Beauty & Wellness Briefing: How brands and manufacturers are preparing for new global regulatory changes

“The biggest frustration I see [from clients selling internationally] is the minute they think they have a handle on [regulation], they find out that there’s something else they didn’t know about,” said Allison Stevenson, Esq., partner at Hill Ward Henderson Law Firm in Tampa, Florida. 

Stevenson’s work includes preparing U.S.-based personal care brands for the onslaught of changes currently rolling out across the globe. “It’s best practice for brands and manufacturers to be paying very close attention right now and to be expecting the unexpected,” she told Glossy. “Because as much as we’ve seen change lately, and there’s been a lot of panic in the industry about it from the legal side, I really don’t think we’ve seen anything yet.” 

Stevenson advises her clients to prepare for rolling changes over the next five to seven years, after which, she predicts regulation could catch up with consumer values and start to settle into the new standards that will dictate the industry for years to come. 

Top of mind for many brands is the European Union’s new Greenwashing Ban, which was approved by the E.U. Parliament in January. “Greenwashing” commonly refers to marketing that misleads consumers about a brand’s, product’s or service’s favorable environmental impact. It’s likely to go into effect in the middle of 2026. 

“Global beauty and wellness brands can expect increased scrutiny of their green claims which will impact the way they are able to talk about ingredients, packaging and business decisions,” said Georgia-Rae Taylor, sustainability strategy director at Eco-Age Limited, a U.K.-based agency that helps brands with analysis, advocacy and compliance. “This new wave of regulatory attention will level the playing field and encourage brands to depart from generic environmental claims.”

This includes terms like “biodegradable,” “climate neutral,” “eco-friendly,” “green” and “good for the planet” made on social media, on packaging, in marketing materials and in advertisements. It also includes climate reports released to the public by brands, which will now be held to the same strict standard as messaging found in advertisements. 

“From a legal perspective, the buzzwords that are really scary are ‘healthy’ and ‘all natural,’ [the latter of] which is one that gets brands in trouble a lot,” said Stevenson, Esq. “I would suggest pulling back on all of those buzzwords to bring it back to the basics of just talking specifically about your product and what your product does, without trying to throw in qualifiers. It’s always those qualifiers that get people in trouble.” 

Preparing for strict marketing scrutiny now is wise, regardless of whether or not your brand is selling into the E.U., as this issue has been quietly growing stateside, as well. That’s especially around the safety and environmental qualifier “clean” in beauty. 

“We’re expecting to see decisions in two federal court cases involving retailers’ ‘clean beauty’ programs, clarifying whether their definitions match up with those of certain consumers,” said lawyer Kelly Bonner, Esq., an associate at Duane Morris Law Firm LLP in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. “All of these decisions will affect whether or how ‘clean beauty’ is legally defined in the United States.”

Bonner is referring to an ongoing 2023 class action case against Target in a Minnesota court claiming the retailer “profits off customers’ desires to find cleaner products by creating and over-using the Target Clean symbol of approval on a range of beauty products that actually contain chemicals that are harmful to humans and the environment.” 

“You’ll also see additional litigation involving cosmetics marketed as ‘clean,’ but which may contain PFAS or so-called endocrine disrupting chemicals,” Bonner, Esq., told Glossy in reference to an ongoing 2022 case against Sephora in New York State court. It alleges false advertising of the merits of its Clean at Sephora program. 

“Cases like these are important to watch from a business risk perspective,” Bonner Esq. said. “Litigation can be expensive and time-consuming and cause reputational damage, even before a decision is rendered. And because these cases tend to be brought on a class basis under state consumer protection statutes, the risk for potential damages can be high. So is it worth the risk to make certain kinds of claims, understanding that a brand may be sued?”

As Bonner said, PFAs are a topic on the minds of brands, consumers and regulators thanks to two new forthcoming bans going into effect in California on January 1, 2025, as part of California’s PFAS-Free Cosmetics Act (AB 2771), and New Zealand in late 2026. 

PFAs are a group of man-made chemicals found in clothing, cosmetics, consumer packaging and many other products. They are nicknamed “forever chemicals” because they are long-lasting, persistent compounds that easily contaminate natural environments, like groundwater. They’ve also been linked to health issues like cancer. 

“Brands should be mindful of these deadlines and already taking steps to reformulate products that contain these ingredients,” Bonner Esq. said. 

