Navigating California’s Evolving Microplastics Landscape in 2026

As microplastics begin making headlines and sparking scientific inquiry into the impacts of these pervasive particles, state legislators, regulators, and law enforcers—as well as private plaintiffs’ counsel—are taking action. In California, a bipartisan coalition of legislators passed AB 823, expanding the scope of an existing state ban on products containing plastic microbeads. Governor Newsom vetoed the bill, citing concerns that the ban would inadvertently slow the adoption of non-plastic alternatives.

In parallel, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) continues to move forward in a process to designate microplastics a Candidate Chemical (as defined by DTSC), and is currently seeking information regarding consumer products that contain or generate microplastics.

Meanwhile, private plaintiffs have brought class actions against major consumer product companies alleging various “false claims” that products are “natural,” “recyclable,” or “free of artificial ingredients” when they allegedly contain plastics. At least one such case is proceeding to discovery, and the results of these early cases will set the tone for future private actions.

This alert provides a detailed update about California-specific legislation, regulation, and litigation regarding microplastics, following up on our recent publication surveying this issue from a national perspective.

Legislation

Near the close of the most recent legislative session, Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed California Assembly Bill 823. In his veto message, Governor Newsom voiced support for “efforts to protect California’s waterways, ecosystems, and public health from the real and significant harms caused by the prevalence of microplastics.”  However, he criticized the bill for banning specific ingredients, including glitter, which may “incidentally result in a prohibition on biodegradable or natural alternatives.”

AB 823, the Protecting Californians from Toxic Microplastics Act, was originally introduced by Assemblymember Tasha Boerner. The bill would have expanded California’s existing ban on intentionally added plastic microbeads to cover leave-on cosmetics and cleaning products. Beginning January 1, 2029, AB 823 would have banned the sale of non-rinse off personal care products and cleaning products containing plastic microbeads used as an abrasive to clean, exfoliate, or polish. The bill would have also banned plastic glitter in cosmetics and personal care products beginning January 1, 2030. The bill was coauthored by Senator Lena Gonzalez and received unanimous bipartisan support in the California Senate.

After Governor Newsom’s veto, sponsors of the bill voiced their disappointment and emphasized that the bill was intended to phase out a specific class of persistent synthetic microplastics and push companies to use other alternatives, including biodegradable or natural materials. They have not yet indicated whether they will introduce similar legislation in the upcoming session.

Regulatory Action

In June 2025, DTSC proposed to add microplastics to its Candidate Chemicals List for possible regulation under the state’s Safer Consumer Products program. The public comment period for the proposed rule ended in August 2025. In November 2025, DTSC released a background document summarizing its preliminary findings on the potential for exposure and adverse impacts of microplastics in consumer products.

DTSC presented its preliminary research and invited public engagement at a workshop held on December 11, 2025. DTSC has requested information about consumer products that contain or generate microplastics, including artificial turf infill, children’s toys that contain primary microplastics, cleaning products, food contact articles, plastic film mulch, single-use cigarette filters, and water-based interior wall paints. The comment period is open until January 30, 2026, and comments can be submitted here. Members of the public have proposed adding artificial turf blades and plastic tea bags to DTSC’s background document.

Litigation

In recent years, citizens, state attorneys general, and non-governmental organizations have brought a growing number of microplastics-related lawsuits. In California, these have primarily been private class actions alleging false advertising, unfair competition, or breach of consumer warranty.

Several recent class actions in California illustrate typical allegations relating to microplastics and demonstrate a willingness by both federal and state courts to entertain these claims:

• Wysocki v. Chobani LLC (S.D. Cal.): Plaintiffs allege that defendant marketed its yogurt as containing “only natural ingredients” despite allegedly containing multiple plastic chemicals. The court took defendants’ motion to dismiss under submission on August 20, 2025, and has yet to issue a ruling.
• Totten v. Boba Guys (N.D. Cal.): Plaintiffs allege that defendant promoted its products as being “free of artificial ingredients” despite their allegedly containing high levels of plastic chemicals. Defendants answered on May 9, 2025, and on July 16, 2025, the court granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses. The court granted the parties’ stipulation for a protective order on September 23, 2025, indicating that the case is moving into discovery.
• McCullough v. Taco Bell Corporation (Riverside County Superior Court): Plaintiffs allege that defendant falsely advertised their packaging and labeling as being “recyclable.” Plaintiffs amended their complaint on February 3, 2025, and the court heard defendant’s demurer and Motion to Strike Class Allegations on May 27, 2025. The court denied both, and on August 18, defendant answered plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint. There are no substantive updates on this docket since that time.

Crowell has been closely monitoring updates to microplastics rules and legislation on both the federal and state levels and we will continue to provide updates as this area of law develops.