CCRcorp Sites  

The CCRcorp Network unlocks access to a world of insights, research, guides and information in a range of specialty areas.

Our Sites

TheCorporateCounsel

TheCorporateCounsel.net

A basis for research and practical guidance focusing on federal securities laws, compliance & corporate governance.

DealLawyers

DealLawyers.com

An educational service that provides practical guidance on legal issues involving public and private mergers & acquisitions, joint ventures, private equity – and much more.

CompensationStandards

CompensationStandards.com

The “one stop” resource for information about responsible executive compensation practices & disclosure.

Section16.net

Section16.net

Widely recognized as the premier online research platform providing practical guidance on issues involving Section 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and all of its related rules.

PracticalESG

PracticalESG.com

Keeping you in-the-know on environmental, social and governance developments

PFAS litigation is one of the fastest-growing areas of environmental law. We’ve seen massive settlements already, and states are still ratcheting up PFAS regulation. New Mexico passed a new PFAS labeling law in 2025. That law would require products with intentionally added PFAS to label their products with the outline of an Erlenmeyer flask with “PFAS” written inside of it. Recently, a federal court enjoined the law after assessing New Mexico’s constitutional power to compel factual and noncontroversial disclosures. A recent ArentFox memo explains:

“The government can require businesses to provide factual, noncontroversial information, but there must be a reasonable connection between the required disclosure and the government’s stated purpose… To establish that the disclosure was factual and noncontroversial, New Mexico emphasized that the symbol was simply a ‘consumer awareness label,’ not a warning about PFAS risks. But the state simultaneously justified the mandate as advancing public health and environmental protection. The court found those positions difficult to reconcile. The court was also persuaded by evidence that, outside the litigation, New Mexico had itself treated the label as a warning.”

So in summary, New Mexico created something of a legal paradox. The state has a legitimate objective in warning its citizens about the dangers of chemicals in products. However, to use this as the basis for their labeling law, they would have to show that the thousands of PFAS chemicals covered under the law are all harmful to human health. This is a generally impossible task. So instead, the state argued that the label wasn’t a warning, but was merely for awareness. This undercut the government’s objective of protecting public health. The New Mexico litigation isn’t over, but this decision establishes a precedent for other state lawmakers. PFAS labeling is likely a question of “when” not “if.” Even given New Mexico’s setback, companies would be wise to be forward-looking and proactive in PFAS management.

Our members can learn more about PFAS regulation here.

Back to all blogs

The Editor

Zachary Barlow is a licensed attorney. He earned his JD from the University of Mississippi and has a bachelor’s in Public Policy Leadership. He practiced law at a mid-size firm and handled a wide variety of cases. During this time he assisted in overseeing compliance of a public entity and litigated contract disputes, gaining experience both in and outside of the courtroom. Zachary currently assists the PracticalESG.com editorial team by providing research and creating content on a spectrum of ESG… View Profile