AB 872 defines which products fall inside a California PFAS restriction regime and which do not, and it sets a petition-driven process for the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) to declare limited exemptions called "currently unavoidable uses." The bill lists covered product categories — cleaning products, cookware, consumer products, dental floss, juvenile products, food packaging, and ski wax — while carving out many sector-specific exceptions (medical devices, semiconductors, certain federally regulated products, specified fluoropolymers, and more).
The bill places procedural and evidentiary requirements on manufacturers who seek an exemption: DTSC must consider reliable, peer-reviewed or National Academies information, open a public comment period, and publish each exemption with an expiration date. For companies and compliance teams, AB 872 creates both clarity about what categories are targeted and uncertainty about how DTSC will apply discretionary criteria such as "necessary for the product to work."
At a Glance
What It Does
AB 872 establishes definitions and scope for PFAS regulation in specified product categories and creates a DTSC-managed petition process for granting time-limited 'currently unavoidable use' exemptions. The department must evaluate petitions against three criteria, accept public comment, and publish determinations with expiration dates.
Who It Affects
Manufacturers, importers, and brand owners of cookware, cleaning products, food packaging, juvenile products, dental floss, ski wax, and a broad set of consumer goods; DTSC will gain administrative responsibilities. Suppliers of PFAS and makers of alternatives will also feel the impact.
Why It Matters
The bill gives DTSC a formal gatekeeping role that can preserve limited PFAS uses while otherwise enabling prohibitions (referenced in Section 109030.1). It also tightens who counts as a 'manufacturer' for compliance and forces evidence-based, public-facing decisions that could reshape supply chains and product design choices.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 872 begins by fixing the playing field: it lists the product categories subject to PFAS restrictions and a long list of products that are explicitly out of scope. The carve-outs matter — products regulated by federal safety or health agencies, many medical and veterinary items, semiconductors, certain fluoropolymers that are solids at standard temperature and pressure, and several other categories are excluded.
Those exemptions channel regulatory pressure away from critical federal programs and specialized industrial supply chains while concentrating it on broadly circulated consumer goods.
The bill retools who bears responsibility by defining 'manufacturer' to include the importer or first domestic distributor when a brand has no U.S. presence and by allowing a product to have more than one manufacturer. That shifts compliance duties onto importers and brand owners and makes it possible for multiple entities to be treated as manufacturers for a single product — a practical point that matters for labeling, recordkeeping, and enforcement.On exemptions, AB 872 gives DTSC a petition pathway.
A manufacturer can ask DTSC to declare a use "currently unavoidable" if any one of three conditions is met: no safer alternatives reasonably available, the PFAS is necessary for the product to work, or the use is critical for health, safety, or societal functioning. DTSC must consider provided information, rely on "reliable information" (peer-reviewed literature or National Academies reports), allow public comment, and post each determination online with an expiration date.
The statute treats these findings as time-limited permissions rather than permanent carve-outs.Procedurally the bill raises the evidentiary bar: petitioners need studies or evaluations appropriate to the claim and published in high-quality sources. The department gains discretion to decide what is "necessary for the product to work" and what counts as "reasonably available" alternatives, subject to public scrutiny.
Those discretionary judgments — plus the lack of a fixed rule in the text about how long exemptions last or how DTSC should prioritize petitions — create practical uncertainty for manufacturers planning reformulation or sourcing changes.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill lists seven 'covered product' categories: cleaning products, cookware, consumer products, dental floss, juvenile products, food packaging, and ski wax.
A long set of exclusions removes medical devices, veterinary products regulated by FDA/USDA/EPA, federal transportation/defense/homeland security-regulated products, semiconductors, and certain fluoropolymers that are solid at standard temperature and pressure from the 'consumer product' definition.
AB 872 defines 'manufacturer' to include importers or the first domestic distributor when no U.S.-based manufacturer or brand owner is present, and it allows a product to have more than one manufacturer for purposes of the chapter.
DTSC must review manufacturer petitions and declare a use a 'currently unavoidable use' if any of three criteria are met: no safer alternatives reasonably available, PFAS are necessary for the product to work, or the use is critical for health, safety, or societal functioning.
DTSC must consider 'reliable information' — defined as an appropriately designed study published in peer-reviewed literature or a National Academies report — provide an opportunity for public comment, and publish each determination with an expiration date on its website.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Who and what the chapter covers
This section builds the statute's vocabulary: cleaning product, cookware, consumer product, juvenile product, food packaging, ski wax, component, PFAS (by reference to federal regs), and key procedural terms like 'necessary for the product to work' and 'reliable information.' For compliance teams, the definitions are the control points: small differences in the wording (for example, whether an item is a 'component' or a 'product') will determine whether testing, reporting, or reformulation obligations apply.
