Hamaji, Claire. “What’s Changing at the US State Level for Chemical Regulations in Electronics?” Chemical Watch News & Insight, December 4, 2025. Enhesa.
US states are taking the lead in regulating chemicals used in electronics, says Claire Hamaji of Integral Consulting.
In recent years, the U.S. has seen a growing trend in which states increasingly take the initiative to regulate chemicals in consumer products, including electronics. This trend is particularly relevant as the implementation of the country’s amended primary law for chemicals management, TSCA, continues to evolve under the current federal administration.
Electronics often contain many individual components, and the chemical ingredients that are used to impart heat and moisture resistance within them may belong to chemical classes that are regulated at the state or federal level. The relatively rapid increase in state-level chemical regulations affecting consumer products creates a challenge for manufacturers and product stewards to remain compliant and competitive.
This article examines the evolving regulatory landscape affecting chemicals in electronics, with an emphasis on key state-level PFAS regulations and California’s Proposition 65. It concludes with considerations on how stakeholders in the electronics industry can stay prepared.
State-level PFAS regulations
Top of mind for many in the electronics industry is the growing number of PFAS regulations being promulgated by various states. An increasing number have begun regulating or banning PFAS use in certain products, or are considering doing so, with many of the state-level regulations applicable to electronics. This trend means it will be very difficult for companies selling their products via e-commerce to avoid states with PFAS regulations.
Certain patterns are emerging among the state regulations that have already been rolled out. However, each state has its own nuances. While federal actions on PFAS are not the focus of this article, it is worth noting that the proposed timeline and exemptions to the federal PFAS reporting requirement under TSCA have undergone multiple recent updates. Additionally, stakeholders should be aware of how each state defines PFAS, as these definitions may differ from the EPA’s definition of PFAS under TSCA.
Maine
Maine’s PFAS law is one of the most ambitious state-level PFAS regulations to date, phasing out the sale of many consumer products containing intentionally added PFAS by 1 January 2032. Under the law, PFAS are broadly defined as “substances that include any member of the class of fluorinated organic chemicals containing at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom”. Exemptions include federally regulated products, medical devices, motor vehicles, semiconductors, non-consumer electronics and laboratory equipment.
The 2032 ban also exempts any uses of PFAS that the state deems to be currently unavoidable uses (CUUs) – that is, uses that are critical for ensuring health and safety or the functioning of society, with no reasonably available alternative. Maine is expected to take a narrow view of which uses qualify as CUUs: it approved only two out of 11 CUU applications for the first phase of its ban, indicating that the bar may be high for consideration as a CUU.
Notably, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MDEP) consulted with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) during the development of its law. Minnesota is now implementing similar PFAS regulations, suggesting that states may emulate each other’s approaches to achieve similar objectives.
Minnesota
Minnesota has recently enacted broad restrictions on PFAS in consumer products under Amara’s Law. The law includes a reporting requirement under which manufacturers of products with intentionally added PFAS must report to the MPCA regarding their sale and distribution of PFAS-containing products. The initial reporting deadline was recently extended from 1 January 2026 to 1 July 2026.
As with Maine’s PFAS law, Amara’s Law adopts a phased approach to product bans, culminating in a total ban on the sale of products with intentionally added PFAS in July 2032, unless the state deems them CUUs. The law includes a CUU clause that will allow for limited exemptions, though the CUU determination process had not been formalised at the time of writing. The MPCA acknowledges the difficulty in replacing PFAS in electronic components due to their performance benefits in terms of safety and durability. As such, intentionally added PFAS in internal or electronic components are exempt until 2032.
Updates to California’s Prop 65
While new state-level PFAS regulations seem to be in the news almost daily, other state-level chemical regulations continue to advance, with implications for electronics.
California’s Prop 65 requires businesses to provide warnings about “significant exposures to chemicals that cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm” if above certain exposure thresholds (called ‘safe harbour’ levels). Currently, there are approximately 900 chemicals on California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Prop 65 List. Of particular relevance to electronics are metals (for example, lead, cadmium, nickel, and antimony trioxide), multiple phthalates, and bisphenols such as bisphenol A (BPA) and bisphenol S (BPS).
Importantly, safe harbour levels are exposure-based rather than concentration-based, making compliance challenging for manufacturers.
More action expected on bisphenols
More regulatory action on bisphenols, including BPS, is imminent under Prop 65. Due to the increasing regulatory pressure on BPA over the past decades, BPS has been increasingly used as a replacement for BPA in hard plastics, including in some electronic devices.
As of January this year, BPS is listed both as a female reproductive toxicant and a male reproductive toxicant. OEHHA’s Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee (DARTIC) met in early October to discuss whether to list BPS as a developmental toxicant. While no safe harbour level has yet been published for BPS, one is anticipated soon. In the meantime, notices of violation have already been filed against manufacturers of electronic products alleging unsafe BPS exposures.
Industry stakeholders should anticipate that OEHHA will regulate more bisphenols beyond BPA and BPS. The agency is currently soliciting toxicological and pharmacokinetic studies on the broader p,p’-bisphenols family, including bisphenol AF (BPAF), bisphenol B (BPB) and bisphenol F (BPF), all of which may be used in plastics.
Staying prepared
Electronics industry stakeholders and product stewards should expect more state-level restrictions on PFAS in electronics, as well as regulations on classes of chemicals such as bisphenols. More broadly, the trajectory of state-level rules on chemicals in electronics is set to create a complex patchwork of regulations that will be increasingly challenging to navigate.
Moving forward, it will be crucial for electronics companies to develop their information management infrastructure to stay prepared for ongoing or potential regulations that may impact their electronics. Best practices for navigating the regulatory road ahead include:
- review your supply chain thoroughly – maintain detailed records of chemicals used in production, including concentrations and whether they are intentionally or unintentionally introduced. Key documents include safety data sheets (SDS), supplier composition reports, toxicity data and exposure or risk assessments;
- understand exemptions and eligibility – check whether your products qualify for exemptions under state-level regulations. If applicable, prepare comments on pending rules and compile documentation to support exemption applications; and
- conduct exposure assessments proactively – gather robust data on potential exposures, or the absence of exposure, to pre-empt potential Prop 65 notices of violation or litigation. Where possible, publish findings in peer-reviewed journals to provide a credible data source as states develop new regulations.
The years ahead are likely to be challenging as manufacturers adapt to rapidly changing state regulations affecting the electronics industry. However, with due diligence and proper preparation, industry stakeholders can position themselves well to weather the next phase of electronics regulation.
The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and are not necessarily shared by Chemical Watch News & Insight.
FURTHER INFORMATION
Reporting PFAS in products, MPCA
TSCA Section 8(a)(7) Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for PFAS, US EPA