2026 mid-year PFAS update: How federal and state regulation is shaping compliance and litigation risk

Federal and state regulation of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), as well as related policy initiatives such as Make America Healthy Again (MAHA), continue to accelerate and evolve, with key compliance deadlines approaching in mid-2026 and early 2027.

These developments are shaping how PFAS-related risk is created, documented, and evaluated in enforcement and litigation. The shift is driven in part by the interaction of federal and state regimes – where product restrictions, reporting requirements, and emerging standards are increasingly creating traceability of PFAS use across the supply chain – with compliance decisions in one area directly influencing exposure in another.

At the same time, recent federal actions, including the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s proposed scaling back of portions of the PFAS drinking water standards, introduce additional uncertainty regarding the scope of future federal regulation. While it remains unclear whether federal requirements will expand beyond perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), many states have already adopted broader approaches, and ongoing research efforts continue to evaluate other members of the PFAS class.

This alert highlights three key trends: 1) recalibration of the scope of PFAS regulation at the federal level, 2) intensification of US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) food safety research, and 3) expansion of state consumer product restrictions.

Expanded reporting, testing, and disclosure could strengthen companies’ compliance posture while simultaneously generating information that may be scrutinized in enforcement actions.

As a result, the focus for companies is not whether to test or disclose, but rather how to structure those activities within a defensible framework that balances diligence, operational feasibility, and litigation risk.

Federal environmental regulatory developments

Since taking office, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has refocused federal PFAS regulatory priorities on two compounds – PFOA and PFOS – rather than pursuing full-scale rollback of the Biden Administration’s broader PFAS agenda. This signals that federal PFAS regulation remains a bipartisan interest, with the debate centered on whether current science supports regulatory action beyond PFOA and PFOS.

Consistent with this approach, on May 18, 2026, EPA published two proposed rules to scale back portions of the PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR), promulgated in April 2024, which established Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for six PFAS compounds. The first proposed rule would extend the compliance deadline for public water systems to meet the MCLs for PFOA and PFOS from 2029 to 2031, providing additional time for treatment infrastructure, monitoring, and capital investments.

The second proposed rule would rescind the regulatory determinations and individual MCLs for the four remaining PFAS compounds: hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA, also known as GenX), perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS), and the Hazard Index MCL for mixtures of these substances plus perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS).

Citing Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024), EPA concluded that the agency followed an unlawful process by simultaneously proposing and finalizing regulatory determinations and drinking water standards for these four PFAS, rather than following the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)’s sequential notice-and-comment process. EPA emphasized that this proposed rescission is procedural only and does not reflect any reassessment of the underlying science. The proposal does not affect the current MCLs for PFOA and PFOS.

EPA will accept public comments on both proposed rules for 60 days following publication or until July 20, 2026. The agency will also hold a virtual public hearing on the proposed rules on July 7, 2026.

Meanwhile, in April 2026, EPA published the draft Sixth Contaminant Candidate List (CCL 6) for public comment under the SDWA. PFAS is carried forward as one of four chemical groups, consistent with its CCL 5 listing. While the CCL does not impose requirements, it is the first step in the SDWA regulatory framework, informing future Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rules and determinations on whether to set enforceable drinking water standards.

Beyond drinking water, EPA has advanced coordinated actions addressing PFAS across their lifecycle, from manufacturing and reporting through waste management and disposal. These actions span Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) reporting, Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) data collection, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) classifications, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting, and destruction and disposal guidance.

Waste management and disposal

With respect to treatment, storage, and disposal pathways, recent federal actions have focused on tools to investigate, characterize, and address PFAS-containing waste streams.

EPA’s Spring 2025 Regulatory Agenda indicates the agency’s intent to finalize a rule, originally proposed in February 2024, that would list nine PFAS compounds – including PFOA, PFOS, and GenX – as hazardous constituents under the RCRA.

As proposed, the rule would not impose cradle-to-grave hazardous waste controls or independently create cleanup obligations. Rather, it would provide EPA with authority to investigate and address releases of listed PFAS from RCRA-permitted facilities and could inform future hazardous waste listings.

