The Hidden Ingredient Problem: PFAS Litigation and Regulation Are Reshaping the Beauty Industry

PFAS in cosmetics is quickly becoming one of the highest-stakes compliance issues in the beauty and personal care industry.

A growing wave of state bans alongside rising consumer class action litigation targeting brands for undisclosed PFAS in product formulations underscores the urgency of adapting to these evolving legal demands. Cosmetic manufacturers and distributors that fail to get ahead of these developments risk enforcement actions, litigation, and loss of market access across key states.

We summarize below what industry stakeholders need to know.

Consumer Litigation

In recent years, rising consumer and regulatory concern over PFAS in cosmetics has fueled class action lawsuits against major cosmetic and personal care companies. Plaintiffs generally allege in these lawsuits that companies failed to disclose the presence of PFAS in cosmetic products and assert claims for deceptive marketing, consumer protection, and fraud and seek relief for alleged economic harm.

Recent representative examples include the following:

• In a 2021 class action against a cosmetics manufacturer, the plaintiffs alleged that the company’s cosmetic products, which were marketed as “clean,” contained PFAS.^[1] The court dismissed the case for lack of standing, finding that plaintiffs failed to show that they purchased adulterated products or that PFAS was prevalent enough in the defendant’s product lines to make such a claim plausible.
• A 2022 class action against a cosmetics manufacturer alleged that waterproof mascaras contained detectable levels of PFAS that were not disclosed on product labels.^[2] The court dismissed the complaint for lack of standing because the plaintiffs alleged the presence of PFAS only “on information and belief” and lacked sufficient factual support showing that the individual products they purchased actually contained PFAS. In late 2023, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint that added allegations regarding testing the mascara products at issue. This time, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendant’s motion to dismiss. Specifically, the court found that the plaintiffs whose purchases were sufficiently close in time to the independent laboratory testing—which detected PFAS across all tubes tested in five product lines—adequately alleged standing. The court allowed the consumer protection and fraudulent concealment claims of these plaintiffs to proceed, though it dismissed their express warranty, implied warranty, and unjust enrichment claims. The court also dismissed the claims of those plaintiffs whose purchases were too temporally remote for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
• In 2022, another class action was filed against a cosmetics company for failing to disclose PFAS in its mascara products.^[3] The court dismissed this case because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that PFAS contamination was systemic or consistent across product lines. The plaintiffs’ claims relied only on limited third-party testing and lacked evidence that products actually purchased were affected.
• In 2023, a class action was filed against a personal care products company and its subsidiary, alleging that one of their mouthwash products contained undisclosed PFAS despite being marketed as “natural.”^[4] The court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiffs failed to establish standing: their claims rested solely on a commissioned third-party test but lacked information about how many units were tested or whether the bottles the plaintiffs personally purchased were among those tested. The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the mere risk of contamination constituted an injury-in-fact, noting that the plaintiffs could have alternatively pursued a systemic contamination theory but failed to do so.

These decisions illustrate that early PFAS cosmetics cases largely rejected plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs faced hurdles in establishing standing—courts dismissed claims grounded in general scientific studies or limited third-party testing that failed to link PFAS to the specific products plaintiffs purchased.

But the trend suggests that plaintiffs are learning from prior dismissals and refining their approach. Plaintiffs who commission more comprehensive independent laboratory testing—detecting PFAS across all units tested in multiple product lines—and whose purchases were sufficiently proximate in time to that testing may be permitted to advance certain consumer protection claims. In other words, the litigation playbook emerging from these cases means the risk of PFAS cosmetics class actions is growing.

State PFAS Bans and Restrictions

In the absence of federal PFAS disclosure requirements for cosmetic labels, numerous states are actively proposing and enacting legislation to ban PFAS in cosmetic and personal care products, creating a complex and fragmented compliance landscape for the cosmetics industry.

Since 2021, a number of states have been enacting legislation prohibiting the use of PFAS in cosmetic products. Largely, these laws address PFAS in consumer products (including cosmetics), as part of states’ broader efforts to mitigate PFAS exposure.

The following states have enacted or will soon implement bans or restrictions on PFAS in various categories of consumer products, including cosmetics:

Companies must closely track evolving state laws and adjust product formulations, labeling, and supply chain controls to align with applicable restrictions in affected markets. Additional states may also enact legislation banning or restricting PFAS in certain consumer products, further underscoring the need for robust regulatory monitoring.

Takeaways

 Cosmetic and personal care companies that take a reactive approach to PFAS compliance risk enforcement actions, costly litigation, and loss of market access across key states. Proactive reformulation, transparent labeling, and comprehensive regulatory monitoring are no longer optional—they are business-critical. 

• Keep Good Documentation. The lack of consistent federal regulation means companies face a fragmented legal landscape. Keeping thorough documentation of product ingredients, testing, and supply chain transparency is critical to defending against both litigation and regulatory actions.
• Compliance Risks Are Significant and Growing. The rapid expansion of state PFAS bans creates substantial compliance risks. Five states already have bans in effect (California, Colorado, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington), two more are implementing restrictions in 2026 (Connecticut and Vermont), and at least seven additional states have bans taking effect in 2027 or later. Companies must monitor new state laws, proactively adjust formulations and labeling, and coordinate compliance strategies across jurisdictions to avoid enforcement and product recalls. And companies that market their products nationwide must be prepared to comply with the most restrictive state regulations.
• Regulatory Tracking is Critical. With additional state bans still likely, companies should invest in robust regulatory tracking systems and consider preemptive reformulation or ingredient disclosure strategies to reduce future litigation and market access risks.
• Litigation Risk is Evolving. Plaintiffs are learning from prior dismissals of PFAS cosmetic cases. The viability of future class actions will depend on the rigor and representativeness of pre-litigation testing. Companies should expect increasingly sophisticated plaintiff strategies, particularly more comprehensive pre-suit testing programs.
• A State-Federal Gap Creates Dual Exposure. The absence of federal PFAS disclosure requirements complicates the litigation landscape, but the growing patchwork of state bans may increasingly provide plaintiffs with statutory hooks for consumer protection and deceptive marketing theories. This means companies face risk on two fronts: direct enforcement under state bans and private class action litigation leveraging those same state laws.