PFAS remains at the forefront of environmental regulation and litigation, with product labeling requirements emerging as the newest battleground. While no federal law currently requires consumer-facing PFAS labels, several states have enacted their own disclosure and labeling requirements, creating a fragmented regulatory landscape for manufacturers.

At the federal level, the EPA’s efforts have focused on reporting rather than labeling. In 2023, the agency adopted reporting rules under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) requiring manufacturers of PFAS to provide information regarding production, use, exposure, and disposal. Although EPA has since proposed revisions that would significantly narrow the scope of those reporting obligations, neither the current rule nor the proposed amendments require consumer product labeling.

In the absence of a federal standard, states have adopted varying approaches. California, Colorado, and New Jersey have implemented relatively narrow cookware-labeling requirements for products containing intentionally added PFAS. Other states, including New York and Minnesota, have focused primarily on phased sales bans and reporting obligations, reflecting a broader trend toward restricting PFAS-containing consumer products.

Connecticut has adopted one of the most comprehensive disclosure regimes. Beginning in 2026, manufacturers of numerous product categories containing intentionally added PFAS, including apparel, cookware, cosmetics, carpets, and furniture, must provide labels and notify state regulators. The state’s framework ultimately transitions from disclosure requirements to outright sales bans for covered products. Notably, Connecticut permits several approved labeling statements, such as “Contains PFAS” or “Made with PFAS chemicals,” and applies the requirement to packaging and online product listings.

New Mexico took an even broader approach through its PFAS Protection Act. In addition to phased sales bans and reporting requirements, state regulations adopted in 2026 required virtually all products containing intentionally added PFAS to display a standardized label consisting of an Erlenmeyer flask symbol containing the letters “PFAS.” Unlike other state laws, the requirement applied regardless of whether the product was otherwise subject to a future sales ban.

New Mexico’s labeling rule quickly became the subject of litigation. In American Chemistry Council v. Kenney, industry groups challenged the regulation, arguing that it compelled commercial speech in violation of the First Amendment. On September 16, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico issued a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the labeling regulation while the case proceeds. Applying the framework established in Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, the court examined whether the compelled disclosure was factual, noncontroversial, and reasonably related to a legitimate governmental interest. The court concluded that the label likely satisfied the first two requirements. According to the court, merely identifying that a product contains PFAS constitutes a factual disclosure and does not require manufacturers to endorse any viewpoint regarding PFAS safety.

The regulation faltered, however, on the “reasonable fit” requirement. The court found that New Mexico failed to demonstrate a rational connection between the mandated label and its stated objectives of protecting public health and the environment. Because the label simply communicated the presence of PFAS and did not explain potential health risks, environmental concerns, disposal methods, or exposure-reduction measures, the court concluded that it provided consumers with little actionable information. As a result, the state had not sufficiently justified compelling manufacturers to display the label. Importantly, the injunction applies only to the labeling regulation and does not affect the state’s broader PFAS restrictions, including reporting requirements and phased sales bans.

The Kenney decision does not suggest that PFAS labeling laws are inherently unconstitutional. Rather, it underscores the importance of how such requirements are designed and justified. The court specifically left open the possibility that labels providing meaningful health, safety, or disposal information could withstand constitutional scrutiny because they would bear a clearer connection to the governmental interests being advanced.

For manufacturers, the decision highlights an increasingly complex regulatory environment. States continue to pursue varying combinations of labeling, reporting, and sales restrictions, while federal regulators remain focused primarily on data collection. As additional PFAS regulations emerge, Kenney may serve as an important roadmap for states seeking to craft disclosure requirements that survive First Amendment challenges.