PFAS Reporting Gets Real in 2026

State regulation of PFAS-containing products will ramp up significantly in 2026. Most notably, companies will have to comply with Minnesota’s sweeping new product-reporting requirements.  As we explain below, Minnesota’s requirements cast a wide net, capturing companies that may not sell products directly into the state. This and other features of the state’s reporting program are likely to present significant compliance challenges for a wide range of businesses.

Minnesota’s Newly Enacted Reporting Regulations

In December 2025, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) issued final regulations implementing the state’s precedent-setting reporting requirements for products made with PFAS. The regulations mandate reporting by any “manufacturer” of a product containing intentionally added PFAS that is sold, offered for sale, or distributed in the state. For purposes of the regulations, the term “manufacturer” includes not only the entity that produces a product, but also an entity whose brand name appears on the product and, in some instances, the importer of a product (if the producer or brand owner is not located in the U.S.). Importantly, no product categories are exempt from the reporting requirement (so, for example, drugs and medical devices, as well as other products regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, must be reported under the rule). There are also no exemptions for products with de minimis levels of PFAS content.

Under the regulations, covered manufacturers must provide detailed information regarding the PFAS substances contained in their products, including information on chemical identity, concentration, and the function of the PFAS in the product. All reports must be completed by July 1, 2026. 

At around the same time that the final regulations were issued, MPCA conducted a limited release of its internet-based, PFAS reporting tool for beta testing. According to the agency, final rollout of the reporting tool, called PRISM (“PFAS Reporting and Information System for Manufacturers”) is expected to occur sometime in January.

Compliance Challenges

Several aspects of the Minnesota regulations virtually guarantee that businesses will face significant challenges in complying with the reporting requirements. Examples include the following:

• Under the regulations, the obligation for reporting falls on the “manufacturer” of a product sold, offered for sale, or distributed in Minnesota, without regard to whether the manufacturer has knowledge of the product being sold or distributed in the state.  Because products may find their way into any given state through multiple and diverse distribution networks, there are likely to be numerous manufacturers that are not aware that their products are being sold or distributed in Minnesota and, therefore, whether the manufacturer has a reporting obligation.
• Another challenging aspect of the Minnesota reporting requirement is that it applies not just to products that are sold or offered for sale in Minnesota, but also to products that are “distributed” in the state. MPCA has made clear that, in its view, a product that is brought to a warehouse in Minnesota is “distributed” in Minnesota even if the product is subsequently removed from the warehouse and transported and sold to a customer outside the state (e.g., in Wisconsin or Illinois). So, to ensure compliance, businesses will not only need to know if their products (including components) are being sold or offered for sale in Minnesota, they will also need to understand whether the logistics for those products includes warehousing or other “distribution” in Minnesota.
• Further complicating compliance, MPCA has warned that products with intentionally added PFAS that are on the shelves in Minnesota as of July 1, 2026, must be included in a manufacturer’s report. This, coupled with MPCA’s position that manufacturers are responsible for reporting on products distributed by independent third parties, will pose a significant hurdle for companies that have less than perfect visibility into their distribution networks.  
• Finally, because supply chains are often global and multi-tiered, manufacturers of complex articles may have limited visibility into whether a particular component or subassembly used in their finished product contains a part made with PFAS. To facilitate reporting for products (and product components) with complex supply chains, MPCA has included in its regulations a process whereby multiple manufacturers in a supply chain can enter into an agreement to submit what is essentially a combined report covering multiple PFAS containing components in a product sold in the state. However, given the practical difficulties inherent in identifying all relevant manufacturers in a complex supply chain and getting those manufacturers to sign an agreement for joint information submission, it is unclear whether this option for combined reporting will realistically facilitate reporting for products with complex supply chains.

Act Now

As illustrated above, manufacturers, importers, and brand owners will face difficult challenges as they seek to understand and comply with their obligations under Minnesota’s PFAS reporting regulations. In addition to determining the PFAS content of their products, businesses will need to evaluate their distribution networks and assess their supply chains to understand what reporting will be required, and how best to comply with any reporting obligations. As we have noted in prior client alerts (here, here, and here), companies should also consider the interplay between federal and state PFAS reporting requirements to avoid duplicative efforts when gathering and analyzing product and supply-chain information and ensure compliance at all levels with the minimum amount of effort.

Crowell has been following the Minnesota (and other state and federal) PFAS regulations closely and can respond quickly to assist clients in efficiently complying with the state’s reporting program.