USA – CALIFORNIA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Eoghan Gallagher and Catherine Johnson, Environmental General Counsel
tory outcomes to date, reflecting both the depth of its analytical process and the resource constraints of a state-level agency. SB 502, enacted in 2022, is intended to streamline the petition process and allow more rapid regulatory response, but it remains to be seen whether these procedural changes will materially increase throughput or policy impact. California has also broadened its list of banned cosmetic ingredi- ents. Assembly Bill 496 (2023) expands California’s Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act to prohibit a substantially larger group of ingredients, including additional phtha- lates, formaldehyde-releasing preservatives, several PFAS compounds, boron-based substances, and certain colourants, effective 1 January 2025.Togeth- er, AB 2771, AB 496 and SB 682 demonstrate how California’s legislature is attempting to codify EU-style ingredient restrictions and advancing a precautionary, class-based approach to chemical regulation. Transparency and ingredient disclosure California has made transparency a unifying principle across its consumer product laws. Legislation such as the Cosmetic Fragrance and Flavor Ingredient Right to Know Act (2020) and the Cleaning Product Right to Know Act (2017) apply the same disclosure logic to different categories – requiring public reporting of intentionally added ingredients and specified allergens or hazardous substances, often using criteria drawn from EU and IFRA frameworks. Together, these laws have normalised ingredient vis- ibility as a baseline expectation for consumers and created a single compliance culture that spans cos- metics, home fragrance and household cleaning prod- ucts. For manufacturers, the practical outcome is the same: comprehensive ingredient databases, harmo- nised labelling systems, and public-facing transpar- ency portals designed to meet the most stringent disclosure obligations. At the federal level, the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act (MoCRA) establishes a national base- line for cosmetic safety and registration. Yet Califor- nia’s broader transparency and ingredient-restriction laws continue to set the higher operational standard, prompting companies to treat California compliance as the governing framework for product information
management and supplier documentation across all US markets. Litigation and Enforcement Trends These developments reflect a shift from reactive reg- ulation toward continuous chemical governance, as manufacturers face increasingly demanding obliga- tions to maintain auditable inventories, anticipate new PFAS and VOC restrictions, and align supply-chain documentation with DTSC and CARB oversight. While plaintiffs continue to rely on long-standing stat- utes, such as Proposition (“Prop”) 65 and the False Advertising Law (Business and Professions Code § 17500), their strategy is evolving. Rather than focusing primarily on alleging undisclosed chemical hazards, recent cases challenge marketing language that over- states product safety or environmental performance, such as “non-toxic”, “clean”, or “environmentally safe”, where trace levels of restricted substances or incomplete ingredient disclosures remain. This evolu- tion effectively extends traditional chemical-exposure law into the broader realm of sustainability and brand representation. By the same token, in 2025, the United States East- ern District of California issued its third injunction on the basis of a First Amendment challenge to a Prop 65 claim where the science underpinning the warn- ing requirement for specific Prop 65 chemicals is dis- puted. The Ninth Circuit has affirmed two of the ear- lier injunctions issued by the Eastern District. These defences are fact-specific rather than necessarily precedential for cases involving other chemicals but these cases could signal a possible change to the Prop 65 paradigm, which for decades favoured the plaintiff’s bar – a pivot foreshadowed by the EHA v Sream case, handled by Environmental General Coun- sel, affirming that only direct exposures were covered by Prop 65 ( EHA v Sream, Inc ., 83 Cal. App. 5th 721 (2022)). Outlook California’s consumer product and chemical manage- ment framework will remain the most comprehensive in the United States and a model for global conver- gence. The combination of legislative bans (AB 2771, AB 496, SB 682), regulatory authority expansion under
449 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook