Environmental Developments To Watch In California In 2025

As California remains at the forefront of environmental progress and regulation, 2025 will usher in pivotal developments in state-level policies addressing product stewardship, contaminants of concern, climate change, mobile and stationary sources, worker safety, and water rights, among others.

Beveridge & Diamond closely tracks developments, upcoming deadlines, and business implications for companies with operations in California. Below we summarize key areas of activity and what companies should expect in the year ahead.

This article focuses exclusively on these state-driven initiatives and trends, setting aside the broader implications of federal policies under the Trump administration. As California adjusts its approach to align with or counter federal actions, we will provide a separate analysis later this year following the transition to the new administration.

Contaminants of Concern

Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)

In September 2024, California's legislature enacted two new bills restricting the use of PFAS in consumer products.

• AB 347 - This statute gives California's Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) enforcement authority over existing PFAS restrictions on textile articles (AB 1817), juvenile products (AB 652), and cookware and food packaging (AB 1200) (the "covered products" under the "covered PFAS restrictions"). AB 347 also requires manufacturers of covered products to submit a registration to DTSC by July 1, 2029, pay a registration fee, and submit a statement of compliance to DTSC confirming that each covered product complies with the covered PFAS restriction on the sale or distribution of the product that contains regulated PFAS. DTSC will begin enforcing this legislation after July 1, 2030. Given DTSC is the enforcement authority for the above-mentioned covered products, we expect DTSC to release guidance on interpreting AB 1817, AB 652, and AB 1200 in the future.
• AB 2515 - This statute prohibits companies from manufacturing, selling, or distributing menstrual products that contain regulated PFAS. "Regulated PFAS" means PFAS "intentionally added to a product" as of January 1, 2025, and will mean "PFAS in a product at or above a limit determined by the department" beginning January 1, 2027. Like AB 347, AB 2515 requires manufacturers to register with DTSC by July 1, 2029, pay a registration fee, and submit a statement of compliance confirming that menstrual products do not contain regulated PFAS.

We expect DTSC to initiate the rulemaking process for both statutes, which would include regulations regarding accepted testing methods for PFAS levels in menstrual products and third-party laboratory accreditations, and regulations to implement, interpret, and enforce the statutes. Both statutes require DTSC to adopt these regulations before January 1, 2029.

Proposition 65

California's Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, Health & Safety Code Section 25249.5 et seq. ("Proposition 65") prohibits persons in the course of doing business from knowingly and intentionally exposing individuals to certain listed chemicals above a safe harbor level, where one exists, without first providing a "clear and reasonable" warning to such individuals. (Health & Safety Code ' 25249.6). The law applies to consumer product exposures, occupational exposures, and environmental exposures that occur in California. Presently, there are approximately 900 listed chemicals known by the State of California to cause cancer, reproductive harm, or both.

In 2025, we will continue to see developments in the implementation and enforcement of this law, of which manufacturers and retailers selling products in California should be aware.

Vinyl Acetate

On December 19, 2024, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment's (OEHHA) Carcinogenic Identification Committee (CIC) voted to list vinyl acetate as a carcinogen under Proposition 65. Vinyl acetate is primarily used in glues, plastics, paints, paper coatings, and textiles. Exposure to the chemical can occur through dermal contact, inhalation, or ingestion.

Vinyl acetate was listed despite industry groups claiming that none of the recognized Proposition 65 authoritative bodies consider the chemical to be a carcinogen. OEHHA published evidence of the carcinogenicity of vinyl acetate, which was used by the CIC to support the listing.

Once listed, businesses have 12 months to provide any required warnings.

Warning Labels

Safe harbor regulations provide examples of long-form and short-form warnings deemed "clear and reasonable," which, if followed, offer businesses an affirmative defense in the event of enforcement. On December 6, 2024, OEHHA amended Proposition 65 to require companies to add at least one chemical name'or the name of two chemicals, if the warning covers both cancer and reproductive toxicity, unless the same chemical is listed for both endpoints'to the short-form warning on the product label for products manufactured and labeled after January 1, 2028. For example:

"[the warning symbol] WARNING: Cancer risk from exposure to [name of chemical]. See www.P65Warnings.ca.gov."

