SB 870 adds a new Part 9 to Division 12 of the Health and Safety Code to address hazards from decorative tabletop burners that use pourable or refillable liquid fuels. The bill targets devices sold for residential ambience that permit refilling or pouring fuel into an open reservoir and finds they have caused serious injuries and some fatalities.
The statute directs that, beginning January 1, 2027, fuel‑burning portable devices sold in California must meet the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) safety specification identified in the bill; noncompliant products are prohibited from sale and the prohibition is enforceable under the state’s unfair competition law.
At a Glance
What It Does
SB 870 defines tabletop liquid‑fuel fire features and makes it unlawful to sell or distribute fuel‑burning portable devices in California that do not comply with ASTM F3363‑25 (or updates/successors) for devices manufactured on or after January 1, 2027. The bill treats violations as unfair competition and channels enforcement through the Business and Professions Code’s Section 17200 framework.
Who It Affects
The rule reaches manufacturers, importers, distributors, retailers, and online marketplaces that bring pourable‑fuel tabletop burners into California, as well as event rental businesses and dealers that resell inventory. Consumers who buy decorative burners and sellers of alternative tabletop flame products will also be affected indirectly.
Why It Matters
The bill converts a voluntary, industry safety standard into a de facto statewide mandate, forcing redesign, testing, and supply‑chain changes for affected products. For compliance officers and product teams, the change raises immediate inventory, labeling, and testing decisions; for public‑safety officials it aims to reduce a documented pattern of severe burn incidents.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 870 starts with findings: decorative burners that use pourable liquid fuels in open bowls have caused severe burn injuries and some deaths, and many models on the market fail to meet voluntary ASTM safety guidance designed to reduce risks such as flame jetting and pool fires. The Legislature frames these hazards as insufficiently obvious to consumers and worth addressing through product controls.
The bill then adds a short Part 9 with statutory definitions and prohibitions. It defines a "tabletop liquid‑fuel fire feature" by three elements: (1) it burns liquid or gel fuels in an open reservoir; (2) it permits or requires consumers to pour or refill fuel while the reservoir is exposed; and (3) it is marketed or designed for placement on non‑floor surfaces for decorative flame presentation.
The statute marks a product as "unsafe" if it fails to meet ASTM F3363‑19 for tabletop devices, and separately forbids sale of any "fuel‑burning portable device" manufactured on or after January 1, 2027 that does not comply with ASTM F3363‑25 (or any update or successor).Operationally, the prohibition applies to sales, offers for sale, and distribution in commerce within California beginning in 2027; the text expressly exempts interstate transportation (movement through the state). Enforcement is civil: the bill characterizes violations as unfair competition under Section 17200 of the Business and Professions Code, which opens the door to enforcement by state and local prosecutors and private plaintiffs seeking injunctions, restitution, and equitable relief rather than criminal penalties.
The bill also adopts a dynamic approach to the ASTM standard by referencing updates and successor standards, which lets future ASTM revisions become applicable without further legislative action.Practically, compliance will mean manufacturers and importers must test to the ASTM specification, document conformity, and adjust design and packaging where necessary. Retailers and marketplaces will need policies to prevent listing and sale of nonconforming units, and to manage existing inventory manufactured before and after the statutory cutoff.
The statute does not create a state‑run certification program, recall authority, or specific labeling requirements; it relies on the ASTM standard’s technical criteria and the state unfair competition enforcement mechanism to police the market.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill defines a covered tabletop device by three elements: an open liquid/gel fuel reservoir, consumer refilling while the reservoir is exposed, and marketing/use as a tabletop decorative flame appliance.
It makes it unlawful to sell or distribute fuel‑burning portable devices manufactured on or after January 1, 2027 that do not comply with ASTM F3363‑25 or any update/successor standard.
Separately, the text labels devices noncompliant with ASTM F3363‑19 as “unsafe” and prohibits sale of those unsafe tabletop liquid‑fuel fire features after January 1, 2027, creating two overlapping standard references.
The statute carves out interstate transportation — moving noncompliant units through California is not covered — but otherwise blocks in‑state sales and distribution.
