Following Suit: How California’s PFAS Ban is Influencing Changes in Textile Manufacturing Beyond the State

Citation: Outdoor Gear Lab

Introduction

Water-resistant rain jacket? Stain-resistant school uniform? You have perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, also known as PFAS, to thank for these helpful and useful technological advances in the apparel that we wear on our backs every day. Since the middle of the 20th Century, the garment industry has been using “forever chemicals,” known as PFAS, within the clothes that we wear every day. Extremely effective at protecting against water and creating stain-resistant fabrics, the use of PFAS continued to be commonplace in the apparel industry from the 1950s on. In fact, over 1,500 textile manufacturers in the United States alone may be discharging PFAS. However, it was only in the past twenty years that research by the Environmental Protection Agency and state agencies has revealed the harmful effects of PFAS on human health and the environment.

As the public’s consciousness about the presence of PFAS in everything from cookware to cosmetics has grown, new state legislation is aimed at tackling this pervasive problem in the fashion industry. California’s newly passed AB 1817, known as the Safer Clothes and Textiles Act, prohibits the distribution, manufacturing, and sale of textiles with PFAS present. With this act, California and other states are continuing efforts to try to mitigate the damage that the notoriously unsustainable garment industry wreaks havoc on both the planet and the health of those who live on it. California, a state that boasts a garment industry which produces over $15 billion worth of apparel each year, implementing regulations to of over instituting this important regulation serves as a guide for other state governments to help regulate

In 2023, California’s garment industry generated $22 billion. Furthermore, California is the leading state in the $35.2 billion U.S. outdoor apparel, footwear, and equipment industry. Although implementing this ban entails significant costs, it is a necessary measure to prevent far greater financial, environmental, and public health consequences. AB 1817 will be expensive in the short term but will prevent long-term damages to California’s environment and public health. PFAS regulation is a beneficial global trend that will result in more sustainable products overall.

The Safer Clothes and Textiles Act

In January 2025, California passed AB 1817, which prohibits the manufacture, distribution, or sale of new textiles used in apparel that contain “regulated” PFAS. The Act considers any substance with “a class of fluorinated organic chemicals containing at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom” to be a PFAS. The “regulated” PFAS that are banned are chemicals that are “intentionally added by the manufacturer, which have a “functional or technical effect on the product or product component.””

The broad scope of AB 1817 does not stop at what is included in its definition of a PFAS; it also casts a wide net for what is included under the term “apparel.” Items such as undergarments, pants, skirts, shirts, costumes, dresses, bodysuits, saris, dancewear, athletic clothes, swimwear, baby clothes, and footwear are all considered “apparel” under the PFAS prohibition. Notably, AB 1817 carves out an exception for PFAS found in personal protective equipment, such as firefighter uniforms, and clothing used exclusively by the military. In addition, AB 1817 uses a scaled system to ensure compliance for manufacturers. A textile is currently prohibited under AB 1817 if it contains more than 100 parts per million (ppm) of total organic fluorine. However, soon, the maximum allowed will be 50 ppm of total organic fluorine starting January 1, 2027. Outdoor apparel for “severe wet conditions” may contain PFAS until January 1, 2028, but until then, a disclosure is required. California “provides more clarity with the ppm limits than most states.” The scaled system of enforcement of the regulation was implemented with the idea that it would provide clothing manufacturers and developers time to create the same quality of textiles without PFAS present.

Expanding PFAS Regulation

AB 1817 is the latest example of California’s push to regulate the fashion industry. Over the past few years, California has expanded regulatory oversight of the fashion and apparel industry to address environmental concerns, reduce textile waste, and provide labor protections for garment workers. For example, the Responsible Textile Recovery Act of 2024 targets environmental impacts, while the Garment Worker Protection Act of 2022 strengthens protections for workers in the industry. These overhauls aim to help mitigate the damage that is not only done to the environment by the apparel industry, but also to the lives and health of those who wear the clothing. As consumerism of apparel continues to rise, and the fashion season cycle moves at dizzying speeds, clothing is being bought and produced, despite the global fashion industry showing slow growth in 2025. Furthermore, the Trump Administration's global tariff usage on imported goods has caused some apparel manufacturers to explore business plans that involve greater domestic production. Due to this, regulation like AB 1817 is needed in the United States now more than ever. It is especially important to regulate PFAS alongside growing domestic production to ensure that U.S.-based output does not continue harmful chemical practices. This is especially true in California because it is one of, if not the largest, textile producing state in the country. AB 1817 will help to eradicate the production of PFAS-riddled clothing in America at the epicenter of domestic production. 

