AB 1744 adds Section 17580.7 to the California Business and Professions Code to restrict environmental claims on sunscreen products sold in California. The bill bans the use on labels or in advertising of terms like “reef safe,” “reef friendly,” “ocean safe,” “marine safe,” or any similar phrasing that would lead a reasonable consumer to believe the product does not harm marine ecosystems unless the product contains no chemical ultraviolet filters.
The statute lists six named filters as examples.
The bill affects manufacturers, importers, and retailers who sell sunscreens in California by narrowing what environmental language they may use and by creating a misdemeanor for violations. It also preserves existing substantiation requirements for environmental marketing claims and includes a fiscal clause noting the law creates a new crime, with no state reimbursement to local agencies.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill makes it illegal to use specific environmental and ocean‑friendly phrases on sunscreen labels or in advertising in California unless the product is free of chemical ultraviolet filters, explicitly naming six filters as examples. It applies to any sunscreen product sold in the state and treats violations as a misdemeanor.
Who It Affects
This targets sunscreen manufacturers, private‑label brands, distributors and retailers that market or label sunscreens in California, plus marketing agencies that prepare ad copy. Testing labs and compliance teams will also be affected because companies may need ingredient verification and documentation.
Why It Matters
The measure forces clearer claims and may shift formulations toward mineral‑only sunscreens for products sold in California, changes compliance and labeling workflows, and creates criminal exposure for false environmental claims, not just civil or consumer protection liability.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 1744 draws a bright line around environmental marketing for sunscreens. Under the new section, sellers may not describe a sunscreen as “reef safe,” “reef friendly,” “ocean safe,” “marine safe,” or use any similar phrase likely to lead a reasonable consumer to conclude the product does not harm marine ecosystems unless the product contains no chemical ultraviolet filters.
The text specifies six chemical filters by name—avobenzone, homosalate, octinoxate, octisalate, octocrylene, and oxybenzone—as examples of disqualifying ingredients, and extends the restriction to advertising as well as product labels and containers.
The definition of “sunscreen product” is intentionally broad and tied to federal regulation: it covers over‑the‑counter drugs regulated by the FDA intended to protect users from ultraviolet radiation, including lotions, sprays, sticks, gels, and solids. That means most commercially sold, nonprescription sunscreens fall within the law's scope.
The bill does not create a new watermark for “reef‑safe” claims that are independently substantiated; instead, it conditions the claim on the absence of chemical filters and makes clear that existing requirements under Sections 17580 and 17580.5 for substantiation still apply.Compliance will look like ingredient screening and label/audience review before products hit California shelves or marketing channels. Companies will need documentation proving absence of chemical UV filters, not just an advertising affidavit, because the prohibition is ingredient‑based.
Finally, the bill elevates violations to the criminal level: unlawful representations under this section are punishable as misdemeanors, and the statutory notice explains that local agencies bear enforcement responsibilities without state reimbursement for those costs.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill prohibits using “reef safe,” “reef friendly,” “ocean safe,” “marine safe,” or any similar phrasing on sunscreen labels or in advertising in California unless the product contains no chemical ultraviolet filters.
Section 17580.7 explicitly lists six chemical UV filters—avobenzone, homosalate, octinoxate, octisalate, octocrylene, and oxybenzone—as examples of disqualifying ingredients.
It defines “sunscreen product” as any over‑the‑counter drug regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration intended to protect from UV radiation, covering lotions, sprays, sticks, gels, and solids.
Section 17580.7(c) preserves the obligation to substantiate environmental marketing claims under existing law (Sections 17580 and 17580.5), so ingredient absence alone does not eliminate other substantiation duties.
A violation of the new provision is a misdemeanor, and the bill includes a fiscal provision stating no state reimbursement to local agencies because the act creates a new crime.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Prohibition on environmental claims unless free of chemical UV filters
Subsection (a) is the operative prohibition: it makes it illegal to represent, on labels or in advertising, that a sunscreen is reef‑ or ocean‑friendly unless the product contains none of the chemical ultraviolet filters listed and, by implication, none of any similar chemical UV filters. The clause “likely to cause a reasonable consumer to believe” imports an objective consumer‑protection standard rather than requiring proof of actual consumer confusion, increasing the risk that common marketing phrases could trigger enforcement.
