May 18, 2026|Product Liability Insider
By: Anne Marie Ellis, May 18, 2026
If you sell textiles, apparel, or cosmetics into the U.S. market, PFAS is no longer just a compliance issue—it is a litigation issue. In 2026, we are seeing a significant spike in plaintiff demand letters targeting products based on alleged PFAS content, and the statutory hooks are multiplying fast.
California Is Ground Zero
California’s Health & Safety Code § 108970 is driving most of the action. The statute prohibits the sale of new textile and apparel articles (including apparel for severe wet conditions) containing regulated PFAS—defined as intentionally added PFAS or PFAS detected above 100 ppm (dropping to 50 ppm in 2027) measured as total organic fluorine. Critically, this is not limited to apparel. It covers accessories, handbags, upholstery, outdoor gear, and any fabric-based consumer product. It also requires a certificate of compliance for downstream sellers.
What we are seeing in 2026 demand letters:
- Testing-driven allegations — Plaintiffs rely on TOF screening to assert PFAS presence
- Component-level targeting — Focus on coatings, laminates, and finishes where PFAS functionality sits
- Stacked theories — Section 108970 paired with consumer protection such as Business and Professions Code Section 17200 and greenwashing claims
Separately, AB 2771 (the PFAS-Free Cosmetics Act) prohibits the sale of any cosmetic product containing intentionally added PFAS—effective January 1, 2025. The definition is broad: makeup, skincare, hair care, deodorants, sunscreens, and personal care products. Prop 65 enforcement is now layering on top of it, with packaging-related exposure theories creating additional obligations even where the formulation itself is clean.
The State Patchwork Is Expanding Fast
California and New York get the headlines, but the exposure is national. As of mid-2026, at least 18 states have enacted class-based PFAS restrictions on consumer products, with nearly 100 new bills introduced in 2026 alone.
Textiles and apparel — States with active or imminent restrictions include Colorado, Maine, Vermont, Connecticut, Minnesota, Rhode Island, Washington, and Illinois. Scopes vary widely: California covers all textile articles; New York is limited to apparel; Maine and Vermont are broad but exclude certain outdoor and vehicle-related textiles. Phase-in dates range from 2025 through 2032.
Cosmetics — At least 10 states now restrict PFAS in cosmetics or personal care products, including California, Colorado, Maryland, Minnesota, Maine, Vermont, Oregon, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New Jersey, with effective dates spanning 2025 through 2028.
The definitions, thresholds, and documentation requirements differ in every state. A company selling nationally cannot treat California compliance as a proxy for the rest.
What to Do Now
- Map your product lines against each state’s definitions. “Textile articles” does not mean the same thing everywhere.
- Get your certifications in order. Under Section 108970, the inability to produce a defensible certificate could be a claim.
- Audit coatings and treatments first. That is where most allegations are landing.
- Expect demand letters, not just regulatory inquiries. Section 108970 is firmly in the plaintiff playbook.
- Plan for multi-state, multi-product exposure. The patchwork is growing, not shrinking—Maine is heading toward an all-products PFAS ban by 2032.
Bottom Line
PFAS compliance for textiles and cosmetics is no longer a California-only problem—it is a multi-state litigation risk that turns on testing, documentation, and supply chain control. The companies best positioned in 2026 are those treating PFAS as an enterprise-wide risk across product categories and state lines, not a single-statute checkbox.
This communication is not intended to create or constitute, nor does it create or constitute, an attorney-client or any other legal relationship. No statement in this communication constitutes legal advice nor should any communication herein be construed, relied upon, or interpreted as legal advice. This communication is for general information purposes only regarding recent legal developments of interest, and is not a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter. No reader should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information included herein without seeking appropriate legal advice on the particular facts and circumstances affecting that reader. For more information, visit www.buchalter.com.
