AB 1744 builds California’s existing law prohibiting untruthful, deceptive, or misleading environmental marketing claims. Violations would be misdemeanors, creating a new state-mandated local enforcement program. The measure would also clarify that compliance with the new labeling restriction does not replace existing requirements to substantiate environmental marketing claims. Follow us to learn more.

The post California bill targets ‘Reel Safe’ Sunscreen Claims appeared first on Focal Point.

Judicial Ruling and Constitutional Grounding:

The court’s decision turns squarely on First Amendment commercial speech protections:

• The court ruled that based on the current state of scientific evidence, compelling brands to place cancer warnings for DEA cannot be constitutionally enforced. 
• Because the premise that DEA poses a carcinogenic risk to humans is contested rather than purely factual and uncontroversial, mandatory warning statements amount to unconstitutionally compelled commercial speech.
• PCPC filed the initial legal challenge in March 2024, maintaining that requiring warning statements claiming DEA is “known to the State of California to cause cancer” infringes upon commercial First Amendment rights

Industry Context: A Growing Pattern of First Amendment Victories:

This injunction marks a major milestone in a continuous series of successful First Amendment challenges brought by industry against Proposition 65 warning requirements where the underlying toxicology remains debated: 

• The DEA ruling follows successful federal court challenges restricting mandatory cancer warnings for glyphosate, acrylamide, and titanium dioxide (in cosmetic formulations). 
• Courts continue to reject compelled health warnings where authoritative scientific reviews fail to demonstrate a clear, uncontroverted link between consumer exposure and human carcinogenicity.
• While the permanent injunction blocks current enforcement, the state Attorney General retains the statutory ability to petition the court to dissolve the injunction should new scientific evidence establish consensus or if governing legal standards shift.

Strategic Implications and Action Items for Personal Care Brands:

While the ruling provides immediate regulatory relief, legal and regulatory specialists urge companies to approach their compliance strategies with measured caution:

• Audit existing product formulations containing DEA, identify any pending 60-day notices of violation, and evaluate ongoing enforcement threats involving the ingredient. 
• Review master product labels and supply chain compliance documentation concerning DEA to determine whether warning removals or revisions are commercially warranted.

If you need assistance with formulation or label reviews, contact us. 

The post First Amendment Milestone: Federal Court Bars California Prop 65 Cancer Warnings for Diethanolamine (DEA) appeared first on Focal Point.

DTSC’s decision is driven by environmental and health safety evaluations regarding this class of chemicals. The department has determined that PPD derivatives are expected to exhibit specific hazard traits, primarily dermatotoxicity and wildlife survival impairment.

​Regulators are concerned that these derivatives may cause or contribute to adverse dermatological impacts (such as skin sensitization) as well as severe adverse aquatic impacts (such as death).

​What This Means for Your Business:

​It is important for manufacturers and formulators to understand the immediate impact of this update. Adding a chemical to the Candidate Chemicals List does not create any new regulatory obligations. However, this listing serves as a strong indicator that PPD derivatives are under scrutiny and may be targeted for future evaluation or product prioritization by the DTSC.

​If you have any questions regarding this update or would like to get your formulas reviewed, our team is here to help. Contact us today.

The post California DTSC Updates Candidate Chemicals List to Include PPD Derivatives appeared first on Focal Point.

​SB 54, California’s landmark extended producer responsibility (EPR) and plastic pollution prevention law is facing growing pushback from industry stakeholders as new economic analyses and operational assessments reveal critical flaws in the program’s current framework.

​What Triggered the Push for a Pause?

• ​Independent assessments based on CalRecycle’s July 2025 Standardized Regulatory Impact Assessment (SRIA) and a February 2026 third-party Needs Assessment project total 5-year compliance costs to reach $78 billion- roughly 3.5 times higher than initial projections.
• ​Industry faces $2 billion in fees during the first year alone, with initial invoices rolling out and larger fees scheduled for January. Over five years, direct program fees are projected to climb to $17.2 billion (rising from $2B in Year 1 to $5B in Year 5).

The designated Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO), Circular Action Alliance (CAA), has formally indicated that it cannot meet SB 54’s statutory targets as currently written in its Program Plan, raising concerns that massive fees will be collected without achieving the intended recycling outcomes.

​Key Takeaways for Businesses and Regulated Producers:

• ​The coalition is not advocating for the elimination of SB 54, but rather a temporary legislative freeze. Because the targets and compliance timelines are hardcoded into statute, only the California Legislature can adjust the framework.
• ​Objective for 2027–2028: The requested pause aims to halt impending fee hikes while lawmakers and industry collaborate during the 2027–2028 legislative session to restructure the program into a workable, cost-effective model.

​​

If you have any questions regarding how this update may affect your business, do reach out to us today.

The post Industry Coalition Calls for Immediate Pause on California SB 54 Packaging Mandates appeared first on Focal Point.

For more information, reach out to us.

The post CARB launches 2025 Technical Assessment for Personal Fragrance Products VOC Compliance appeared first on Focal Point.

What’s New in this Update?

For the first time, the list includes published recycling rates by CMC, a requirement under PRC section 42061(b).