OEHHA has authorized the continued used of the earlier short-form warning template (that does not name the chemical) for products manufactured and labeled before January 1, 2028:

"[the warning symbol] WARNING: Cancer - www.P65Warnings.ca.gov."

Manufacturers and retailers selling products in California containing listed chemicals should review their product labeling protocols, as non-compliance may result in an enforcement action. Some manufacturers have employed generic short-form warnings to forestall enforcement actions without determining whether their products actually exposed consumers to listed chemicals. This practice will not be effective after 2027.

Amended Acrylamide Warning Label

On January 1, 2025, OEHHA's amendments to acrylamide warning label requirements took effect. The new regulation provides:

Warnings must now contain either:

1. "WARNING"
2. "CA WARNING"; or
3. "CALIFORNIA WARNING."

The warning must be followed by either:

1. "Consuming this product can expose you to acrylamide;" or
2. "Consuming this product can expose you to acrylamide, a chemical formed in some foods during cooking or processing at high temperatures."

The warning must also be followed by at least one of the following:

1. "The International Agency for Research on Cancer has found that acrylamide is probably carcinogenic to humans;"
2. "The United States Environmental Protection Agency has found that acrylamide is likely to be carcinogenic to humans;" or
3. "The United States National Toxicology Program has found that acrylamide is reasonably anticipated to cause cancer in humans."

The warning may be followed by one or more of the following:

1. "Acrylamide has been found to cause cancer in laboratory animals";
2. "Many factors affect your cancer risk, including the frequency and amount of chemical consumed"' or
3. "For more information including ways to reduce your exposure, see www.P65Warnings.ca.gov/acrylamide."

The newly amended warning language comes after years of ongoing litigation alleging that the previous warning mandate violated the First Amendment (California Chamber of Commerce v. Rob Bonta (2:19-cv-2019 DJC JDP)). Challengers allege that the warning remains unconstitutional as the state has failed to show that the warnings are purely factual and uncontroversial. As described below, the First Amendment is proving to be an effective defense in some circumstances.

Litigation Update: The Personal Care Products Council vs. Rob Bonta

In recent years, the First Amendment has served as a powerful tool for companies subject to Proposition 65 labeling requirements. A 2025 ruling in The Personal Care Products Council vs. Rob Bonta (2:23-cv-01006) will determine the legality of warning labeling requirements regarding titanium dioxide in consumer products. In 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California is poised to rule on the parties' motions in the case. If the Court grants the Personal Care Products Council's (PCPC) summary judgment motion, the ruling will have far-reaching impacts on the enforcement of Proposition 65, bolstering the First Amendment defense to Proposition 65 claims where there is a reasonable scientific debate about the hazards of the listed chemical.

The action was brought in 2023 by PCPC a non-profit association of businesses in the cosmetic and personal care products industry, which sued California Attorney General Rob Bonta in his official capacity.

On June 12, 2024, the District Court issued an Order granting PCPC's request for a preliminary injunction enjoining Bonta and all private enforcers of Proposition 65 from filing new lawsuits to enforce the law's warning requirement for exposures to titanium dioxide. The District Court agreed with PCPC that the "Prop 65 warning requirements for Listed Titanium Dioxide are not purely factual because they tend to mislead the average consumer" since the warnings may convey a "false and/or misleading message that Listed Titanium Dioxide causes cancer in humans or will increase a consumer's risk of cancer." This, according to the District Court, renders PCPC likely to prevail on the merits of its First Amendment claim under Zauderer v. Off. of Disciplinary Couns. of Supreme Ct. of Ohio, 471 U.S. 626 (1985) (government may compel commercial speech so long as it is reasonably related to substantial governmental interest, purely factual, noncontroversial, and not unjustified or unduly burdensome).

PCPC's pending summary judgment motion was filed on September 10, 2024. If granted, this will be the third case successfully challenging Proposition 65 warnings on First Amendment grounds, with previous cases involving designated glyphosate and acrylamide. See Nat'l. Assoc. of Wheat Growers v. Bonta, 85 F.4th 1263 (9th Cir. 2023); Cal. Chamber of Comm. v. Bonta, 529 F. Supp. 3d 1099 (E.D. Cal. 2021).

Here...