The Evolving PFAS Landscape: State Bans, Federal Standards and Legal Exposure

PFAS, or “forever chemicals,” have been on the radar of regulators and industry for years, but the recent pace and scope of action mark a turning point. Federal agencies are advancing the first national drinking water standards and expanding reporting and cleanup obligations, while the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) decision to list PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) opens the door to significant new liability. State legislatures are moving even faster, adopting product bans, disclosure requirements and their own enforceable limits for drinking water. At the same time, courts are driving change through large-scale settlements with chemical manufacturers and water utilities, and insurers are narrowing coverage in response. For companies, utilities and policymakers, the combined effect is a regulatory and legal environment where PFAS risk is no longer theoretical but a pressing operational and financial challenge.

Federal Regulatory Developments

At the federal level, EPA and other agencies have accelerated PFAS controls. In April 2024, EPA adopted the first-ever national drinking water standards for PFAS, setting maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for PFOA and PFOS at 4 parts per trillion and requiring controls on mixtures containing PFHxS, PFNA, GenX (HFPO-DA) and PFBS under a new “Hazard Index” approach. In May 2025, EPA announced it would extend the compliance deadline for PFOA and PFOS but rescind the regulations and reconsider the regulatory determinations for PFHxS, PFNA, GenX (HFPO-DA) and the Hazard Index mixture of these three plus PFBS. These decisions were subsequently confirmed in the Spring 2025 Unified Agenda published in September 2025. These changes reflect a moderated federal approach even as states continue to set their own drinking water limits.

Beyond drinking water, EPA has been rolling out a range of other PFAS regulations that will impact industry. Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the EPA finalized a rule in January 2024 that restricts companies from resuming production or use of more than 300 PFAS chemicals without first undergoing a full federal review. In October 2023, the agency also issued a reporting rule requiring any company that has made or imported PFAS since 2011 to disclose detailed information about how those substances were used, how much was produced and how they were managed or disposed of. The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), a federal database that tracks chemical emissions, has been expanded to include dozens more PFAS, closing loopholes that had previously allowed companies to omit small quantities. In May 2025, EPA published an interim final rule extending the reporting deadline by nine months, from July 11, 2025 to April 13, 2027.  And based on the Spring Unified Agenda, EPA intends to further modify the reporting rule by incorporating “certain exemptions and other modifications.”  The EPA has also developed new testing methods to detect PFAS in water, soil and air, and has proposed adding nine PFAS to the list of hazardous wastes regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), which governs cleanup and waste disposal. Together, these steps reflect a broad federal effort to tighten oversight of PFAS production, reporting and cleanup.

Under CERCLA, the EPA took a major step in April 2024 by designating PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances. This decision, which became effective that July, means that releases of those chemicals can now trigger what’s known as Superfund liability—the federal government’s authority to require responsible parties to pay for or perform cleanup of contaminated sites. That liability can be strict and retroactive, meaning companies may be held responsible for pollution that occurred years ago. To ease concerns about fairness, the agency issued guidance saying it would focus enforcement on companies that significantly contributed to PFAS pollution rather than on landowners or small entities that were simply affected by it. Industry groups quickly sued, arguing that EPA went beyond its authority, but in September 2025 the Department of Justice (DOJ) confirmed it would defend the rule. The agency has also said it plans to create a broader framework for how additional PFAS might be listed in the future. EPA Administrator Zeldin has acknowledged concerns about unintentionally penalizing property owners or farmers who inherited contaminated land and has asked Congress to clarify the limits of liability under the law.

Other federal agencies are acting as well. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has moved to eliminate PFAS in food packaging. In early 2024, it announced that all grease-proofing agents containing PFAS, used in paper wrappers, pizza boxes and similar products, will cease due to industry phaseout and FDA’s withdrawal of approvals. In January 2025, the agency withdrew existing food-contact approvals for those PFAS, effectively banning PFAS-based food wrappers and bags. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has also taken steps, adapting programs to help farmers cope with PFAS exposure. For example, the Dairy Indemnity Payment Program now compensates producers for cows lost to PFAS contamination, and USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service offers cost-share assistance for PFAS testing of farm soil and water. These measures acknowledge the risk of PFAS leaching into crops and livestock.

State Legislative and Regulatory Trends

States remain the proving ground for PFAS controls. In the last two years, dozens of legislatures have enacted or considered bans, disclosure rules and mandates targeting PFAS in products and the environment. Comprehensive bans are emerging on major categories of PFAS use. California’s legislature in 2025 passed SB 682 to phase out intentional PFAS in consumer products, banning them in food packaging, children’s products, dental floss, cleaning products and ski wax by 2028, with cookware phased out by 2031. Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed the bill on October 13, 2025, citing concerns about the cost and availability of cooking products. Illinois enacted a broad ban on PFAS in cookware, cosmetics, children’s products, personal care items, intimate apparel and food packaging, effective in 2026. In 2022 and 2024, Colorado enacted product phase-outs and labeling requirements for a wide variety of consumer products, including cookware, cleaning products, ski wax, and other products.  Other states have targeted narrower sectors, banning PFAS in menstrual products or firefighting uniforms. Rhode Island has set a ban on PFAS in all firefighting gear beginning in 2027.