Why It Matters:

• Defines Compliance: The list sets CalRecycle’s official determinations on which material categories meet the criteria for recyclability and compostability.
• Labeling Impact: These determinations directly influence your eligibility to use “recyclable” or “compostable” labels pursuant to PRC sections 42061(c) and (d).

The updated CMC list and guidance on categorization on the CalRecycle SB 54 Covered Material Categories can be found on the webpage. It’s time to check your product classifications against the new rates. Please contact us if you have any questions regarding this update.

The post SB 54 Update: CalRecycle Releases Updated CMC List & First-Ever Recycling Rates appeared first on Focal Point.

CARB is currently evaluating whether it is feasible for the industry to meet the upcoming 50% Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) standard using current or emerging technologies. As part of this evaluation, new reporting requirements are now in effect.

Deadline: All data for the 2025 Personal Fragrance Products Technical Assessment must be submitted to CARB by March 31, 2026.

What is Required:

Responsible Parties need to complete two main tasks:

• Submit the Data: You must use the interactive Personal Fragrance Products Reporting Tool (PFP-RT). This is a macro-enabled Excel workbook (available for both Windows and Mac) where you will list products, ingredients, and responsible parties.

Submit a Written Report: In addition to the raw data, you are required to submit a written update regarding your R&D efforts. This report should detail the work being done to meet the future 50% VOC standard.

Streamlined Process for Formulators:

To make reporting easier, CARB has changed how they handle trade secrets and third-party formulators. You do not need to contact your formulators for their data. Instead, once you submit your report (PFP-RT) listing your Product Formulators, CARB staff will contact them directly. CARB will send them a separate tool (PFP-RTF) to collect the necessary formulation data, ensuring confidentiality is maintained without you having to act as the middlemen.

This assessment is a critical step toward the January 1, 2031, regulations. By that date, non-aerosol fragrance products (with 10% or less fragrance) and aerosol products will be required to meet the strict 50% VOC limit. This assessment is CARB’s way of checking the industry’s pulse to see if the goal is achievable.

Next Steps: Download the reporting tools and review the definition of ‘Fragrance’ to ensure you are reporting the correct ingredients. If you require assistance in understanding the regulations, please contact us. 

The post CARB Launches 2025 Personal Fragrance Technical Assessment appeared first on Focal Point.

The reporting portal, which opened on September 22, requires the submission of 2023 supply data. This information will be used to establish a baseline for the source reduction requirements mandated by the SB 54 law.

Upcoming Consultation Webinars:

In addition to the reporting deadline, CAA will be hosting a series of topic-based consultation webinars starting in October 2025. These sessions are a crucial opportunity for stakeholders across the value chain to provide input and help shape the initial California EPR program plan.

How to Comply and Get more Information:

• Report your Data: Producers must submit their 2023 data though the CAA portal by November 15.
• Guidance and Resources: If you are unsure whether your company is subject to these requirements, visit CAA’s Producer Resource Center.
• Questions: For any specific questions or issues, you can contact the CAA support team directly at producer.support@circularaction.org

Please contact us if you require assistance in understanding your obligations under the California’s EPR law and preparing your data for submission.

The post Reminder: California EPR Reporting Deadline is November 15 appeared first on Focal Point.

1. Formaldehyde (CAS no. 50-00-0)
2. Isobutylparaben (CAS no. 4247-02-3)
3. Isopropylparaben (CAS no. 4191-73-5)
4. Cyclohexylamine (CAS no. 108-91-8)
5. Cyclotetrasiloxane (CAS no. 556-67-2)
6. Diethanolamine perfluorooctane sulfonate (CAS no. 70225-14-8)
7. Dibutyl phthalate (CAS no. 84-74-2)
8. Diethylhexyl phthalate (CAS no. 117-81-7)
9. Lily aldehyde (CAS no. 80-54-6)

Key Provisions of the Bill:

• The Bill requires the Department of Toxic Substances Control to adopt regulations on or before January 1, 2030
• The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) would be responsible for implementing and enforcing the new rules.
• The Bill requires DTSC to:

1. publish appropriate third-party accreditations for laboratories to test for the specified ingredients.
2. Publish a list of accepted testing methods for those ingredients.

• The Bill authorizes the department to:

1. request, and would require a manufacturer of a hair relaxer product to provide upon request, documentation, including test results, to demonstrate compliance
2. test hair relaxer products in order to support enforcement of the provisions
3. issue notices of violation and access administrative or civil penalties

Contact us today to get your formulas reviewed.

The post California introduces the “C.U.R.L. Act” to ban certain Hair Relaxers Ingredients appeared first on Focal Point.

-Ban the sale of plastic glitter in personal care products by January 1, 2030.

In his veto message, Governor Newsom explained that while he supports the goal of protecting California’s waterways from microplastics, he was not supportive of the approach this bill takes. He expressed concerns that the bill’s ban on specific ingredients, such as glitter, may incidentally result in a prohibition on biodegradable or natural alternatives.

What this means for the Industry?
This veto means the specific bans and compliance deadlines outlined in AB 823 will not become law at this time. The immediate pressure to reformulate away from plastic glitter based on this bill has been lifted. However, this topic remains a high priority issue for legislators and consumers. Our team will continue to monitor any furfure legislative efforts to regulate microplastics in cosmetics.

The post California Governor Vetoes Bill to Ban Plastic Glitter (AB 823) appeared first on Focal Point.