FLUKE
Kimball Electronics
Tolomatic
Industrial Scientific
AHEAD
roboception
FLUKE
Kimball Electronics
Tolomatic
Industrial Scientific
AHEAD
roboception
By Swetha Sankar | Tue Aug 6 2024 | 2 min read

Table of Contents

Washington State has enacted one of the most comprehensive cosmetics safety laws in the United States.

With Washington Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act (HB 1047), the state is prohibiting the manufacture, sale, and distribution of cosmetic products containing a defined list of hazardous substances — including PFAS — starting January 1, 2025.

This is not a disclosure framework. It is a product-level prohibition with enforcement teeth.

If you manufacture, import, private-label, or sell cosmetics in Washington, this law directly impacts your formulations, documentation, and market access.

Why Washington Is Regulating Cosmetics More Aggressively

Cosmetics are high-frequency, direct-contact products. Exposure is:

  • repeated
  • cumulative
  • often invisible to consumers

Scientific and regulatory assessments increasingly link certain cosmetic ingredients to:

  • cancer risks
  • reproductive and developmental toxicity
  • endocrine disruption
  • long-term bioaccumulation

Washington’s approach reflects a broader regulatory shift: eliminate hazardous substances at the product level, rather than relying on warnings or voluntary reformulation.

What Is the Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act (HB 1047)?

The Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act was passed by the Washington State Legislature in 2023 and signed into law by Governor Jay Inslee.

The law targets specific chemicals of concern commonly found in cosmetic formulations and establishes a phased transition period for retailers and small businesses.

Key Provisions of Washington’s Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act

1. Banned Chemicals (Effective January 1, 2025)

Cosmetic products may not be manufactured, sold, or distributed in Washington if they contain:

  • Ortho-phthalates
  • Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)
  • Formaldehyde and formaldehyde-releasing chemicals
  • Methylene glycol
  • Mercury and mercury compounds
  • Triclosan
  • m-Phenylenediamine and its salts
  • o-Phenylenediamine and its salts
  • Intentionally added lead or lead compounds ≥ 1 ppm

This is a substance-specific ban, not a concentration-based disclosure requirement (except for lead).

2. Applicability Scope

The prohibition applies to:

  • manufacturers
  • distributors
  • importers
  • private-label brand owners

Manufacturing location is irrelevant. If the product is offered for sale in Washington, the law applies.

3. Retailer Sell-Through Provision

Retailers may sell existing inventory of affected products until January 1, 2026.

This sell-through allowance:

  • does not apply to manufacturers
  • does not authorize continued production
  • shifts enforcement pressure upstream

4. Rulemaking & Enforcement Authority

The Washington Department of Ecology is authorized to:

  • adopt implementing rules
  • define testing and verification expectations
  • coordinate with the Department of Health

This creates future compliance risk for companies relying on weak supplier declarations.

5. Penalties for Non-Compliance

Civil penalties may reach:

  • $5,000 for a first violation
  • $10,000 for repeat violations

Penalties are assessed per violation, not per product line.

Support Measures for Small Businesses

Washington explicitly acknowledges the transition burden on:

  • small cosmetic manufacturers
  • independent brands
  • salons and cosmetologists

The Department of Ecology, in coordination with the Department of Health, will provide:

  • technical assistance for reformulation
  • chemical hazard assessment resources
  • financial incentives to support safer alternatives

Support does not eliminate compliance obligations — it only reduces friction.

Compliance Implications for Cosmetic Companies

Formulation Risk

Companies must identify whether banned substances are:

  • intentionally added
  • present in fragrances, colorants, or processing aids
  • embedded through supplier materials

Binary “compliant / non-compliant” statements are no longer sufficient.

Data & Documentation Risk

Expect scrutiny of:

  • ingredient-level formulations
  • supplier disclosures
  • safety data sheets (SDS)
  • internal product specifications

Without ingredient-level visibility, enforcement becomes unpredictable.

Market Fragmentation Risk

Washington joins a growing list of states implementing state-specific chemical bans.

