Summary

Starting in less than two years, Illinois’ Chemicals in Cosmetic Products Act (the Act), signed into law on July 10, 2026, will prohibit a person from knowingly manufacturing, selling, delivering, holding, or offering for sale in Illinois a cosmetic product containing any of the 24 listed intentionally added chemicals or chemical forms. The law may affect more than manufacturers of cosmetic products. Brand owners, ingredient suppliers, importers, distributors, e-commerce platforms, retailers, salons, and other businesses that manufacture or place cosmetic products into Illinois commerce should evaluate whether their compliance programs address the new restrictions.

Companies affected by this new statute should not wait to act. They should identify their cosmetic products sold or held for sale in Illinois and review their formulations, supplier information, and inventory practices for potential compliance issues. Manufacturers should determine whether reformulation, ingredient substitution, supplier engagement, or additional documentation may be necessary. Distributors and sellers should assess whether products held or offered for sale in Illinois contain any listed intentionally added ingredients. Companies looking to rely on the “trace quantity” exception should be prepared to show how the cosmetic product’s manufacturing process was designed to comply with the Act and why the trace quantity was technically unavoidable.

New Ingredient Restrictions for Cosmetics in Illinois

The Act broadly defines a “cosmetic product” as a substance or mixture meant to be applied to clean, alter the appearance of, or protect the human body, including makeup, hair and nail products, soaps and lotions, tanning products, perfumes and colognes, and any product falling under the federal definition of “cosmetic” in 21 U.S.C. § 321(i). The list of restricted chemicals identifies 24 specific ingredients and their Chemical Abstracts Service numbers:

• Dibutyl phthalate (DBP) (CAS no. 8474-2). In December 2025, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determined under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) that DBP presents an unreasonable risk of injury to human health and the environment based on 6 conditions of use (COUs).
• Diethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP) (CAS no. 11781-7). EPA’s December 2025 final TSCA risk evaluation determined that DEHP presents an unreasonable risk of injury to human health and the environment based on 20 COUs. Under federal law, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) prohibits children’s toys and child care articles containing more than 0.1 percent DEHP.
• Formaldehyde (CAS no. 5000-0). In December 2024, a final TSCA risk evaluation determined that formaldehyde presents an unreasonable risk of injury to human health for 58 COUs. In December 2025, EPA posted draft revisions to the risk evaluation.
• Paraformaldehyde (CAS no. 3052589-4) is a solid, polymerized form of formaldehyde that can depolymerize to formaldehyde through heating or dissolution in water.
• Methylene glycol (CAS no. 46357-0), also known as methanediol, is a compound closely related to formaldehyde.
• Quaternium15 (CAS no. 5122978-8) is classified by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as a formaldehyde-releasing ingredient in cosmetics.
• Mercury (CAS no. 743997-6). FDA regulations restrict mercury compounds in cosmetics, except in limited circumstances.
• Isobutylparaben (CAS no. 424702-3) and Isopropylparaben (CAS no. 419173-5) are prohibited by the European Union’s (EU) Cosmetics Regulation. Separate Texas and Louisiana laws impose disclosure or labeling requirements on certain foods containing propylparaben, a separate chemical.
• m-Phenylenediamine and its salts (CAS no. 10845-2) and o-Phenylenediamine and its salts (CAS no. 9554-5), which are prohibited by the EU’s Cosmetics Regulation.
• 13 per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and their salts. California separately prohibits all intentionally added PFAS in cosmetics products, a broader restriction that encompasses the substances individually listed by Illinois. Maryland’s cosmetics law identifies the same specified PFAS forms as Illinois. Some of the listed PFAS are also subject to the EU Cosmetics Regulation. Through the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act (MoCRA), Congress tasked FDA to research PFAS in cosmetics and the scientific evidence concerning their safety.

The Act contains a narrow exception for products manufactured through a process intended to comply with the law and contain only a “technically unavoidable trace quantity” of a listed ingredient. The exception applies only when the trace quantity results from an ingredient impurity or the manufacturing, storage, or packaging process.

Illinois Joins a Growing Patchwork of State and International Restrictions

Illinois joins numerous other states that restrict specified chemicals in cosmetics. California and Maryland enacted restrictions that substantially overlap with Illinois’ listed ingredients. Washington’s Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act and Oregon’s Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act restrict broader classes of substances that include the same core list of ingredients as Illinois. Other states, including Colorado and Minnesota, addressed PFAS in cosmetics through broader consumer protection statutes rather than statutes specific to cosmetics. Similar bills failed elsewhere. For example, Florida’s 2025 Toxic Chemicals in Cosmetic Products died in committee, and Maine’s Safe Cosmetics Act and New York’s Beauty Justice Act died when each state’s respective legislature adjourned.

The Illinois Act states that it is intended to be consistent with certain prohibitions within the EU Cosmetics Regulation. The EU prohibits or restricts a substantially larger universe of substances, with prohibitions affecting more than 1,700 different chemicals and restrictions affecting the use of 380 others. California’s cosmetics legislation, signed on September 30, 2020, similarly stated an intent to enact prohibitions consistent with EU restrictions on the listed intentionally added ingredients. Maryland enacted a closely related cosmetics ingredient prohibition. Nevada also incorporated portions of the EU cosmetics regulation by reference in legislation addressing fragrance allergen disclosure for feminine hygiene products.

Implementation Questions and Future Compliance

The Act leaves several implementation questions unresolved. It does not define “knowingly,” identify an enforcement agency, establish a penalty or remedy, or expressly authorize rulemaking. The absence of an express enforcement framework creates uncertainty, but companies should not assume that the prohibition will be unenforceable or that other Illinois consumer protection authorities could not apply.

Importantly, the Act does not provide a defense to retailers or distributors for relying in good faith on a manufacturer’s assurance that a product complies with the Act, as was present in New York’s proposed Beauty Justice Act. Nor does the Act contain an express sell-through provision or language, like Washington’s Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act or the EU’s Cosmetics Regulation, that would allow Illinois retailers to exhaust their noncompliant stock acquired before the Act’s effective date of July 1, 2028.

Companies that have already implemented formulation controls for the cosmetics laws of other states may have addressed many or all the substances listed in Illinois’s new law. But compliance in other jurisdictions should not be assumed to establish Illinois compliance. Companies should compare the scope of covered products, ingredient definitions, knowledge standards, trace exceptions, supply chain practices, and operative dates under each law.

State and federal activity surrounding cosmetics restrictions may continue even before the Act takes effect. States continue to enact broader consumer product statutes that create labeling, notification, or ingredient restriction provisions covering cosmetic products (see our previous news alert about restrictions adopted in Connecticut, New Mexico, Minnesota, and Maine) alongside cosmetic-specific restrictions (see our previous news alert about Washington’s cosmetics law). FDA continues to evaluate chemicals used in cosmetic products. It issued an assessment of PFAS in cosmetics required by MoCRA that concluded that available information was insufficient to determine the safety of PFAS use in cosmetics. The report stated that FDA will continue monitoring emerging data. See our previous alerts about changes to federal handling of cosmetics here, here, and here.

Conclusion

Companies should use the period before the Illinois Act’s July 1, 2028 effective date to identify covered products, obtain reliable ingredient information, evaluate reformulation and inventory needs, and allocate compliance responsibilities throughout their supply chains. Early planning will be particularly important because the Act does not establish an implementing agency, rulemaking process, express enforcement framework, or clear treatment of inventory manufactured before the effective date.