pfas – Fashion, Retail and Consumer Branded Products

December 18, 2023 by Kelly A. Bonner

U.S. House Reps Reintroduce Federal Bill Banning Intentionally Added PFAS in Cosmetics

On November 30, 23, U.S. Representatives Debbie Dingell (D-MI), Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) and Annie Kuster (D-NH) reintroduced H.R. 6519–the “No PFAS in Cosmetics Act“–which would require the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ban use of “intentionally added per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances” (PFAS) in cosmetics.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, PFAS are a group of long lasting manufactured chemicals that have been widely used in industry and consumer products since the 1940s because of their useful properties. There are thousands of different PFAS, some of which have been more widely used and studied than others.

The “No PFAS in Cosmetics Act,” which was previously introduced in Congress in June 2021, and referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on November 30, 2023, would amend the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) to require FDA to prohibit intentionally added PFAS in cosmetics within 270 days of the bill’s enactment.

Notably, the bill does not define PFAS beyond “intentionally added” perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances. Nor does the bill differentiate which chemicals in the PFAS group–for example, Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS), two of the most widely used and studied chemicals in the PFAS group–should be banned.

Last year’s Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act (MOCRA) requires FDA to publish a report within three years (i.e., by end of year 2025) assessing the use of PFAS in cosmetics and their safety, signaling the possibility of further legislation or regulation, if warranted. Senate appropriators also have directed FDA “to develop a plan outlining research needed to inform regulatory decision-making, including potential development of a proposed rule to ban intentionally added PFAS substances in cosmetics.”

The proposed bill reflects the growing number of state legislatures that have enacted or are considering legislation banning the intentional use of PFAS in cosmetics, as well as other consumer products such as children’s products, menstrual products, cleaning ingredients, dental floss, and textiles. For example:

In 2021, Maine became the first state to require manufacturers of products with intentionally added PFAS to report to the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) documenting the purpose and amount of each PFAS compound used. The law aims to phase out the use of PFAS in cosmetics, among other new consumer products, by 2030.
Starting on January 1, 2025, California and Maryland will prohibit the manufacturing, sale, or delivery of cosmetic products containing certain intentionally added PFAS in cosmetics, including PFOA and PFOS, unless they contain technically unavoidable trace quantities of the substances stemming from impurities of natural or synthetic ingredients.
Starting January 1, 2025, Minnesota and Colorado will prohibit the sale or distribution of cosmetics (among other consumer products) that contain intentionally added PFAS.
Beginning January 1, 2025, Washington State will prohibit the manufacturing, knowing sale, or distribution of cosmetic products containing PFAS, defined as “a class of fluorinated organic chemicals containing at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom.”
Oregon’s Toxic Free Cosmetics Act, which bans the sale or distribution of cosmetics that contain intentionally added PFAS (among other chemicals) is scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2027.

New York, which last year banned the use of intentionally added PFAS in apparel, effective January 1, 2025, is considering several bills that would prohibit the sale or distribution of cosmetics (among other consumer products) that contain intentionally added PFAS.

October 25, 2023 by Duane Morris

What’s Driving Beauty Brands to Shutter in 2023?

Duane Morris partners Robert Kum and Cyndie Chang are quoted in the Glossy article “The unseen legal turmoil driving beauty brands to shutter in 2023.”

Despite positive projections about the future of the beauty industry, insiders say brands of all sizes are quietly grappling with unseen legal struggles.

[Founders] blamed, in large part, the California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, better known as Prop 65.

Continue reading “What’s Driving Beauty Brands to Shutter in 2023?”

October 24, 2023 by Kelly A. Bonner

New York Federal Court Dismisses Putative Class Action Suit Alleging Deceptive Marketing Of PFAS-Containing Mascaras

On September 30, 2023, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a putative class action in which plaintiffs claimed they would not have purchased or paid a premium price for certain waterproof mascaras had they known of the presence of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”).

In a 22-page opinion, the court held that plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege that the mascaras they individually purchased actually contained PFAS, or that there was a material risk that they did; thus, plaintiffs could not establish an actual injury.

The court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims under Sections 349-50 of New York’s General Business Law, as well as a host of other state consumer protection laws, and common law claims for unjust enrichment, breach of express and implied warrant, and fraudulent concealment.

Notably, the court rejected plaintiffs’ attempts to establish actual injury by relying on a 2021 study conducted by researchers at the University of Notre Dame, which screened 231 cosmetic products, including lip products, eye products, foundations, face products, mascaras, concealers, and eyebrow products, for their total fluorine levels to identify the possible presence of PFAS, as well as specially commissioned third party analysis of the waterproof mascaras purchased by plaintiffs.

The court concluded that the mascaras purchased by plaintiffs weren’t analyzed in the Notre Dame Study; moreover, the court identified “glaring shortcomings” with plaintiff’s’ third party analysis, noting that the study “does not allege, for instance, how many products were tested … whether all those tested products revealed the presence of PFAS, and if not, what percentage of the products had PFAS.”

Although plaintiffs are seeking to amend their complaint to revive their claims, the takeaway here is, following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190, 2207 (2021), absent an actual injury, plaintiffs will not have standing to pursue class action claims.

It’s important to note that hovering in the background of cosmetics-related PFAS litigation is the recent Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act (“MoCRA”), which overhauled federal regulation of cosmetics in the United States. Among its many new rulemaking requirements, MoCRA requires FDA to publish a report no later than 2025 assessing the use of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in cosmetics and safety risks associated with such use. It remains to be seen what effect FDA’s report will have on putative PFAS class actions in the beauty and wellness space, and what, if any, defenses cosmetics companies can assert based on FDA’s analysis.

The case is Zaida Hicks, et al. v. L’Oréal USA Inc., No. 22-1989, (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2023).