Prop 65 and US state cosmetic ingredient bans: what skincare brands must know

Why state laws apply on top of FDA

The Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 (MoCRA) gave FDA new powers over cosmetics: facility registration, product listing, safety substantiation, adverse event reporting and recalls. It also stopped states from adding their own rules in exactly those areas. It did not stop them from banning ingredients. The preemption section of the law says nothing in it prevents a state "from prohibiting the use or limiting the amount of an ingredient in a cosmetic product," and it keeps state ingredient reporting laws that existed when MoCRA passed. It also leaves state product liability law untouched.

Proposition 65 sits outside federal labeling preemption for a different reason: the FD&C Act exempts state requirements adopted by a public initiative before September 1, 1997, and Prop 65 was a 1986 ballot initiative. So a brand selling skincare across the US follows three layers:

• Federal: FDA cosmetic rules, MoCRA listing and labeling (see MoCRA compliance and label requirements by country).
• California: Prop 65 warnings plus the strictest set of state ingredient bans.
• Other states: PFAS bans, Washington's and Vermont's chemical lists, New York's 1,4-dioxane limits, cruelty-free sale bans and Hawaii's sunscreen filter ban.

Selling online does not get you out of it. These laws apply to products sold or delivered into the state, so a Shopify store or an Amazon listing that ships to California is covered.

California Proposition 65

Proposition 65, the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, requires a "clear and reasonable" warning before a business knowingly exposes someone in California to a chemical on the state's list of chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive harm. The list is kept by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and updated through the year; the latest edition is dated July 31, 2026. Prop 65 does not ban anything. It requires a warning unless the exposure is below the level that needs one.

1. Check whether it applies to you

   Prop 65 applies to businesses with 10 or more employees, counting full-time and part-time staff. OEHHA notes that a smaller company can still carry Prop 65 duties through contracts and indemnity clauses with its retailers, and Amazon and big retailers usually pass the duty to the brand in their supplier terms.

2. Find listed chemicals that could be in the product

   Ask your manufacturer for the full ingredient list and check each ingredient, and its known impurities, against the current OEHHA list. In skincare the usual suspects are contaminants and impurities, not the ingredients you chose on purpose (see the list below).

3. Decide: reformulate, test or warn

   A warning is not required if the exposure is below the "no significant risk level" for a carcinogen or 1/1,000 of the "no observable effect level" for a reproductive toxicant. Many brands test the finished product for lead or 1,4-dioxane and keep the reports. Others reformulate to remove the source. A warning is the fallback, but it does not look good on a premium serum.

4. Give the warning by a safe harbor method

   OEHHA's "safe harbor" rules spell out wording and placement that are deemed clear and reasonable. You can use other wording, but then you must defend it in court. Most brands use safe harbor wording.

5. Pass it to every seller, including online

   The manufacturer, importer or distributor must either put the warning on the label or send written notice and warning materials to the retailer's authorized agent and get an acknowledgment. Online sales need the warning on the product page, a clearly marked "WARNING" link, or another prominent display before the purchase is completed.

Listed chemicals that come up in skincare (all on the July 31, 2026 OEHHA list):

• 1,4-Dioxane (cancer): a byproduct of ethoxylation, so it can travel in with PEG ingredients, polysorbates, "-eth" emulsifiers and sodium laureth sulfate.
• Lead and lead compounds (cancer and reproductive harm): a trace contaminant in some minerals, clays, pigments and plant extracts.
• Formaldehyde (gas) (cancer): released by some preservatives.
• Coconut oil diethanolamine condensate (cocamide DEA) and diethanolamine (cancer, listed in 2012): foam boosters in older cleanser formulas.
• Titanium dioxide (airborne, unbound particles of respirable size) (cancer): the listing covers breathable dust, so it matters for loose powders, not for a cream where the particles are bound.
• Benzophenone, methyleugenol, beta-myrcene and pulegone (cancer): possible in fragrance materials and some essential oils.
• Benzene (cancer and reproductive harm): found as a contaminant in some aerosol sprays, so it matters for spray products.

