Does MoCRA preempt all state cosmetic regulations?

No. MoCRA's preemption is limited to state requirements that differ from or add to federal facility registration, product listing, and adverse event reporting requirements. States retain authority over ingredient restrictions, reporting programs (like California Safe Cosmetics Program), environmental regulations, and consumer protection.

Which states have banned PFAS in cosmetics?

As of January 2025, California, Washington, Colorado, Minnesota, Maryland, Vermont, Connecticut, and Maine have enacted PFAS restrictions affecting cosmetics. Most prohibit intentionally added PFAS, with varying effective dates. More states are considering similar legislation.

Do I need to reformulate for each state?

Not necessarily. Many brands choose to reformulate once to meet the strictest state requirements (typically California or Washington) and sell that compliant formulation nationwide. This approach is simpler than managing multiple formulations for different states.

What is the Washington Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act?

The Washington Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act bans numerous toxic ingredients from cosmetics sold in Washington state, including formaldehyde-releasing agents, PFAS, mercury, ortho-phthalates, triclosan, and certain phenylenediamines. It also sets a 10 ppm limit for lead. Most provisions are effective January 1, 2025.

How do I comply with California Prop 65 for cosmetics?

Review your product ingredients against the Proposition 65 chemical list. If your product contains listed chemicals, evaluate whether exposure levels exceed safe harbor thresholds. If above threshold (or if no safe harbor exists), you must provide a clear and reasonable warning to California consumers before purchase.

State-Level Cosmetic Regulations After MoCRA: Complete Guide

Federal vs. State Authority After MoCRA

While the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act (MoCRA) significantly expanded federal regulation of cosmetics, it did not fully preempt state authority. Understanding which state regulations remain in effect is essential for nationwide cosmetic distribution.

What MoCRA Preempts

MoCRA preempts state and local governments from establishing requirements that are:

Different from federal registration and listing requirements
In addition to federal facility registration requirements
Different from federal adverse event reporting requirements

Preemption Is Limited

MoCRA's preemption is narrow. States retain significant authority to regulate cosmetic ingredients, labeling, and sales — particularly for public health and environmental protection.

What States Can Still Regulate

States retain authority over:

Ingredient restrictions and bans (e.g., PFAS, formaldehyde, lead)
State-specific reporting requirements (e.g., California Safe Cosmetics Program)
Environmental regulations affecting cosmetic ingredients
Consumer protection and labeling claims
Children's products (additional restrictions allowed)

State-by-State Overview

Key State Cosmetic Regulations
State	Key Regulation	Focus Area	Effective Date
California	Safe Cosmetics Act + AB 2771	Ingredient reporting + PFAS ban	2005 / Jan 2025
California	Proposition 65	Warning labels for listed chemicals	1986 (ongoing)
Washington	Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act	Multiple ingredient bans	Jan 2025 (phases)
Colorado	HB 22-1345	PFAS ban in cosmetics	Jan 2025
Maryland	HB 643 / George Walter Taylor Act	Ingredient bans + PFAS restrictions	Jan 2024 / ongoing
New York	ECL 37-0117	1,4-Dioxane and mercury limits	Dec 2022 / Jan 2023
Minnesota	Amara's Law	PFAS product prohibitions	Jan 2025
Oregon	SB 546 Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act	PFAS, formaldehyde, mercury, phthalates ban	Jan 2027
Vermont	Act 54 / Act 131	PFAS product bans	Jul 2025
Connecticut	CGS 22a-903c	PFAS in products	Jan 2025
Maine	LD 1537	PFAS in products	Jan 2030 (phase-out)

California Cosmetic Regulations

California has the most comprehensive state-level cosmetic regulations in the United States.

California Safe Cosmetics Act

Under the California Safe Cosmetics Act, manufacturers must report products containing ingredients known or suspected to cause cancer or reproductive harm.

California Reporting Requirement

If your cosmetic products contain ingredients on the California Safe Cosmetics Program chemical list AND are sold in California, you must report to the California Safe Cosmetics Program (CSCP).

Key requirements:

Report products containing chemicals listed as causing cancer or reproductive toxicity
Report within 90 days of first sale in California
Update reports when formulations change
Publicly searchable database of reported products

California Proposition 65

Proposition 65 requires businesses to provide warnings before exposing individuals to chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive harm.

Prop 65 Compliance for Cosmetics

Review product ingredients against the Prop 65 chemical list (1,000+ chemicals)
Evaluate exposure levels against safe harbor thresholds
If above threshold, provide clear and reasonable warning
Warning must be given before or at point of sale
Online sales require warning before completing purchase

California PFAS Ban (AB 2771)

California AB 2771 bans intentionally added PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) in cosmetics.

Effective Date: January 1, 2025
Scope: All cosmetics sold in California
Threshold: No intentionally added PFAS (trace contamination allowed)
Enforcement: California Department of Public Health

California Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act (AB 2762)

AB 2762 bans 24 specific toxic ingredients from cosmetics sold in California:

Banned Ingredients in California

As of January 1, 2025: Mercury and mercury compounds, formaldehyde, paraformaldehyde, methylene glycol, quaternium-15, diazolidinyl urea, DMDM hydantoin, imidazolidinyl urea, and other formaldehyde-releasing ingredients.

Washington Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act

The Washington Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act is one of the most comprehensive state cosmetic ingredient laws.

