Toxic free cosmetics rules in Washington and California
Washington and California restrict cosmetic ingredients from 2025, with more rules in 2027. Compare PFAS, phthalates, lead and formaldehyde requirements.
For a US cosmetics business, toxic free cosmetics is not a promise that a product contains no hazardous substance. It means checking the state ingredient restrictions that apply. Washington has restricted intentionally added PFAS, ortho-phthalates, formaldehyde and several other ingredients since January 1, 2025, and its formaldehyde-releaser restriction starts January 1, 2027. California's ingredient lists do not match. See Washington's statute, its releaser rule and California's current ingredient provisions.
For formulators, importers and retailers, the hard part is the mismatch. A phthalate check that covers California's named substances doesn't cover Washington's ortho-phthalate class, and Washington does not restrict every phthalate. These provisions are the ones in force on November 2, 2026.
What Washington already restricts
Washington's Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act reaches more than manufacture and shop-shelf sales. Ecology says it also covers online sales into Washington and cosmetics used in services. Businesses supplying salons therefore need to check the restrictions too. See Ecology's scope explanation.
The following restrictions began January 1, 2025. The statute prohibits manufacture, knowing sale, offering for sale, distribution for sale and distribution for use of covered products.
| Ingredient or group | Washington restriction |
|---|---|
| Ortho-phthalates and PFAS | No intentional addition |
| Formaldehyde and methylene glycol | No intentional addition |
| Mercury and mercury compounds; triclosan | No intentional addition |
| m-Phenylenediamine and its salts; o-phenylenediamine and its salts | No intentional addition |
| Lead and lead compounds | No intentional addition, plus a separate concentration restriction |
Source: RCW 70A.560.020. Except for lead's separate concentration provision, do not read this table as a ban on every trace impurity.
FDA-approved prescription drugs are excluded. But a cosmetic with FDA-regulated drug ingredients is not wholly exempt. The exclusion covers those drug ingredients. The restrictions still apply to the product's other ingredients. Check each ingredient's role rather than treating the product's drug status as a blanket exemption. See the statutory exclusions.
Lead needs two separate checks
Washington's statute prohibits intentionally added lead and lead compounds. It also prohibits concentrations at 1 part per million or above, including impurities, unless otherwise determined through rulemaking. Under that statutory threshold, products must contain less than 1 ppm, even when lead is an impurity. See the lead provision.
Ecology offers a conditional interim non-enforcement policy. It does not replace the statutory limit or authorize intentional addition. Manufacturers must complete Ecology's online form and select an option for each product:
- Option 1 covers lead at or below 2 ppm in general cosmetics, or at or below 5 ppm in color cosmetics and clay masks.
- Option 2 covers color cosmetics and clay masks above 5 ppm and below 10 ppm. It requires monitoring every batch, retaining data and information, and providing them to Ecology on request.
A product at 10 ppm is outside Option 2. A supplier's broad assurance that a product is "under 10 ppm" does not establish that the policy's conditions are met. Use Ecology's current policy for the enrollment and data conditions.
The policy remains in effect until Ecology adopts a rule or rescinds it. The lead-rulemaking page marks rule development as postponed. Do not plan around an assumed December 2026 expiry or an already-adopted higher limit.
Washington's January 2027 formaldehyde-releaser rule
Washington has already adopted WAC 173-339-110. It took effect September 28, 2025, but the formaldehyde-releaser restriction begins January 1, 2027. The rule's effective date is earlier than the deadline for complying with its ingredient restriction. See the adopted rule.
Its table has 25 entries. Examples include DMDM hydantoin, diazolidinyl urea, imidazolidinyl urea, quaternium-15, bronopol and paraformaldehyde. Timonacic's listed restriction specifically concerns use in heat-activated hair straighteners. Check the full table for the relevant ingredient and any use qualification.
The rule says formaldehyde is intentionally added when it functions as an antimicrobial, a preservative, a denaturant, a cross linker, or serves another purpose. It also covers a chemical selected to release formaldehyde over time or under conditions of product use. A name-only screen against the 25-entry table can miss both points. Check function as well as identity in WAC 173-339-110.
Which stock can sell through?
