Microplastics Update: Regulatory and Litigation Developments in 2025

Summary

Microplastics pollution has emerged as a significant issue as the public learns more about the presence of microplastics in the environment and how they may enter the human body.

In recent years, Congress has considered measures to address microplastics pollution, including a bill requiring the Food and Drug Administration to study the health effects of microplastics in food and water. But states and the plaintiffs’ bar have taken the most significant action to date. Several states are now considering laws to regulate, monitor, reduce, or entirely ban microplastics in certain products.

Further, state attorneys general and plaintiffs’ lawyers are suing product manufacturers, accusing them of making false or misleading statements regarding microplastics. Some courts have allowed microplastics-related claims to proceed past the motion-to-dismiss stage, while other courts have dismissed such claims.

This alert provides a summary of microplastics rules and legislation considered in several states in 2025, identifies recent microplastics-related litigation, and suggests key takeaways that product manufacturers should consider going forward.

State Legislation

California

In June 2025, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) proposed to add microplastics (both intentionally manufactured microplastics and those fragmented from larger plastics) to its Candidate Chemicals List, which would allow DTSC to identify consumer products—e.g., paints, electronics, or athletic equipment—containing or generating microplastics for future evaluation and possible regulation as Priority Products. A Priority Product is a consumer product that contains one or more Candidate Chemicals that have the potential to harm people or the environment and that has been formally listed in the California Code of Regulations through rulemaking.

DTSC stated in its announcement of the proposed rule that including microplastics on the Candidate Chemicals List does not itself impose regulations on products. Instead, it sets the stage for the Safer Consumer Products Program to propose later, through rulemaking, ways to require product manufacturers to assess the necessity of microplastics and to consider safer alternatives. The public comment period for the proposed rule ended in August 2025, and DTSC is now determining whether to finalize the rule.

Michigan

Michigan legislators are considering two bills that would create monitoring programs to better understand the sources of microplastics contamination within the state’s waters. 

The first bill would create a statewide microplastics research and monitoring plan. The plan, among other things, would research the health and economic impacts associated with microplastics in the state’s Great Lakes; develop methods for sampling, detecting, and characterizing microplastics in groundwater; create a list of baseline concentrations of microplastics in the Great Lakes; and recommend solutions to control microplastic pollution into the Great Lakes.

The second bill would create a separate statewide microplastics monitoring program for public drinking water. Michigan’s Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) would monitor and test public water supplies on a quarterly basis and provide a preliminary risk assessment to study the effects of microplastics in drinking water. At the end of the monitoring period, EGLE would submit a report to the legislature that summarizes the results, including the quarterly test findings, the identification of potential microplastics sources, and the quantity of microplastics in the state’s public water supply. The report would also recommend next steps for addressing microplastics pollution, including establishing toxicity limits for microplastics in the water supply.

Illinois

In 2025, Illinois lawmakers considered several microplastics-related bills, including proposed legislation to reduce microfiber pollution from washing machines. Under the proposed law, all new washing machines sold in the state would need to be equipped with a microfiber filtration system that contains a mesh size no greater than 100 micrometers and bears a conspicuous label (e.g., a sticker) that is visible to the consumer and explains the importance of proper lint disposal. The bill would also establish civil penalties for non-compliance—up to $10,000 for a first violation and up to $30,000 for subsequent violations. Although the General Assembly did not pass the legislation this year, lawmakers will likely introduce it again in next year’s session.

Rhode Island 

In 2025, Rhode Island representatives considered legislation that would ban manufacturers from intentionally adding microplastics to products like fertilizers, cosmetics, and paints. It would mandate the state’s environmental and health agencies to develop a comprehensive bi-annual microplastics strategy plan that would characterize microplastics concentrations in the environment, investigate the sources of microplastics pollution in the state’s waters, and summarize existing scientific research for best practices for reducing microplastics pollution. Similar to Illinois, the legislature did not pass the bill this year, but lawmakers will likely introduce it again next year.

Litigation

In recent years, citizens, state attorneys general, and non-governmental organizations have filed a number of microplastics-related lawsuits, relying on state consumer-protection statutes and common law theories (e.g., fraud) to target product manufacturers for their prior statements about the environmental safety of their products.

In 2025, courts reached decisions at the motion-to-dismiss stage in some cases. For example, in a California federal district court, plaintiffs sued a baby-bottle manufacturer under several California consumer-protection statutes, alleging that the defendant’s description of its baby bottles as “BPA Free” was an affirmative misrepresentation because the bottles leached microplastics; and the defendant’s failure to disclose that the products leached microplastics was a material omission that constituted an unreasonable safety hazard.

The court dismissed the claims based on the affirmative misrepresentation theory because the statement “BPA Free” cannot be extrapolated to imply that the bottles were devoid of all harmful plastic byproducts. Thus, plaintiffs had not identified a misleading representation as the basis for their claims. But the court allowed the claims to proceed on a material omission theory because the plaintiffs pled enough evidence—e.g., studies showing that plastic feeding bottles leach microplastics at high levels—to allege a plausible connection between the amount of microplastics leached from the bottles and certain developmental delays in infants.

In another case, a clothing manufacturer successfully convinced a Florida federal district court to dismiss plaintiffs’ allegations that the company made false and misleading environmental claims (e.g., the company stated its commitment to making products safe for the environment). The court found that plaintiffs’ allegations were blanket assertions that failed to tie any aspect of the company’s statements to the alleged price premium paid by plaintiffs.

In 2025, plaintiffs, including state attorneys general and environmental organizations, have continued filing complaints against product manufacturers for allegedly making false and deceptive marketing claims about their products (e.g., regarding the use of terms like “plastic-free”), and against energy companies and chemical manufacturers for allegedly negligent misrepresentations about the recyclability of their plastics.

Key Takeaways

Going forward, manufacturers should do the following:

Follow the development of state microplastics laws: As shown above, a number of states are considering various ways to regulate microplastics pollution. But differing regulations across states would create a complex regulatory landscape, requiring businesses to conduct thorough reviews of their supply chains to ensure compliance and avoid enforcement or litigation risks.

Carefully label your products: Plaintiffs will continue filing greenwashing and consumer protection litigation. As a result, manufacturers should continue being prudent about labeling their products, avoiding broad or unverifiable claims that could attract legal scrutiny from the plaintiffs’ bar.

Track scientific developments to evaluate litigation risks: As states, like Michigan, consider conducting research to better understand microplastics’ human health impacts, the scientific community will continue investigating this issue. If future research establishes a causal link, plaintiffs will likely bring personal-injury claims, significantly increasing litigation risks for plastics manufacturers and users. Thus, manufacturers should follow the scientific research in this area.

Monitor federal action regarding microplastics:  Industry should follow the federal government’s upcoming announcements on microplastics. For instance, in June 2025, EPA announced that it is reviewing a petition from environmental groups to include microplastics in its five-year mandatory review of the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR), which gathers data on suspected contaminants in drinking water. If EPA adds microplastics to the UCMR (UCMR 6), it will trigger mandatory monitoring of microplastic levels in public water systems and pave the way for potential federal regulations and litigation. EPA is expected to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for UCMR 6 by early 2026.