Over the last several weeks we have seen a number of state legislatures pass fairly aggressive regulations attempting to ban the use of intentionally added PFAS in certain products, create registries for products with intentionally added PFAS, and introducing new compliance and enforcement activity regarding PFAS.

California

• The California State Assembly recently passed AB-1817, which, if enacted, would prohibit the manufacture, distribution, or sale of textiles that contain intentionally added PFAS at levels exceeding 300 ppb starting in 2025. The bill also requires manufacturers to use the “least toxic alternative” to replace PFAS and include a certificate of compliance.
• The California State Assembly also recently passed AB-2247, which, if enacted, would require all manufacturers, importers, and distributors of products within California containing intentionally added PFAS to register the product on a publicly accessible reporting platform established by Department of Toxic Substances Control and Interstate Chemicals Clearinghouse beginning in 2025. The required disclosure must include the type of product, universal product code, a description of how the PFAS was added, and the names of any PFAS intentionally added.

Colorado

• Colorado’s General Assembly approved HB22-1345 banning several categories of products containing intentionally added PFAS starting in 2024. These categories include, but are not limited to, oil and gas products, cosmetics, and food packaging. The bill provides several additional requirements for cookware manufacturers, requiring any cookware that includes intentionally added PFAS to list the PFAS chemicals on the product label along with a statement directing the consumer to a website that explains the purpose of why those chemicals were added to the product. The bill currently awaits Governor Jared Polis’ signature.

North Carolina

• Proposed North Carolina House bill H.B. 1095 would allow the Department of Environmental Quality to declare manufacturers responsible for contaminating water with PFAS and require those manufacturers to pay for upgrades to water treatment facilities. If the party declared responsible by North Carolina’s Department of Environmental Quality does not comply with the agency’s order, the Secretary may commence an action in the superior court to be tried within 60 days.