Washington’s Toxic-Free Cosmetics PFAS Act HB 1047

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.