.svg?rev=0123a45359b34a45b72f615f84c63d11&hash=D9D267D4F8A003D6A105C987E125D147){kind=logo}
At a Glance
- Although the January 2027 labeling deadline is now enjoined, this is a preliminary ruling and the litigation remains ongoing.
- Companies that manufacture or sell products with intentionally added PFAS should continue to monitor this case and consult counsel before changing compliance plans.
- All other obligations under the PFAS Protection Act, including sales prohibitions and reporting requirements, remain enforceable.
On September 16, 2026, the US District Court for the District of New Mexico granted a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of New Mexico's per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) product labeling requirement while the underlying challenge proceeds. The ruling in American Chemistry Council et al. v. Kenney, No. 1:26-cv-02130-MIS-SCY, is a significant development for manufacturers and other businesses subject to the labeling provisions of New Mexico's PFAS Protection Act.
PFAS Protection Act
New Mexico's PFAS Protection Act has three facets — reporting, labeling, and phased product bans. The reporting component requires manufacturers of products containing intentionally added PFAS to report detailed information, including product descriptions, the purpose of PFAS use, the amount of each PFAS identified by Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) registry number, and manufacturer contact information to the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) on or before January 1, 2027. New Mexico further imposes a first-of-its-kind product labeling requirement for products manufactured after January 1, 2027, requiring a universal PFAS label visible to consumers. The labeling requirement was the only one challenged and is now subject to a preliminary injunction.
Basis for the Preliminary Injunction
First Amendment
While the court found that the required PFAS label — an Erlenmeyer flask icon with the word "PFAS," is purely factual and not controversial, it concluded that New Mexico failed to demonstrate a "reasonable fit" between the labeling mandate and its stated interests in consumer health, safety, and environmental protection.
Consumer Information versus Warning Label
The state described the label as a way to increase consumer awareness rather than as a warning. The court noted that labeling requirements in other states that remained in place after legal challenges gave consumers useful safety or disposal information they could act on. New Mexico's label did not provide that type of information.
Impact of the Preliminary Injunction
The court order covers only the labeling provisions of the rule. While the preliminary injunction is in place, the January 1, 2027, labeling deadline is on hold.
However, the phased sales restrictions and reporting requirements remain in full effect in New Mexico. And while the ruling could serve as helpful precedent if similar challenges are brought in other states, the ruling does not change PFAS labeling requirements in those states, including California, Colorado, and Connecticut, which have their own, more limited labeling laws.
Looking Forward
Although the January 2027 labeling deadline is now enjoined, this is a preliminary ruling and the litigation remains ongoing. New Mexico may appeal to the Tenth Circuit or seek a stay. The court also noted that a differently framed warning label, one conveying actual risk information, might survive First Amendment scrutiny, leaving open the possibility that NMED could pursue revised rulemaking.
Companies that manufacture or sell products with intentionally added PFAS should continue to monitor this case and consult counsel before changing compliance plans. All other obligations under the PFAS Protection Act, including sales prohibitions and reporting requirements, remain enforceable. Businesses that manufacture or sell products in multiple states should assess compliance strategies across other state PFAS labeling regimes.
