AB 823 amends California’s Plastic Microbeads Nuisance Prevention Law to expand the existing ban on rinse‑off microbeads. It adds prohibitions on (1) plastic microbeads used as abrasives in non‑rinse‑off personal care products, (2) cleaning products that use plastic microbeads as abrasives, and (3) personal care products that contain plastic glitter.
The bill also defines “plastic microbead” in statute as an intentionally added solid plastic particle measuring five millimeters or less in every dimension.
These changes shift obligations for manufacturers, importers, and retailers that formulate, source, or stock personal care and cleaning products. The new covered product types and the statutory size definition create testing, inventory‑management, and reformulation decisions; the measure also brings these new prohibitions within the state civil enforcement scheme that carries daily penalties under the existing law.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill extends the microbead ban beyond rinse‑off products to cover abrasives in non‑rinse personal care products and in cleaning products, and it outlaws personal care products that contain plastic glitter. It expressly defines plastic microbeads as intentionally added solid plastic particles 5 millimeters or smaller.
Who It Affects
Manufacturers, importers, and retail distributors of personal care and household cleaning products that use synthetic abrasives, glitter additives, or that maintain California inventory. Testing laboratories and reformulation suppliers will also see demand for compliance support.
Why It Matters
By broadening covered product categories and adopting an explicit size definition, the bill increases the scope of regulated materials and raises practical questions about measurement methods, grandfathered inventory, and enforcement exposure for companies selling into California.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 823 builds on California’s existing microbead prohibition by adding two categories of products and a new banned material: non‑rinse personal care products and cleaning products that use intentionally added plastic particles as abrasives, plus any personal care product that contains plastic glitter. The statute now contains a clear, single definition of “plastic microbead” — an intentionally added solid plastic particle measuring five millimeters or less — which is the anchor for deciding whether an additive falls within the ban.
The bill’s operative prohibitions cover sale, distribution, and promotional offers in California. For products that qualify as containing plastic glitter, the statute creates a limited sell‑through window: businesses may move existing California stock of glitter‑containing personal care products, but only if those units were acquired and transported into the state before the ban’s effective date, and only until the specified sell‑through cutoff.
The measure does not supply new testing standards, labels, or measurement thresholds in the statutory text; it relies on the existing enforcement framework already associated with the state’s microbead law.Practically speaking, firms will need to review formulations, supplier declarations, and import records for items sold into California. Where a product contains an intentionally added particulate—whether marketed as glitter, scrub, or polishing agent—companies will need to determine particle composition and size to decide if the ban applies.
The new scope pulls in household cleaning products that previously sat outside the rinse‑off microbead prohibition, exposing a wider set of SKUs to compliance risk and possible civil penalties under the state law.The bill also creates an operational window to clear certain glitter inventory acquired before the effective date; that limited exemption reduces immediate waste for retailers but forces near‑term decisions on markdowns and logistics. Because the statute does not prescribe laboratory methods or a quantitative cutoff in the amendment text, compliance teams should assume burden of proof for demonstrating absence of intentionally added plastic particles and prepare evidence showing acquisition and transport dates where the inventory exemption is asserted.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The statute defines “plastic microbead” as an intentionally added solid plastic particle measuring five millimeters or less in every dimension.
Effective January 1, 2029, the bill bans sale, distribution, and promotional offers in California of personal care products containing plastic glitter.
Effective January 1, 2029, the bill also bars non‑rinse personal care products and cleaning products that use plastic microbeads as abrasives.
The bill allows a limited sell‑through for existing stock of personal care products containing plastic glitter only if those units were acquired and transported into California before January 1, 2029; sell‑through ends January 1, 2030.
By adding these new prohibitions to the Plastic Microbeads Nuisance Prevention Law, the covered violations fall within the law’s civil enforcement regime (which authorizes daily penalties for violations).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definitions and scope of covered products
This section supplies the definitions that determine coverage. It imports a cross‑reference definition for “cleaning product,” defines “person” broadly, and keeps the existing definition of “personal care product” while excluding prescription drugs. Most consequential is the statutory definition of “plastic microbead” — an intentionally added solid plastic particle 5 millimeters or smaller — which functions as the gatekeeper for the prohibitions that follow. Practically, this definition requires manufacturers and compliance teams to trace whether an additive was intentionally added and to measure particle dimensions when assessing products.