Banned Ingredients

Per Washington Department of Ecology guidance:

Washington Ingredient Bans
Ingredient Category	Examples	Effective Date
Formaldehyde-releasing agents	DMDM hydantoin, quaternium-15	Jan 1, 2025
PFAS compounds	All intentionally added PFAS	Jan 1, 2025
Mercury and mercury compounds	Thimerosal (except mascara)	Jan 1, 2025
Ortho-phthalates	DBP, DEHP, DEP (fragrance)	Jan 1, 2025
Formaldehyde	Free formaldehyde in product	Jan 1, 2025
Triclosan	In all cosmetics	Jan 1, 2025
m-Phenylenediamine and salts	Hair dye ingredient	Jan 1, 2025
o-Phenylenediamine and salts	Hair dye ingredient	Jan 1, 2025
Lead (above threshold)	10 ppm limit	Jan 1, 2025

Washington Manufacturer Obligations

According to Washington manufacturer guidance:

Washington TFCA Compliance

Verify all product ingredients against the banned list
Reformulate products containing banned ingredients
No certificate of compliance filing required (self-certification)
Maintain records demonstrating compliance
Prepare for potential state inspection or inquiry

Colorado PFAS Regulations

Colorado HB 22-1345 bans intentionally added PFAS in cosmetic products.

Effective Date: January 1, 2025
Scope: Cosmetics as defined under federal law
Requirement: No intentionally added PFAS
Enforcement: Colorado Attorney General

Per Colorado CDPHE guidance, manufacturers should:

Test products for PFAS if uncertain about ingredient sources
Maintain supplier documentation regarding PFAS-free status
Be prepared to demonstrate compliance upon request

Maryland Cosmetic Regulations

Ingredient Prohibitions (HB 643)

Maryland HB 643 prohibits certain toxic ingredients in cosmetics, particularly those disproportionately affecting communities of color.

Banned ingredients include:

Mercury compounds
Formaldehyde and formaldehyde-releasing agents
Lead (above threshold levels)

PFAS Restrictions (George Walter Taylor Act)

Maryland's PFAS restrictions prohibit intentionally added PFAS in various consumer products including cosmetics.

New York Regulations

1,4-Dioxane Limits

New York ECL 37-0117 sets strict limits on 1,4-dioxane in cosmetic products. DEC regulations were finalized in September 2024:

NY 1,4-Dioxane Limits (Finalized September 2024)
Product Category	Current Limit	Effective Date
Cosmetics	10 ppm	December 31, 2022
Personal care products	1 ppm	December 31, 2023

According to NY DEC guidance, manufacturers should:

Test products for 1,4-dioxane (common contaminant in ethoxylated ingredients)
Work with suppliers to reduce 1,4-dioxane levels
Consider alternative ingredients if levels cannot be reduced

Mercury Restrictions

Per NY DEC mercury guidance, mercury is banned in cosmetics with limited exceptions for eye-area products where no safe alternative exists.

Minnesota Amara's Law

Minnesota's Amara's Law phases out PFAS in numerous product categories including cosmetics.

According to Minnesota PCA guidance:

Effective Date: January 1, 2025
Scope: Cosmetics containing intentionally added PFAS
Threshold: Presence/absence standard

Minnesota: More Stringent Than Other States

Unlike Maryland, Washington, and Colorado, Minnesota has no "trace quantity" exception for the 2025 product bans. This makes Minnesota's approach more restrictive — any intentionally added PFAS triggers the prohibition.

Other State Regulations

Oregon

Oregon Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act (SB 546)

Effective: January 1, 2027
Bans: PFAS, formaldehyde, mercury, ortho-phthalates, and other substances
Scope: Intentionally added chemicals in cosmetics

Additionally, Oregon's Toxic-Free Kids Act and HB 3043 restrict toxic chemicals in children's products, which may include cosmetics marketed to children.

Vermont

Vermont PFAS laws (Act 54 and Act 131) prohibit PFAS in cosmetics with phased implementation. Per Vermont AG guidance, cosmetics are subject to PFAS prohibitions beginning July 1, 2025.

Connecticut

Connecticut CGS § 22a-903c restricts PFAS in consumer products including cosmetics, effective January 1, 2025.

Maine

Maine's LD 1537 establishes a comprehensive PFAS phase-out with cosmetics included, with full prohibition by January 1, 2030.

Compliance Strategy for Multi-State Sales

For brands selling cosmetics nationwide, a strategic approach to state compliance is essential:

Multi-State Compliance Strategy

Map Your Distribution

Identify all states where your products are sold, including through online retailers and distribution partners who may ship nationwide.

Identify Applicable Regulations

Create a matrix of state requirements applicable to your products. Focus on California, Washington, New York, and states with PFAS bans as these have the most stringent requirements.

Adopt the Strictest Standard

Consider formulating to the strictest state standards (often California or Washington) to enable nationwide distribution with a single formulation.

Document Compliance

Maintain documentation demonstrating compliance with each applicable state requirement, including ingredient declarations and test results.

Monitor Legislative Updates

State cosmetic regulations are evolving rapidly. Establish a monitoring system for new legislation and regulatory updates.

Formulate to the Strictest Standard

Many brands choose to eliminate all banned ingredients across their entire product line rather than managing different formulations for different states. This simplifies compliance and reduces supply chain complexity.

MoCRA does not preempt state ingredient restrictions and bans

California has the most comprehensive state cosmetic regulations

PFAS bans are now in effect in multiple states including CA, WA, CO, and MN

Washington's Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act bans numerous ingredients beyond PFAS

New York has strict 1,4-dioxane limits requiring reformulation or testing

Consider formulating to the strictest state standards for nationwide sales

Need Help with State Compliance?

Our regulatory specialists can help identify which state regulations apply to your products and ensure full compliance.

Get Expert Help