To start, Eco-Age’s Taylor recommends her U.K.-based clients establish third-party verified restricted substances lists (RSLs) and manufacturing restricted substances lists (MRSLs). “This will help suppliers and business partners prepare for such bans,” she said. “Beyond this, supply chain traceability is key for monitoring and mapping touchpoints and identifying risks.”

It’s also vital to be aware that brands and manufacturers are often responsible for the compliance of their products, even if their merchandise was sold into a state or country without their knowledge or consent. This could happen through a distributor, on a marketplace site or through the “gray market.” 

Similar to California’s Prop 65, which has cost beauty brands selling into California millions in damages per year for failure to warn customers about common ingredients like titanium dioxide, failure to remove PFAs, or comply more generally with all looming legislation, will inevitably cause many brands to shutter in the coming years. 

These warnings come on top of rolling updates and compliance deadlines for the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulatory Act of 2022, or MoCRA, which went into effect at the end of 2023. 

Stevenson, Esq, recommends her clients take a step back to reassess every single product, marketing claim and supply chain with fresh, critical eyes. 

“There can be so much complacency in this industry. You may think, ‘This has been a successful product for 20 years! If it’s not broke, don’t fix it.’ But now we have to look at every single product through a different lens,” she said. “Look at it from the ground floor all the way to the top and you may realize that things that were not a red flag five years ago are now huge blinking red lights, and we’ve got to figure out how to deal with that.” 

It’s something that brands like Tower 28 have recently implemented. “We hired our own private investigator for six months who did nothing but make sure all of our dossiers are intact for every single part [of our business],” Amy Liu, founder and CEO of Tower 28 Beauty, told Glossy. “I asked, what are all of the things that we’ve ever said about a product? And give me all of the backup [to prove we are able to make those claims]. … It’s something brands really need to take care of [now].”

This required an analysis of Tower 28’s supply chain by auditing every vendor, testing agency and marketing claim. Tower 28’s Liu was partially inspired by MoCRA compliance, as well as the brand’s forthcoming entry into the international market through Mecca in Australia. “[Now, if] anyone asks me a question, like when I say our products are good for sensitive skin, I know exactly what I can say [because it’s been backed up in our documentation].”

Reviewing all active contracts is also wise. “I would highly recommend that manufacturers include indemnity provisions in their contracts,” said Stevenson Esq. “They basically say that if this product leaves my hands and it gets to you, and you do something to it that is outside of this contract and now I’m no longer in compliance with all regulations, then you will protect me against claims that allege that my product violated the regulatory body.”

Stevenson Esq. also suggests adding as much third-party testing as possible, including testing for anything that is being mentioned in new legislation, court cases or gaining steam in safety- or environmental-focused advocacy groups. That includes heavy metals or anything that falls under Prop 65. 

For example, documenting your supply chain audit process for PFAs is good, but testing every product for PFAs is better, as industry insiders say they are often used without brand knowledge. 

“Beautycounter has been vocal about how PFAS are secretly used by raw material and packaging suppliers,” Gregg Renfrew, founder and CEO of Beautycounter told Glossy. “They are sprayed on equipment used to mix color cosmetics and they are even used in storage totes that ship ingredients around the world.”

Beautycounter launched in 2013 as a direct response to the lack of regulation and safe ingredients in the beauty industry and it has since been a leading industry lobbyist of Congress for safer standards. “Taking a precautionary approach to banning ingredients has been the most important way we have prepared for future regulation. Oftentimes we’re ahead of the curve,” Renfrew said. “But being one step ahead of regulations is actually where things are hard. We’re often the first company to have conversations with manufacturing partners about ingredient safety or contaminant concerns.”

Bringing on council is also recommended by all sources Glossy spoke to for this article. 

“You want to set yourself up now to be in the best position if and when you need it, to show that as a company you have dotted every ‘i’ you have crossed every ‘t,’” Stevenson Esq. said. “Document every single thing that you have done to try to make this product not just as environmentally friendly as possible, but make [all marketing materials] as accurate as possible. This is going to put you in the best position for when you are put into a position to have to defend your composition and defend your marketing.”

Inside our coverage:

TJ Maxx and Marshalls parent company TJX is becoming a beauty retail heavyweight.

Rhode’s viral ‘lip case’ offers a TikTok marketing masterclass.

Shiseido’s Ulé is among the first beauty brands to launch digital product passports.

What we’re reading:

How ‘anti-spas’ like Remedy Place sell wellness to men.

Dua Lipa is the new face of YSL Beauty.

Former Nécessaire exec teams launches exosome-powered skin-care line SickScience.