Existing rinse‑off microbead prohibition retained
The bill leaves the original prohibition in place: selling or promoting rinse‑off personal care products that contain plastic microbeads used to exfoliate or cleanse remains unlawful. That preserves prior case law and enforcement practice for items like certain exfoliating washes and toothpastes, while the new language extends similar treatment to other product classes.
New prohibitions for non‑rinse products, cleaning products, and plastic glitter
Subdivisions (b)(1)–(b)(3) list the new forbidden categories: (1) non‑rinse personal care products that contain plastic microbeads used as abrasives; (2) cleaning products that contain plastic microbeads used as abrasives; and (3) any personal care product containing plastic glitter. The provision is categorical and does not add measurement protocols or labeling requirements, so the plain statutory text creates compliance exposure wherever intentionally added plastic particles of the defined size are present.
Limited sell‑through for existing glitter stock
The statute permits businesses to sell, distribute, or promote existing stock of personal care products that contain plastic glitter, but only if those products were acquired and transported into California before the ban’s effective date. That exception has a one‑year sell‑through window (ending January 1, 2030), which helps firms avoid immediate disposal but requires clear inventory documentation to rely on the exemption.
Civil penalties and enforcement framework
By folding the new prohibitions into the Plastic Microbeads Nuisance Prevention Law, violations become subject to the civil enforcement scheme associated with that law, which includes daily monetary penalties for each violation. The bill text itself does not amend enforcement procedures or add criminal penalties; it relies on the existing authority used by state and local officials and the Attorney General to seek civil remedies.
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
- Municipal and state environmental managers — reduced inputs of intentionally added microplastics to wastewater and stormwater systems could ease treatment burdens and lower environmental monitoring costs over time.
- Environmental and conservation organizations — the broader ban targets a wider range of products that contribute to microplastic pollution and supports advocacy and remediation goals.
- Producers of non‑plastic or biodegradable exfoliants and glitter alternatives — companies that supply plant‑based or mineral abrasives and non‑plastic decorative particles gain competitive advantage as manufacturers reformulate.
Who Bears the Cost
- Manufacturers and formulators of personal care and cleaning products — they must audit formulations, rework supply chains, and possibly reformulate products or relabel, incurring testing and R&D costs.
- Importers and retailers with California inventory — businesses holding glitter‑containing products risk unsaleable stock if they cannot prove acquisition and transport dates within the limited exemption window.
- Testing laboratories and compliance consultancies — while they may gain business, vendors will face demand for validated methods and may need to scale capacity to meet industry needs and disputes over particle identification.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill confronts a classic policy trade‑off: apply a bright‑line ban to eliminate a class of intentional plastic additives and speed environmental benefits, or craft narrow, testable rules that reduce compliance uncertainty and litigation. AB 823 opts for categorical prohibitions with few technical details, improving clarity of intent but shifting the burden to industry and regulators to define and measure what counts as a banned plastic particle.
The statute creates immediate practical questions that the text does not answer. First, it introduces a broad particle size definition but does not identify analytical standards or laboratory methods to determine whether a particle is an intentionally added plastic microbead or an incidental fragment; that gap will create disputes between regulators and industry over sampling, chain‑of‑custody, and test protocols.
Second, the bill bans “plastic glitter” without defining that term; manufacturers will need guidance to distinguish plastic glitter from pigment flakes, mica, or non‑plastic decorative particles, and differences in composition will affect whether a product is covered.
The limited inventory exception for glitter (but not for other newly covered microbead uses) produces uneven transitional relief: retailers holding glitter stock get one year to clear shelves if they can prove acquisition and transport timing, while sellers of other affected SKUs receive no analogous grace period. That asymmetry could cause market distortions and aggressive price‑clearance strategies.
Finally, the statute’s reliance on an existing civil penalty regime puts enforcement pressure on state and local authorities to develop technical expertise quickly; without standardized test methods and administrative guidance, enforcement actions risk protracted litigation over whether a given particle fits the statutory definition or whether the particle was “intentionally added.”
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.