List of disqualifying ingredients
The statute names six chemical filters (avobenzone, homosalate, octinoxate, octisalate, octocrylene, and oxybenzone) as examples, but frames them as non‑exhaustive—coverage extends to chemical ultraviolet filters generally. Practically, that forces companies to evaluate whether any ingredient in their formulation qualifies as a chemical UV filter, not just whether it matches one of the six names.
Scope: what counts as a sunscreen product
Subsection (b) ties the definition to FDA regulation of over‑the‑counter drugs intended to protect from UV radiation and lists common dosage forms. The linkage to FDA OTC status means prescription products and cosmetics that are not marketed as UV protective agents may fall outside the statute, but most consumer sunscreens sold at retail will be captured.
Substantiation obligation remains
Subsection (c) makes explicit that this new prohibition does not displace existing requirements under Sections 17580 and 17580.5 regarding substantiation of environmental marketing claims. That means even a product free of chemical filters will still need the usual evidentiary backing for any environmental assertions, and marketers cannot rely solely on formula changes to avoid broader substantiation duties.
Fiscal/reimbursement clause
Section 2 states that no reimbursement to local agencies is required under the state constitution because the act creates a new crime; this is a standard fiscal note approach when legislation adds misdemeanor exposure. The practical effect is that local prosecutors and law enforcement could be expected to absorb enforcement activity without state compensation.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Environmental advocacy groups and marine scientists — They gain a clearer statutory standard that aligns marketing claims with ingredient composition, making it easier to challenge misleading sunscreen claims and arguably reducing the presence of potentially harmful chemical filters in products sold in California.
- Consumers seeking genuinely ocean‑friendly products — The law narrows what “reef‑safe” can mean in the California marketplace, reducing ambiguity for shoppers who prioritize marine safety when buying sunscreens.
- Manufacturers of mineral‑only sunscreens (zinc oxide/titanium dioxide formulations) — These companies obtain a market advantage because their formulations more readily meet the statutory condition for ocean‑friendly claims, potentially increasing demand for mineral options.
Who Bears the Cost
- Sunscreen manufacturers that use chemical UV filters — They must reformulate products destined for California, remove or alter environmental claims, or face criminal penalties; reformulation, relabeling, and compliance verification impose direct costs.
- Retailers and distributors in California — Merchants will need to audit inventory, update shelf labels and promotional materials, and may face losses if products must be pulled or relabeled quickly.
- Compliance, testing, and legal teams — Companies will need ingredient testing and documentation programs and legal review of marketing materials to avoid exposure; small firms and startups will feel this administrative and financial burden most acutely.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill balances consumer and environmental protection against regulatory clarity and industry burden: it advances a clear public‑interest goal (preventing misleading “reef‑safe” claims) by using an ingredient‑based rule, but that same rule creates uncertainty about which ingredients qualify, forces costly reformulation and documentation, and elevates noncompliance to criminal liability — a trade‑off between stronger deterrence and the risk of overbreadth and enforcement complexity.
The statute hinges on an ingredient‑based rule: environmental claims are permissible only if chemical UV filters are absent. That produces two implementation challenges.
First, the statute names six filters but preserves broader coverage for “chemical ultraviolet filters,” leaving ambiguity about borderline ingredients and novel UV absorbers; manufacturers will need authoritative guidance or testing protocols to demonstrate compliance. Second, the law coexists with Sections 17580 and 17580.5, so absence of listed chemicals does not automatically authorize an environmental claim — companies still must substantiate any environmental assertion by the standards already in place.
Enforcement and remedy choices raise practical tensions. The bill makes violations misdemeanors, which is an unusually heavy enforcement lever for advertising claims and may deter private actors from bringing civil suits but invite prosecutorial discretion.
Local prosecutors and regulators will decide whether to criminally pursue noncompliant labels or to rely on civil enforcement, recalls, or negotiated remedies. Finally, tying the scope to FDA‑regulated OTC sunscreen status leaves some product categories at the margins (cosmetic sunscreens, international formulations, hybrid products), creating potential loopholes and compliance uncertainty for importers and cross‑border e‑commerce sellers.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.