Enforcement is the real risk. The Attorney General, district attorneys and private parties acting "in the public interest" can sue after sending a 60-day notice, and OEHHA states that penalties can reach $2,500 per violation per day. A retailer that only learns of an exposure from a 60-day notice has five business days to fix it by adding a warning or pulling the product, which is why retailers move fast and push the cost back to the brand.

How to write a Prop 65 warning

The safe harbor warning has three parts: the yellow triangle symbol with an exclamation point, a signal word, and the message. New rules took effect on January 1, 2025 and changed the short-form label warning.

OEHHA's own FAQ is clear on the transition: products manufactured and labeled before January 1, 2028 can use the old or the new short form with safe harbor protection; from January 1, 2028 only the new short form qualifies. When a brand changes its short-form warning and tells an online retailer, the retailer has up to 60 calendar days to update the product page. The warning can be on the immediate container or its wrapper, and it can run over two or three lines as long as the symbol sits to the left of the text.

California's Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act

The Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act (AB 2762, 2020), expanded by AB 496 (2023), is codified in Health and Safety Code section 108980. It bans manufacturing, selling, delivering, holding or offering for sale any cosmetic with these intentionally added ingredients.

Three details matter for a skincare brand:

• Trace exception. A "technically unavoidable trace quantity" that comes from impurities, the manufacturing process, storage or migration from packaging does not break the law, as long as the product was made through a process intended to comply.
• Boron is the surprise in 2027. Sodium borate and borax are still used as emulsifier helpers in some creams and cold creams, and boric acid appears in some older formulas. Check every formula for borates before 2027. (Vaginal suppositories with boric acid have a separate label rule and a later 2035 deadline.)
• D4 and lily aldehyde. Cyclotetrasiloxane can appear as an impurity in other silicones, so ask the silicone supplier for its D4 level; the trace exception covers impurities. Lily aldehyde is already banned in the EU, so formulas built for both markets usually avoid it.

California PFAS, fragrance and reporting laws

• PFAS-Free Cosmetics Act (AB 2771, 2022). From January 1, 2025, no cosmetic may contain intentionally added PFAS, defined as fluorinated organic chemicals with at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom. "Intentionally added" means the PFAS has a functional or technical effect in the product, or is an intentional breakdown product of an added chemical. In skincare this means ingredients such as PTFE, polyperfluoromethylisopropyl ether, perfluorodecalin, perfluorohexane and fluoroalcohol phosphates are out.
• Cosmetic Fragrance and Flavor Ingredient Right to Know Act (SB 312, 2020). Since January 1, 2022 the company named on the label must report to the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) each fragrance or flavor ingredient that is on one of the "designated lists" (Prop 65, EU CMR and endocrine lists, and others) and each EU Annex III fragrance allergen present at 0.01% or more in a rinse-off product or 0.001% or more in a leave-on product. The amounts and formula stay confidential, but the names appear in CDPH's public database. CDPH's eligibility criteria for this law list no sales threshold.
• California Safe Cosmetics Act (2005). A company with USD 1 million or more in annual worldwide cosmetic sales must report to CDPH's Safe Cosmetics Program every product sold in California that contains an ingredient listed as causing cancer or reproductive harm.

For fragrance, ask your fragrance supplier for a full allergen declaration and a statement on listed chemicals before you launch; you will need both for SB 312, for the EU allergen labeling rules and for Prop 65.

PFAS bans in other states

PFAS bans spread fastest. As of October 2026 these state laws cover cosmetics with intentionally added PFAS:

• Colorado (HB22-1345): no sale or distribution from January 1, 2025.
• Minnesota (Amara's Law, Minn. Stat. 116.943): no sale, offer for sale or distribution from January 1, 2025. Minnesota also runs a PFAS product reporting system; the first reports were due September 15, 2026 after an extension, so a brand still selling any product with PFAS there should check its reporting duty.
• Washington (Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act): from January 1, 2025, with a sell-through for in-state retailers until January 1, 2026.
• Maine (38 M.R.S. 1614): no sale from January 1, 2026.
• Vermont (9 V.S.A. 2494b): no manufacture or sale from January 1, 2026, with a trace exception like California's.
• Connecticut (Public Act 24-59): from July 1, 2026 a cosmetic with intentionally added PFAS needs a PFAS label and prior written notice to the state environment department; from January 1, 2028 it is banned.
• More on the way: law firm summaries report bans in Rhode Island from 2027, New Mexico from 2028 and Illinois from 2032, with New Hampshire, New Jersey and Oregon also moving. Check the statute in each before you rely on a date.

