On Oct. 30, 2026, California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) proposed adding three more per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) to the Proposition 65 list of chemicals known to cause reproductive toxicity: PFBA, PFDA and PFHxA, together with their salts. If finalized, the listings will double the number of PFAS on the list of chemicals for which businesses must provide a warning under Proposition 65. These listings reach the replacement chemistries many products now rely on, adding California warning obligations and private enforcement risk on top of the growing patchwork of state PFAS restrictions and federal reporting requirements.
Why This Matters
The newly listed chemicals are not legacy chemicals. The three new chemicals would join PFOA, PFOS and PFNA, which are already listed under Proposition 65. PFOA and PFOS are long-chain PFAS that many manufacturers phased out years ago. PFHxA and PFBA are short-chain compounds, and PFHxA is a breakdown product of widely adopted replacements for long-chain PFAS in water-, stain- and grease-resistant products. Products reformulated to eliminate PFOA and PFOS may still contain, or degrade into, these newly listed chemicals.
In many cases, the key data regarding these chemicals is already available to both businesses and plaintiffs. All three chemicals are measured by EPA Method 1633, the test method laboratories use most to screen products for PFAS. Companies that have tested products likely already have results for these compounds, and so will the plaintiffs who bring Proposition 65 claims.
All of this creates real enforcement risk. Proposition 65 requires a “clear and reasonable” warning before knowingly exposing Californians to a listed chemical. OEHHA has not proposed safe harbor levels for these newly listed chemicals (and never adopted one for PFNA), so a business facing a notice of violation must prove that exposure has no observable reproductive effect at 1,000 times the level in question — an expensive, expert-driven showing. Failing to make this showing can result in civil penalties of up to $2,500 per day per violation plus attorney fees.
OEHHA’s proposal is another step in a national trend. More than a dozen states now restrict intentionally added PFAS in consumer products, and EPA’s Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 8(a)(7) rule required manufacturers and importers to gather detailed PFAS data across their supply chains. For companies selling nationally, Proposition 65 adds a consumer disclosure layer on top of those bans and reporting duties — and California listings often shape how customers, retailers and other regulators view a chemical. A coordinated, companywide PFAS strategy is often necessary to meet these complex demands.
Timing
OEHHA is proposing the listings under the “authoritative bodies” mechanism, relying on EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) toxicological reviews of PFBA (2022), PFHxA (2023) and PFDA (2024). Before finalizing the listings, OEHHA is providing an opportunity to comment on whether the chemicals meet the listing criteria. Comments are due by Monday, Nov. 30, 2026. If the listings are finalized, warnings would be required 12 months after the listing date.
What Companies Should Do Now
Data gathered for state PFAS laws and TSCA reporting is the natural starting point. Manufacturers, distributors and retailers whose products reach California should:
- Inventory fluorinated chemistries. Identify products using water-, stain- or grease-repellent treatments, nonstick coatings or fluoropolymer processing aids.
- Leverage existing data. Rely on already-developed TSCA and state reporting files and EPA Method 1633 results before commissioning new testing.
- Update supplier contracts. Extend PFAS representations, testing protocols and indemnities to the three newly listed chemicals and allocate the cost of reformulation or warnings.
- Decide whether to warn, reformulate or defend. Use the 12-month grace period to weigh exposure levels, reformulation feasibility and the commercial impact of warnings on labels, packaging and online listings, ideally as part of a companywide PFAS strategy.
- Consider commenting. Companies and trade groups with relevant scientific data should consider commenting by Nov. 30, 2026.
Warner’s Resources, Energy and Environmental Law Practice Group assists businesses with Proposition 65, state PFAS product restrictions and federal PFAS reporting. To discuss how these listings may affect your products, contact Paul Beach, Michael Woo, Brenden Catt or a member of the Resources, Energy and Environmental Law practice group.
