some instances even banning, the use of certain ingredients that may be potentially harmful or toxic.
This web of complex and evolving regulations can be challenging for companies that manufacture and sell cosmetic products to track and follow to ensure compliance, especially when their products may be sold nationwide. Below is a May 2024 survey that may be helpful to companies in the process of untangling the current regulatory framework.
By way of background, the vast majority of states (39 of 50) have passed legislation that broadly prohibits (1) manufacturing and selling cosmetics that contain ingredients that allegedly can cause injuries and (2) providing false or misleading information on product labeling or packaging.[1]
Recent state legislation, however, goes one step beyond these regulations. As of May 1, 2024, the following states have enacted or proposed legislation limiting the manufacture, sale, and distribution of cosmetic products containing certain ingredients, including, but not limited to, chemicals like per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS):
This recent legislation breaks down as follows:
|
ENACTED legislation banning or limiting use of PFAS in cosmetics |
PROPOSED legislation banning or limiting use of PFAS in cosmetics |
ENACTED legislation banning or limiting use of certain ingredients other than PFAS in cosmetics |
PROPOSED legislation banning or limiting use of certain ingredients other than PFAS in cosmetics |
|
|
|
|
Still unclear as to what is in and what is out? Our team has prepared a List of Banned Ingredients by State—a summary of the ingredients banned or restricted in each state, which we will monitor and update on a routine basis.
[1] States that have such legislation on the books include: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
