Manufacturers Nationwide Must Brace for New Mexico's Novel PFAS Labeling Rule

Earlier this year, New Mexico adopted a novel PFAS labeling rule that will impact a broad range of manufacturers whose products are sold or distributed in the state.¹ Beginning January 1, 2027, manufacturers must label products that contain intentionally added PFAS with an outline of an Erlenmeyer flask with the word “PFAS” inside the flask. The label must be clearly visible and legible prior to sale. Even products that are exempt from the reporting requirements and future sales bans must bear the label.

The rule stems from New Mexico’s 2025 PFAS Protection Act.² The Act phases in restrictions on PFAS-containing products by prohibiting the sale and distribution of certain products beginning January 1, 2027, requiring reporting of PFAS information by that date and prohibiting the sale and distribution of all products containing PFAS after January 1, 2032, unless the PFAS use is deemed a “currently unavoidable use.” The broad reporting requirements and ban on sales mirror similar laws in Minnesota and Maine. New Mexico has distinguished itself with the labeling mandate.

Contentious Rulemaking Hearing

The rule drew attention and criticism during the rulemaking process. Regulations issued by the New Mexico Environment Department must go through a public evidentiary hearing before the state Environmental Improvement Board (the Board). The New Mexico Environment Department opened its public comment portal on September 25, 2025, and kept it open through the evidentiary hearings held from February 23 – 26, 2026.

Industry groups argued that the labeling requirement would run afoul of the First Amendment, echoing arguments seen in challenges to other disclosure laws, including California Proposition 65 warnings and California’s climate disclosure laws. The groups argued that compelled commercial disclosures must be purely factual and uncontroversial, while New Mexico's PFAS labeling requirement may extend to substances whose status as PFAS is disputed.

The labeling mandate is particularly objectionable, industry groups contended, because it would apply to products that the Act exempts from the sale bans and reporting requirements, such as certain products with fluoropolymers, refrigerants, and other common PFAS uses.

In a February 18, 2026, joint resolution, the New Mexico Legislature tasked the Board with preparing a report on the implementation of the Act.³ Any ambiguity about whether the Board has authority to apply the labeling mandate to products that are otherwise exempt from the Act’s requirements was resolved by the resolution, which confirmed that it does.

Stakeholders also raised concerns during the hearing that the January 1, 2027, compliance date is impracticable. The Board rejected proposed changes that would have delayed the labeling deadline and created broader labeling exemptions. The final labeling rule provides a potential narrow waiver, but only if the product is exempt under the rule’s exemption section and none of the product materials containing intentionally added PFAS will come into direct contact with a consumer while the product is used as intended during the useful life of the product.

Will the Courts Agree?

The rule is being tested in federal and state courts. Paint company Diamond Vogel, Inc., filed an appeal in the New Mexico State Court of Appeals on May 22, 2026.⁴ In its case, Diamond Vogel intends to raise compelled speech objections, the scope of the Board’s statutory authority, the application of the labeling requirement to otherwise exempt products, and the practicality of the January 1, 2027, compliance deadline.

The American Chemistry Council, National Association of Manufacturers, and seven other trade associations filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico on July 1, 2026.⁵ The plaintiffs assert that the labeling requirement is unconstitutional because it compels manufacturers to speak in violation of the First Amendment. “The mandated pictograph is plainly designed to trigger an emotional response that labeled products contain a dangerous chemical,” the complaint says. By treating every PFAS within the class of thousands of chemicals equally—regardless of the unique chemical properties of each and whether they pose a risk to human health—the rule does not meet the standard for regulation of commercial speech. The regulation also violates the dormant commerce clause because New Mexico may not regulate transactions that take place out of state, the complaint says. The groups seek declaratory and injunctive relief.

Creating fodder for the constitutional argument, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, on July 14, 2026, temporarily suspended enforcement of California’s “Truth in Labeling” law that bars the use of the “chasing arrows” symbol for recyclability unless certain criteria are met.  The court found that the trade association plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the law violates the First Amendment by restricting commercial speech.⁶

What Manufacturers Should Do Now

Manufacturers that import, distribute, or sell products in New Mexico should evaluate compliance with the labeling requirements separately from the state’s sales ban, reporting obligations, and available exemptions. The New Mexico Environment Department announced it will use the PFAS Reporting Information System for Manufacturers (PRISM)—the same reporting platform as Minnesota—for the upcoming PFAS disclosures. Ahead of the January 1, 2027, reporting compliance deadline, manufacturers should:

• Engage with their supply chain to identify products that contain intentionally added PFAS and confirm whether those products are sold or distributed in New Mexico.
• Assess whether any products may be eligible for the rule’s narrow labeling waiver.
• Track the pending state and federal litigation challenging the rule.
• Monitor for implementation guidance from the New Mexico Environment Department.

The lawyers in Ballard Spahr’s Environment and Natural Resources Group regularly advise clients on PFAS compliance, litigation, transactional due diligence, and regulatory strategy. We are available to assist with commenting on pending rulemakings, assessing PFAS liability exposure, developing remediation and disposal strategies, and navigating the evolving state-by-state regulatory landscape.

Explore Ballard Spahr’s PFAS Legislation Tracker to stay informed about PFAS-related developments.

Copyright © 2026 by Ballard Spahr LLP.
www.ballardspahr.com
(No claim to original U.S. government material.)

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior written permission of the author and publisher.

This alert is a periodic publication of Ballard Spahr LLP and is intended to notify recipients of new developments in the law. It should not be construed as legal advice or legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general informational purposes only, and you are urged to consult your own attorney concerning your situation and specific legal questions you have.