FDA itself has not banned PFAS in cosmetics. MoCRA required a report, and FDA published its Report on the Use of PFAS in Cosmetic Products and Associated Risks on December 29, 2025. Expect more state action rather than less.

Washington, Vermont, New York and Maryland

Washington Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act (RCW 70A.560). From January 1, 2025 no one may manufacture, knowingly sell or distribute a cosmetic with intentionally added ortho-phthalates (the whole class, including diethyl phthalate, which still turns up in fragrance), PFAS, formaldehyde, methylene glycol, mercury, triclosan, m-phenylenediamine or o-phenylenediamine, or with lead at 1 ppm or more. The Department of Ecology then adopted a rule (chapter 173-339 WAC, August 2025) that restricts 25 formaldehyde-releasing preservatives from January 1, 2027, among them DMDM hydantoin, diazolidinyl urea, imidazolidinyl urea, quaternium-15, bronopol (2-bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol) and sodium hydroxymethylglycinate. Penalties run up to $5,000 per violation, $10,000 for repeat offenses.

Vermont (Act 131, 2024). From January 1, 2026 manufacturers may not sell cosmetics or menstrual products with any of 14 intentionally added chemicals: ortho-phthalates, PFAS, formaldehyde, methylene glycol, mercury and its compounds, 1,4-dioxane, isopropylparaben, isobutylparaben, lead and its compounds, asbestos, triclosan, m- and o-phenylenediamine and quaternium-15. On top of that, any product with 1,4-dioxane at 10 ppm or more is banned outright, even if no one added it.

New York 1,4-dioxane limits. Under Environmental Conservation Law sections 35-0105 and 37-0117, cosmetics may contain no more than 10 ppm of 1,4-dioxane (since December 31, 2022). "Personal care products," which New York defines as products for cleansing the body, such as shampoo, conditioner, soap and bath gels, are limited to 1 ppm since December 31, 2023. The temporary waivers ended on December 30, 2025, so every product must meet the limits now. For a skincare line this mostly hits cleansers and body washes built on ethoxylated surfactants.

Maryland. Maryland's law (Health-General 21-259.2) bans the same list as California's 2025 list: the 11 named ingredients plus the 13 named PFAS, with the same trace exception.

State-by-state table

Not every state law is listed here; states pass new cosmetics laws every session. Before a launch, ask a US regulatory lawyer or your retailer's compliance team for their current restricted substance list.

State cruelty-free laws

California's Cruelty-Free Cosmetics Act (Civil Code 1834.9.5) makes it unlawful for a manufacturer to import for profit, sell or offer for sale in California a cosmetic developed or manufactured using an animal test conducted or contracted by the manufacturer or its suppliers on or after January 1, 2020. "Manufacturer" means the company named on the label, so that is the brand. There are exceptions, for example a test required by a foreign regulator where no evidence from it was used to support safety in California. Fines are $5,000 plus $1,000 for each day the violation continues.

According to the Humane Society of the United States, 12 states had similar sale bans by 2025: California, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Virginia and Washington. The details differ, so check the statute in each state you sell in.

For a Korean-made product this is usually simple: Korea has banned animal testing of cosmetics since 2017, with narrow exceptions, and the EU and UK ban it too. Keep supplier statements that no ingredient was tested on animals for cosmetic purposes after the cut-off date. A certified "cruelty-free" logo is a separate, voluntary step: see vegan and cruelty-free certification and vegan, cruelty-free and halal claims.

Sunscreen filter bans

Hawaii has banned the sale of sunscreens containing oxybenzone or octinoxate without a prescription since January 1, 2021, to protect coral reefs, and bills to add more filters have been introduced since, so check the current statute. US sunscreens are over-the-counter drugs, so state law adds to an already strict federal rulebook. "Reef safe" is not a defined term in federal law: if you use it, you need evidence for it under FTC rules, and it does not replace the Hawaii check. The full sunscreen picture is in sunscreen regulation and SPF testing, and claim wording is in what you can claim.