Separately, EPA recently withdrew another February 2024 RCRA proposed rulemaking that would have clarified that the agency’s corrective action authority applies to all substances meeting the definition of “hazardous waste,” even if not specifically listed as hazardous waste or constituents (e.g., emerging contaminants such as PFAS).

EPA has also focused more acutely on PFAS disposal. In April 2026, EPA released for public comment an updated Interim Guidance on the Destruction and Disposal of PFAS and Materials Containing PFAS. The guidance describes technologies that may be feasible for PFAS destruction or disposal and identifies key data gaps that require resolution before EPA can issue more definitive recommendations.

While not binding, it informs decisions by regulators, waste managers, and affected communities pending more prescriptive standards, and it may provide early insight into the prevailing disposal methodologies that present lower long-term risks for stakeholders who must make decisions about disposal now.

Reporting and disclosure

Federal PFAS reporting requirements have expanded under several statutes as EPA seeks additional information on where and how PFAS are manufactured, used, released, and discharged. These expanding reporting regimes also increase the availability of information regarding PFAS use and distribution, which may be relied upon by regulators and plaintiffs in future enforcement actions or private litigation. Key recent developments include:

• TRI reporting expansion: EPA has continued adding PFAS to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), most recently adding sodium perfluorohexanesulfonate (PFHxS-Na) and bringing the total to more than 200 PFAS subject to TRI reporting. Newly listed PFAS are typically designated as “chemicals of special concern,” excluding them from de minimis exemptions and simplified reporting.
  
  
• TSCA Section 8(a)(7) PFAS reporting rule: EPA has continued refining its PFAS reporting rule under Section 8(a)(7) of the TSCA, originally finalized in October 2023. The rule requires any entity that manufactured or imported PFAS or PFAS-containing articles since 2011 to report detailed information to EPA. In April 2026, EPA announced it had extended the data submission start date until the earlier of January 31, 2027 or 60 days after the effective date of a forthcoming final rule that would provide exemptions from the reporting requirements, such as for de minimis amounts of 0.1 percent, imported articles, byproducts, and research and development activities.
  
  
• NPDES permit updates: EPA’s Regulatory Agenda indicates its intent to propose updates to certain NPDES permits to require PFAS monitoring and reporting. If implemented, these updates would extend systematic PFAS disclosure obligations to a broad universe of permitted dischargers.

In parallel with these coordinated steps by EPA, several state environmental agencies are pursuing more stringent approaches or implementing additional programs to identify and address PFAS sources. For instance, in May 2026, New Mexico took the notable step of classifying aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF), a firefighting foam, as a hazardous waste, enabling the state to address contamination resulting from releases through its hazardous waste cleanup authorities.

States have placed significant focus on addressing concerns related to PFAS in biosolids, including conducting research and studies to identify PFAS sources from wastewater treatment plants and land application sites and, in some cases, restricting or prohibiting the land application of biosolids where PFAS contamination is detected. States have also taken steps to implement pretreatment requirements for industrial operators to reduce PFAS concentrations in their discharges before reaching source waters.

FDA priority research on PFAS in food

While FDA has placed seafood firms on import alert for PFAS contamination, the agency’s focus remains on developing a more comprehensive understanding of PFAS in the food supply. FDA’s Human Foods Program (HFP) has published a list of priority research, data, and methodological needs to guide the agency’s ongoing PFAS work, reflecting its current focus areas for understanding and mitigating dietary PFAS exposure.

The HFP’s PFAS research priorities include the following:

• Identifying species-specific and process-specific sources of PFAS for appropriate control
  
  
• Identifying foods that contribute most to PFAS dietary exposure and developing mitigation techniques
  
  
• Monitoring PFAS concentrations in different foods and tracking reductions from mitigation efforts
  
  
• Evaluating PFAS in the most consumed seafood types, including differences between domestic and imported, wild-caught and aquaculture, and raw versus processed seafood
  
  
• Developing methods to monitor food packaging for grease-proofing agents containing PFAS

In December 2025, FDA published additional PFAS results from Total Diet Study samples collected in 2024. FDA found that 93 percent of the samples had no PFAS detections, and 7 percent had only trace detections across seafood, meat, dairy, and produce. A small number of samples had non-trace detections in some seafood products.