For national brands:

  • state-by-state reformulation is not scalable
  • unified PFAS-free and hazard-free design is becoming the only viable path

Why PFAS in Cosmetics Is a Regulatory Flashpoint

PFAS are used in cosmetics for:

  • smooth application
  • water resistance
  • durability

But regulators treat PFAS as persistent environmental contaminants, not performance enhancers.

Cosmetics introduce PFAS:

  • directly to skin
  • into wastewater during washing
  • into landfill and soil post-use

This makes cosmetics a high-priority PFAS elimination category.

What This Signals for the U.S. Market

Washington’s Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act reinforces three trends:

  1. PFAS bans are expanding beyond industrial products
  2. Disclosure regimes are giving way to outright prohibitions
  3. States are acting faster than federal harmonization

Cosmetic safety is becoming a compliance engineering problem, not a labeling exercise.

What Companies Should Do Now

With enforcement beginning January 1, 2025, companies should:

  1. Identify cosmetic SKUs sold in Washington
  2. Validate formulations at ingredient and substance level
  3. Engage suppliers for defensible PFAS and chemical data
  4. Reformulate or discontinue non-compliant products
  5. Prepare documentation for audits and enforcement

Waiting for enforcement guidance is already late.

Final Takeaway

Washington’s Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act is not a consumer awareness law. It is a hard compliance gate.

For cosmetic brands and manufacturers, the future is clear:

  • ingredient transparency
  • PFAS-free design
  • defensible chemical data

Those who adapt early keep market access. Those who don’t will be forced out — state by state.

Topics

PFASUSA Regulations

Speak to Our Compliance Experts

Questions about compliance, partnerships, or support? We're here to help.

Share

Washington’s Toxic-Free Cosmetics PFAS Act HB 1047

Washington’s Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act prohibits the manufacture, sale, and distribution of cosmetic products containing a defined list of hazardous substances, including PFAS, within Washington State. This is a product-level prohibition, not a disclosure or warning requirement. If a cosmetic contains any banned substance, it cannot legally be placed on the Washington market after the enforcement date, regardless of labeling or consumer warnings
The prohibition became enforceable on January 1, 2025, making 2026 the first full year of active enforcement. Manufacturers, importers, and brand owners must already be compliant. Retailers were granted a limited sell-through period until January 1, 2026, but this does not allow continued manufacturing or distribution. From 2026 onward, any non-compliant cosmetic product found in Washington commerce is subject to enforcement.
The law bans the intentional presence of several hazardous substances in cosmetic products, including PFAS, ortho-phthalates, formaldehyde and formaldehyde-releasing agents, methylene glycol, mercury compounds, triclosan, m- and o-phenylenediamine salts, and intentionally added lead at or above 1 ppm. Except for lead, this is not concentration-based—the presence of a banned substance itself triggers non-compliance.
Responsibility extends across the supply chain. Manufacturers, importers, distributors, and private-label brand owners are all covered entities. Manufacturing location is irrelevant. If a cosmetic product is offered for sale in Washington, liability applies. Retailers are temporarily protected by the sell-through provision, but upstream parties retain full compliance responsibility.
No. Washington’s Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act is substance-based, not threshold-based (with the sole exception of lead). If PFAS or another listed chemical is intentionally added for formulation performance, durability, or sensory properties, the product is prohibited. Claims of “low concentration” or “trace presence” do not provide compliance protection.
The Washington Department of Ecology, in coordination with the Department of Health, has authority to define testing, verification, and documentation requirements. Companies should expect scrutiny of ingredient lists, supplier disclosures, safety data sheets, and internal formulation records. Reliance on generic supplier declarations without ingredient-level validation creates enforcement risk as rules and testing expectations evolve.
Washington’s law reflects a broader national shift away from disclosure-based chemical regulation toward outright product bans, particularly for PFAS in consumer goods. For cosmetic brands selling nationally, state-specific reformulation is not scalable. PFAS-free and hazard-free formulation by design is rapidly becoming the only viable long-term compliance strategy across U.S. markets.