One formula for every state

Running a California version, a Washington version and a version for everyone else costs more in inventory, labels and mistakes than it saves. Build one US formula to the strictest list. Here is how.

1. Make a restricted substance list

   Combine California's 2025 and 2027 lists, all PFAS, Washington's and Vermont's lists, Washington's 25 formaldehyde releasers and New York's 1,4-dioxane limits. If you also sell in the EU, add Annex II of the EU Cosmetics Regulation. Give the list to your manufacturer at the brief stage, not after samples.

2. Pick a preservative system that works everywhere

   Skip formaldehyde donors (DMDM hydantoin, imidazolidinyl and diazolidinyl urea, quaternium-15, bronopol, sodium hydroxymethylglycinate) and isobutyl- and isopropylparaben. Common alternatives are phenoxyethanol with ethylhexylglycerin, or organic acid systems, confirmed by a challenge test. See shelf life and preservatives.

3. Screen texture ingredients for fluorine and boron

   Any INCI name with "perfluoro", "polyfluoro", "fluoro" or PTFE needs a replacement. So do sodium borate, borax and boric acid before 2027.

4. Control 1,4-dioxane at the raw material

   For cleansers, choose non-ethoxylated surfactants (for example glucosides, amino acid surfactants or sulfosuccinates), or buy ethoxylated grades with a low 1,4-dioxane specification and test the finished product. Remember the 1 ppm New York limit for cleansing products and Vermont's 10 ppm cap.

5. Get fragrance paperwork

   Ask the fragrance house for a statement that the oil contains no ortho-phthalates, no nitro musks and no Prop 65 listed chemicals above trace levels, plus the allergen breakdown. Or go fragrance-free, which removes most of the work.

6. Test for heavy metals

   A heavy metal test on the finished batch for lead, arsenic, mercury and cadmium answers Washington's 1 ppm lead limit and supports your Prop 65 decision. See challenge test, microbiology and heavy metals.

7. Keep the file

   Store the formula screening, supplier statements and test reports with your MoCRA safety substantiation records. Retailers and marketplaces often ask for them, and they are your defense if you get a 60-day notice.

8. Review twice a year

   New state laws usually take effect on January 1 or July 1. Put a review in your calendar for June and December, and re-check before each reorder.

Frequently asked questions

Sources

• OEHHA Prop 65 Warnings: Frequently asked questions for businesses
• OEHHA: Final regulatory text, Article 6 clear and reasonable warnings amendments (2024)
• OEHHA: Proposition 65 list of chemicals (July 31, 2026)
• OEHHA: Proposition 65 in plain language
• California Health and Safety Code 108980 (Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act, AB 2762 and AB 496)
• California Health and Safety Code 108981.5 (PFAS-Free Cosmetics Act, AB 2771)
• California Health and Safety Code 111792.6 (SB 312 fragrance and flavor disclosure)
• CDPH California Safe Cosmetics Program: Who needs to submit
• California Civil Code 1834.9.5 (Cruelty-Free Cosmetics Act)
• 21 U.S.C. 364j: MoCRA preemption
• 21 U.S.C. 379s: Cosmetic labeling preemption and the pre-1997 initiative exception
• Washington RCW 70A.560.020 (Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act)
• Washington Department of Ecology: Adoption notice, chapter 173-339 WAC, formaldehyde releasers (August 2025)
• Vermont Attorney General: Guidance on PFAS product bans, Act 131 and Act 54 (2025)
• Minnesota Statutes 116.943 (Amara's Law)
• Maine Revised Statutes title 38, section 1614
• Colorado General Assembly: HB22-1345, PFAS chemicals
• Maryland Code, Health-General 21-259.2
• New York DEC: 1,4-dioxane limits for household cleansing, personal care and cosmetic products
• Morgan Lewis: State PFAS bans in cosmetics expand ahead of 2026 (law firm summary, updated January 2026)
• Beveridge and Diamond: Minnesota extends PFAS in products reporting deadline to September 15, 2026 (law firm summary)
• Humane Society of the United States: states ending cosmetics animal testing

Checked against these sources in October 2026. Rules and fees change; check with the authority or your importer before you sell.