The initial retail window has expired. Qualifying in-state retailers could exhaust stock held when the 2025 restrictions began until January 1, 2026. That does not allow continued sale of that stock today. See the initial statutory transition.
The releaser rule has a separate window. Qualifying in-state retailers holding existing stock when the 2027 restriction begins may sell that stock to the public until January 1, 2028. Newly received stock must comply. This is not an extra year for manufacturers or distributors. See the rule and Ecology's compliance guidance.
How California compares
California's ingredient restrictions overlap with Washington's, but neither list should substitute for the other. Their different treatment of phthalates, formaldehyde releasers and lead makes a shared "banned ingredients" checklist insufficient without state-specific entries.
| Issue | Washington | California |
|---|---|---|
| Phthalates from 2025 | Intentionally added ortho-phthalates restricted as a class | Intentionally added dibutyl phthalate and DEHP only |
| PFAS from 2025 | Intentionally added PFAS restricted | Separate statute restricts intentionally added PFAS as a class |
| Formaldehyde-related ingredients | Intentionally added formaldehyde and methylene glycol from 2025. Releaser rule starts in 2027 | Intentionally added formaldehyde, paraformaldehyde, methylene glycol and quaternium-15 from 2025 |
| Lead | Intentionally added lead restricted, plus lead at 1 ppm or above unless rulemaking sets another limit | HSC 108980 states no lead concentration limit |
Sources: Washington's statute, Washington's releaser rule, California HSC 108980 and California's PFAS provision.
California's PFAS restriction is not limited to the named PFAS entries in AB 2762. Its separate class-wide provision also includes intentional breakdown products of an added chemical. See the PFAS statute. The California phthalate ban, by contrast, names dibutyl phthalate and DEHP rather than Washington's ortho-phthalate class.
California's ingredient section prohibits manufacture, sale, delivery, holding and offering for sale. Washington instead lists manufacture, knowing sale, offering for sale, distribution for sale and distribution for use. The lead row is only about that section. Other California laws can still mention lead.
California expands its ingredient prohibition on January 1, 2027. Examples include lily aldehyde, acetaldehyde, cyclotetrasiloxane, styrene and certain dyes. Updated musk requirements also begin then. Intentionally added musk ambrette, musk tibetene, musk moskene and musk xylene are prohibited. Musk ketone limits start the same day: 1.4% in fine fragrances, 0.56% in eau de toilette, 0% in oral products and 0.042% in other products.
Oral products are not exempt.
Use the current code rather than the original bill alone.
That code allows technically unavoidable traces under specified conditions for ingredients in subsections (a) or (b). This does not permit intentional addition, and it does not extend to subsection (c)'s musk ketone concentration provision. See the trace provision in HSC 108980(d).
California Safe Cosmetics Act reporting is separate
The California Safe Cosmetics Program collects and publishes information about hazardous or potentially hazardous cosmetic ingredients. Covered manufacturers must report products containing designated carcinogenic or reproductive-toxic ingredients. Reporting an ingredient does not make a prohibited formulation lawful. See the program and reporting statute.
The reporting exemption for manufacturers with aggregate annual cosmetics sales below $1 million counts sales inside and outside California. It is a reporting threshold, not a small-business exemption from ingredient bans. See the reporting exemption in HSC 111792.
A short Minnesota comparison
Minnesota's Amara's Law has restricted sales, offers for sale and distribution for sale of cosmetics with intentionally added PFAS since January 1, 2025. Its cosmetics definition excludes soap and includes cosmetic components. Statutory exceptions apply, so this is not an exception-free ban on all fluorine. Check Minnesota's statute separately from the two states above.
Put the checks into a product review
For each formula, map ingredient identities and functions to each applicable state's provisions. Ask suppliers about functional additives and formaldehyde release under intended use conditions. For Washington lead, review concentration data and any policy enrollment rather than accepting a generic compliance statement.
Keep inventory receipt dates separate from formulation approval dates when assessing Washington's retail sell-through window. These are practical review steps, not a claim that every state mandates the same testing or supplier documents. And a certified toxic free cosmetics mark doesn't prove the formula meets these statutes.
RegAffairs AI's answer on Washington and California cosmetics restrictions provides a starting point for source checks. California's current code sets out the enacted ingredient list and musk provisions for 2027.