A violation is treated as unfair competition under Business & Professions Code Section 17200, exposing sellers to civil enforcement, injunctions, and private suits rather than criminal penalties.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Legislative findings on hazards and alternatives
This section recites the public‑safety record that motivated the bill: CPSC reports of deaths and serious burn injuries, the danger of flame jetting and pool fires, and the availability of safer alternatives such as listed propane tabletop appliances, sealed‑cartridge ethanol burners, and electric simulators. The findings frame the policy rationale the courts will use to interpret ambiguous provisions and signal the Legislature’s intent to prioritize consumer safety over the aesthetic value of these devices.
What counts as a tabletop liquid‑fuel fire feature
The statutory definition sets a three‑part test (open reservoir burning liquid/gel fuel; allows/refers consumer pouring/refilling while exposed; marketed for tabletop or countertop ambience). This is the operative screen that determines whether a product falls under the rest of the part and therefore whether ASTM conformity will be required. Manufacturers should evaluate product literature and function against each prong, not just the fuel type.
Ban on 'unsafe' tabletop devices and exception for transport
This provision prohibits selling, offering for sale, or distributing a tabletop liquid‑fuel device that the statute defines as "unsafe" (noncompliant with ASTM F3363‑19) beginning January 1, 2027. It also provides an explicit exemption for interstate transportation, meaning shipment through California without sale remains permitted. The carveout matters for distribution centers and logistics — it preserves common‑carrier movement while blocking in‑state commerce.
Manufacture‑date rule, ASTM F3363‑25 incorporation, and enforcement
A later provision (numbered 14960 in the text) requires fuel‑burning portable devices manufactured on or after January 1, 2027 to comply with ASTM F3363‑25 or any update/successor, and declares violations an unfair competition under Section 17200. Practically, this ties legal compliance to a technical ASTM specification and makes conformity a precondition for lawful sale; enforcement through the UCL means regulators and private litigants can seek injunctions, restitution, and disgorgement but not criminal fines under this statute.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government 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
- Residential consumers and guests—reduced exposure to sudden flame jetting and pool‑fire incidents when noncompliant products are removed from the market.
- Healthcare systems and burn centers—potentially fewer severe burn admissions and associated treatment costs if unsafe units are withdrawn.
- Producers of listed propane tabletop appliances, sealed‑cartridge ethanol burners, and electric flame simulators—likely increased demand for safer alternatives as pourable‑fuel products face tighter market access.
Who Bears the Cost
- Manufacturers and importers of pourable/refillable liquid‑fuel tabletop burners—facing testing, redesign, certification, and possible write‑offs for noncompliant inventory.
- Retailers and online marketplaces—responsible for screening inventory and listings and exposed to UCL claims if they sell noncompliant units; small resellers may lack resources to ensure conformity.
- Logistics operators and distribution centers—the interstate transportation carveout preserves movement through the state, but storage or in‑state distribution of noncompliant units becomes a compliance risk and could complicate warehousing arrangements.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The legislation pits immediate consumer safety—removing high‑risk pourable fuel burners from the market—against the regulatory and economic burden of making an industry‑level voluntary standard effectively mandatory: manufacturers, importers, and small sellers face compliance costs and inventory disruption, while public agencies forego a prescriptive state testing regime in favor of dynamic reliance on a private standard.
The bill leans on ASTM’s technical specifications rather than creating a bespoke California test regime, which speeds rulemaking but shifts the substantive technical work to a private standards body. That approach keeps the law responsive to industry technical evolution through dynamic incorporation, but it also creates reliance on a voluntary standard whose content and revision process are controlled outside the public regulatory process.
The practical consequence is uncertainty for small manufacturers and retailers when ASTM publishes amendments: compliance obligations may change without state legislative action.
The text contains drafting quirks that raise interpretive questions: it references both ASTM F3363‑19 and ASTM F3363‑25 in different places and includes two numbered 14960 provisions with overlapping subject matter. Those differences could produce litigation over which standard applies to which devices and whether the "unsafe" label tied to the 2019 standard applies alongside the 2025 manufacture‑date rule.
The bill also omits details that often accompany product bans—there is no state certification, no labeling requirement, and no express recall or testing program—so enforcement will rely on UCL actions and the aggrieved parties who bring them.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.