AB 1817 illustrates a global trend in increasing regulation of PFAS. Governments worldwide are imposing stricter chemical standards that are reshaping business practices and compliance. In particular, the E.U. has imposed a fluorine threshold, France has banned PFAS in many household items, Canada now requires PFAS disclosures, China has classified them, and Japan has both classified and regulated them. California is not the only state that is aiming to tackle PFAS in textiles through legislation. States such as Maine, Washington, and New York have now banned PFAS in children's products, cosmetics, and textiles. Similarly, bans on cookware with PFAS have begun in Minnesota, Colorado, and Maine. More states are set to follow this trend in 2027. AB 1817 was passed into law on the same day as New York Bill S1322, which also prohibits the sale of intentionally added PFAS in textiles for apparel. Similarly, starting on January 1, 2025, Colorado mandated a warning label about the presence of PFAS on outdoor apparel that is manufactured, distributed, or sold for “severe wet conditions.” Come 2028, New York will also be changing its disclosure requirement into an outright ban on any new outdoor weather apparel for “severe wet conditions” that contain PFAS. 

Business Impact

A. Arguments Against/ Limitations On PFAS Regulation 

While governmental regulation is on the rise, so are the projected economic costs of regulation. These costs will be borne by manufacturers, sellers, and consumers. Manufacturers and sellers will have to undergo costly reformulation of their products and then testing of their products to ensure compliance with the new law. For example, Gore-Tex, a brand that specializes in waterproof outdoor apparel, has taken a leading role by developing a PFAS-free membrane prior to the law’s enactment, setting an innovative standard. Also recently, large outdoor clothing brands like Patagonia and The North Face have introduced PFAS-free water-resistant outerwear.

Economic costs also include existing inventory that has been manufactured but not yet sold to consumers. Existing inventory may either be moved to states without bans or be placed in landfills. To continue “business as usual” with PFAS-coated fabrics and other products is not feasible. While the costs of compliance with AB 1817 are significant, they are a mere fraction of what the cost would be to the environment and public health to continue to use PFAS.

B. Arguments For PFAS Regulations and Justification of New Laws

However, continuing use of PFAS would create its own more severe costs. Not only do PFAS-associated illnesses cost as much as $63 billion annually in the U.S., but also trying to mitigate environmental damage is prohibitively expensive. For the same reason that PFAS are so helpful in outdoor wet-weather clothing and other water-resistant products, they are detrimental to the environment because they do not break down naturally and the chemicals contaminate groundwater. In Orange County, California alone, groundwater cleanup of PFAS is projected to surpass $1 billion.. PFAS break down incredibly slowly on their own, so it is extremely difficult to remove them from soil and groundwater. Further, there are potential liability issues and associated litigation costs that businesses would face due to the continued use of PFAS. For example, in December of 2025, the City of Fresno filed a lawsuit alleging that more than 40 companies contaminated local groundwater with PFAS and sought to hold them financially responsible for cleanup. Similarly, in May of 2025, chemical company “3M” agreed to pay $450 million to New Jersey for its role in PFAS contamination.

C. Impact of AB 1817 After One Year

Since the AB 1817’s 100 ppm PFAS ceiling has now been in place for one year in California, compliance requirements for businesses are already changing industry practices. Manufacturers must provide certificates of compliance confirming that their products do not exceed the PFAS limit. Also, since AB 1817 is part of a broader trend of PFAS restrictions, manufacturers are now anticipating compliance differences with each state’s specific PFAS prohibitions, especially in California, Colorado, and New York.

Conclusion 

California is often considered to be a state that's on the cutting edge in many areas, from music to the environment, healthcare, and climate action. California’s ban on PFAS, among the first in the nation, is in step with growing global efforts to reduce harmful chemicals in clothing. While the costs of implementing this ban will be significant, the cost of doing nothing would have harsh consequences to our state’s finances, environment, and public health. 

*The views expressed in this article do not represent the views of Santa Clara University.