FDA’s test results are posted on the agency website, which was updated to improve transparency and provide greater context for its analytical findings. FDA also issued a congressionally mandated report in December on PFAS in cosmetics. For most PFAS reviewed, the data was insufficient to determine safety, although a small number show low levels of concern.

The HFP has identified consumer exposure to contaminants, including PFAS, as a key 2026 priority deliverable within its Food Chemical Safety focus area. The agency plans to release additional PFAS exposure data alongside data on heavy metals such as lead, arsenic, cadmium, and mercury.

Collectively, these efforts are expected to expand the body of publicly available data on PFAS in the food supply, potentially informing future regulatory standards while also creating an evidentiary record that may be relied upon in enforcement actions and private litigation.

State PFAS product laws: Key compliance dates

States continue to enact and implement commerce restrictions, reporting requirements, and labeling initiatives for PFAS-containing consumer products. The reporting requirements are increasing the traceability of PFAS in the marketplace, which may, in turn, influence enforcement priorities and provide a factual basis for future claims.

Although the primary focus remains on “intentionally added” PFAS that has been deliberately included in a product or component to serve a specific technical function, rather than incidentally present, some states are beginning to restrict regulated levels of total organic fluorine present in a product as a purported proxy for PFAS regardless of intention.

Meanwhile, the scope of covered products continues to expand, with states largely prioritizing categories such as textiles and apparel, carpets and rugs, cleaning products, cookware, cosmetics, dental floss, fabric treatments, children’s and juvenile products, menstrual products, textile furnishings, ski wax, upholstered furniture, and firefighting equipment in the first tranches of restrictions.

Commerce restrictions vary across states. Some jurisdictions, such as Connecticut, require advance notification or disclosure before manufacturers may sell PFAS-containing products. Others, including Minnesota, impose mandatory reporting obligations with strict and continuous supply-chain diligence requirements. Several states have enacted outright sales bans on covered products containing intentionally added PFAS, often using staged phase-out approaches covering different product categories over time. Manufacturers and distributors operating across multiple states are encouraged to monitor these differing compliance timelines closely.

The following summary outlines key state PFAS product laws taking effect between mid-2026 and early 2027:

• July 1, 2026 – Connecticut: Deadline for manufacturers to provide written notification before selling or distributing certain products containing intentionally added PFAS, such as apparel, carpets, cleaning products, and cosmetics
  
  
• September 15, 2026 – Minnesota: Deadline for manufacturers to report intentionally added PFAS in products
  
  
• December 19, 2026 – New York: Prohibition on the sale of menstrual products containing any “restricted substance” that was deliberately added as an ingredient; restricted substances include PFAS, heavy metals, formaldehyde, parabens, and phthalates
  
  
• January 1, 2027:

• New Mexico: Prohibition on the sale of certain products containing intentionally added PFAS, such as cookware, food packaging, dental floss, juvenile products, and firefighting foam, with subsequent phases covering additional categories of products
  
  
• Rhode Island: Prohibition on the manufacture, sale, or distribution of covered products – including carpets, cookware, cosmetics, juvenile products, menstrual products, and textile articles – containing intentionally added PFAS
  
  
• California: Tightening of the regulated PFAS threshold for textile articles from 100 to 50 parts per million of total organic fluorine
  
  
• Washington: Prohibition on the sale of intentionally added PFAS in apparel, automotive washes, and cleaning products, with annual PFAS reporting due January 31, 2027

Looking ahead

These developments reflect a broader shift from discrete regulatory requirements to interconnected frameworks that shape how PFAS risk is created and evaluated. Companies are encouraged to proactively align their compliance, testing, and disclosure strategies – while documenting the basis for those decisions – to manage both regulatory obligations and downstream exposure as this landscape continues to evolve.

DLA Piper’s PFAS Task Force continues to monitor the evolving PFAS regulatory landscape. For more information, please contact the authors.