Disclosure mandates and reporting rules are also spreading. Illinois requires manufacturers of firefighting gear to report known PFAS uses and label products accordingly, with a full ban by 2027. Minnesota has a similar PFAS reporting law. Maine has enacted a law requiring public notification of PFAS levels in drinking water, and Delaware now requires the state to maintain a public PFAS information website and notify residents if utilities exceed thresholds.

Product restrictions and phase-outs continue to expand. Twenty states now ban PFAS in any paper food packaging, with more set to follow in 2027. States like Maine, Washington and New York have banned PFAS in children’s products, cosmetics and textiles, while cookware bans have been adopted in Minnesota, Colorado and Maine starting in 2025 and 2026. Vermont recently delayed its cookware ban to 2028 in response to industry concerns. Disclosure of PFAS-free certifications is also becoming common, with some states requiring sellers to obtain certificates of compliance for PFAS-free products.

Testing requirements are less uniform, but many states are adopting their own standards in addition to EPA rules. Some states now require utilities to test private wells in known contaminated areas. The result is a patchwork of testing and compliance requirements that continue to evolve.

Litigation and Settlements

PFAS litigation continues at a rapid pace, with settlements between chemical companies and public water utilities now reaching into the billions. In May 2024, BASF Corporation agreed to pay $316.5 million to settle claims by a group of utilities over firefighting foam contamination. Later that year, Johnson Controls agreed to pay $750 million to resolve lawsuits brought by water systems across eight states. The largest settlement thus far came from 3M, which in 2023 agreed to pay up to $10.3 billion to settle claims from thousands of public water suppliers that alleged widespread PFAS contamination. Around the same time, Chemours, Corteva and DuPont jointly agreed to a separate $1.19 billion settlement covering similar claims. Most recently, in summer 2025, New Jersey announced an agreement valued up to $2 billion to resolve decades of contamination within the state by DuPont, Chemours and Corteva that includes $875 million for damages and cleanup, a $1.2 billion remediation fund, and a $475 million reserve fund. 

New lawsuits continue to emerge from states, municipalities and individual plaintiffs. More than 30 state attorneys general have sued PFAS manufacturers, while private and class action cases are expanding to include claims of health impacts and property damage. Courts are testing a range of legal theories, from nuisance and negligence to product liability and violations under federal and state hazardous waste laws. At the same time, insurers are tightening their policies by adding PFAS exclusions, leaving companies with fewer options for coverage and forcing many to consider self-insurance or alternative risk strategies.

Industry-Specific Impacts

PFAS rules are reshaping operations across multiple sectors. Manufacturers, especially chemical producers and consumer goods companies, face growing costs and liability risks. Many are phasing out PFAS, auditing supply chains and preparing for national retailers to demand PFAS-free certifications. Cookware, textiles, cosmetics and cleaning products are all facing state-level bans that will accelerate reformulation.

In food and beverage, the concern centers on packaging and contamination. FDA’s elimination of PFAS greaseproof paper has already forced restaurant chains, grocers and packaging suppliers to shift to alternatives. State bans are further pushing national food companies to reformulate packaging to comply with a patchwork of state laws. Beyond packaging, farmers and food producers are facing contamination risks in dairy, crops and livestock, prompting recalls and disruptions.

Public water systems must now test for PFAS under federal rules and upgrade treatment to meet MCLs. These upgrades will be costly and are already spurring litigation against PFAS manufacturers. Wastewater utilities are also grappling with biosolids contaminated by PFAS, in some cases halting land application programs entirely.

The aerospace and defense sector is having to address PFAS largely due to firefighting foams and legacy contamination. The Department of Defense (DOD) has identified nearly 600 sites with PFAS releases and is working on a phased transition to PFAS-free foams. However, many of those cleanup efforts have been delayed into the 2030s, raising concerns among local communities. Defense contractors and DOD itself are also facing liability as potential responsible parties under CERCLA.

Looking Ahead

The PFAS landscape will remain dynamic through the next several years with an increased emphasis on remediation. EPA is expected to extend deadlines for certain drinking water standards while rescinding others. CERCLA litigation could affect the scope of Superfund liability. At the state level, legislative activity is accelerating, with new bans and disclosure laws set to take effect in 2026 and beyond.

For clients, the key risks to monitor include rising compliance costs for testing and treatment, the spread of product bans and the growth of litigation targeting both manufacturers and downstream users. Insurers are moving quickly to exclude PFAS claims, leaving companies more exposed. Supply chains are tightening as major producers exit PFAS markets, and regulators continue to add compounds to their lists of concern.

In short, PFAS regulation has entered a new phase. Federal regulations, state bans and high-profile litigation are converging to create a challenging environment for businesses and policymakers. Brownstein is tracking PFAS legislation and regulations on the federal level and across all 50 states. We can assist companies in monitoring this ever-changing landscape as companies review exposure risks, audit supply chains and begin planning now for a regulatory environment in which PFAS risk is unavoidable.

This document is intended to provide you with general information regarding regulatory updates related to PFAS. The contents of this document are not intended to provide specific legal advice. If you have any questions about the contents of this document or if you need legal advice as to an issue, please contact the attorneys listed or your regular Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP attorney. This communication may be considered advertising in some jurisdictions. The information in this article is accurate as of the publication date. Because the law in this area is changing rapidly, and insights are not automatically updated, continued accuracy cannot be guaranteed.