Major carve-outs that steer regulatory focus
Subdivision (d) narrows the consumer product bucket by enumerating exclusions: federally regulated medical and veterinary products, semiconductors, certain motor vehicles and aviation equipment, fluoropolymer solids, and products subject to specific federal programs. Practically, these carve-outs limit the statute's reach to consumer-facing goods while deferring many military, aviation, and specialized industrial uses to federal oversight or separate rules — a deliberate jurisdictional alignment that will reduce conflicts with federal preemption in some areas but create complexity at industry boundaries.
Shifts compliance responsibility to importers and brand owners
By including importers and first domestic distributors as manufacturers when no US-based maker or brand owner is present, the bill puts compliance duties (and potential liability) on entities that control market entry. Allowing multiple manufacturers for a single product creates shared responsibility and could complicate enforcement actions and recall logistics, since regulators and plaintiffs may pursue any of the designated manufacturers.
Petition-driven exemptions and the three-part test
This provision sets the substantive standard for temporary exemptions. DTSC must grant a currently unavoidable use if it finds any one of three things: no reasonably available safer alternative exists; the PFAS is necessary for the product's primary function; or the use is critical for health, safety, or societal functioning. The 'any one' formulation lowers the claimant's bar compared with a conjunctive test, but the department's interpretive discretion — especially on what counts as 'reasonably available' and 'necessary' — will determine how narrow or broad exemptions become.
Evidentiary standard, public review, and publication with expirations
DTSC must weigh the information provided, consider 'reliable information' (peer-reviewed studies or National Academies reports), open a public comment period, and post each determination with its expiration date. The statute requires transparency but does not specify standard timelines for review, the length of exemptions, or appeals processes — leaving operational rules and sequencing to the department's implementation work.
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
- Consumers concerned about PFAS exposure — the statute targets common consumer categories and, if enforced, could reduce PFAS presence in cookware, food packaging, juvenile products, and cleaning products.
- Manufacturers and sectors that are expressly excluded (medical devices, semiconductors, defense/aviation equipment) — those actors avoid duplicative state-level restrictions and retain reliance on federal regulatory regimes.
- DTSC and public-interest groups seeking transparency — the requirement to publish determinations with expiration dates and accept public comment increases public visibility into exemptions and substitution progress.
Who Bears the Cost
- Manufacturers, importers, and brand owners of covered products — they must prepare petitions, generate high-quality studies, track DTSC determinations, and potentially reformulate products or manage supply-chain disruptions if exemptions are denied or expire.
- Importers and first domestic distributors — the 'manufacturer' definition shifts legal and compliance responsibility onto companies that may not have controlled product formulation, increasing administrative and legal burden.
- Suppliers of PFAS chemicals — a tightened regulatory regime and transparent exemption process will reduce market demand in the covered consumer categories and pressure businesses to find new markets or adapt products.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill balances two legitimate goals — removing nonessential PFAS from widely used consumer products to protect health and the environment, and preserving essential PFAS uses where no safe, available alternative exists — but it hands substantial discretion to DTSC and creates incentives for manufacturers to seek temporary exemptions, making it hard to phase out PFAS quickly without imposing real costs on industry and risking loopholes that undermine the law's public-health objectives.
The statute centralizes discretion in DTSC without specifying review timelines, standard durations for exemptions, or an appeal mechanism for denied petitions. That leaves manufacturers uncertain about how long a 'currently unavoidable' determination will last and how quickly they must act to find alternatives.
The bill's evidentiary standard — peer-reviewed literature or National Academies reports — raises the scientific bar for petitioners but also risks privileging well-funded firms that can commission studies, disadvantaging smaller companies.
The carve-outs are operationally tidy but conceptually porous. Exempting products regulated by multiple federal agencies or those containing certain fluoropolymers avoids preemption battles, yet it invites strategic product design: manufacturers could shift PFAS uses into technically excluded components or materials.
Finally, because the text provided here references a prohibition in Section 109030.1 but does not include enforcement, penalties, or recordkeeping details, stakeholders lack clarity on how violations would be detected and sanctioned — an implementation gap that DTSC must fill through regulations, guidance, or interagency coordination.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.