California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) proposed adding microplastics as a Candidate Chemical to be regulated under the Safer Consumer Products (SCP) program on June 20, 2025. This action and its subsequent steps – typically reserved for specific chemical compounds, not broad categories like “microplastics” – could provide DTSC with the means to regulate a wide variety of plastic-containing products, including packaging, in an unprecedented way.
If fully implemented, the proposal could have significant and costly impacts on businesses that manufacture or sell plastic-containing products. DTSC’s move reinforces California’s increasingly significant role in a growing global effort to address plastics and microplastics, with similar regulatory initiatives being taken in Canada, the European Union (EU), and elsewhere in the United States.
DTSC’s Safer Consumer Products program
Enacted under California’s 2013 “green chemistry” law, the SCP program initially focused on specific product-chemical combinations – such as children’s sleeping products containing Tris(1,3-dichloro-2-propyl) phosphate (TDCPP) flame retardants. Recently, SCP has expanded significantly, encompassing widely used substances such as PFAS in carpets and the anti-degradant N-(1,3-dimethylbutyl)-N’-phenyl-p-phenylenediamine (6PPD) in tires.
Under the SCP, DTSC identifies Candidate Chemicals based on hazard traits, environmental impact, and exposure potential, periodically updating this list. DTSC then selects Priority Products containing these chemicals. Manufacturers or sellers of these Priority Products are required to conduct rigorous Alternatives Analyses, evaluating the safety, performance, cost, and lifecycle impacts of potential alternatives. Depending on the findings, DTSC may impose regulatory responses ranging from product labeling and use restrictions to outright bans.
Notably, recent amendments proposed under SB 502 (2022) would allow DTSC to rely on existing public studies or evaluations of alternatives, potentially bypassing new Alternatives Analyses and moving directly to imposition of regulatory actions. The comment period for these proposed amendments closes July 21, 2025. Noncompliance may result in penalties of up to USD50,000 per violation, per day, under California Health & Safety Code § 25253.7, as amended by SB 502.
Anticipated regulatory pathway for “microplastics”
Following the public comment period (open through August 4, 2025), DTSC will review feedback and finalize its determination. If microplastics are officially listed, DTSC may identify specific consumer products or packaging as Priority Products. Manufacturers of these Priority Products will be required to either conduct detailed Alternatives Analyses or comply directly with specific regulatory actions. Industries that may be significantly affected due to the types of materials used and higher regulatory scrutiny include:
- Cosmetics
- Food and beverage
- Personal care
- Textiles
- Packaging
- Cleaning products, and
- Tire manufacturing.
While this proposal alone does not impose any immediate compliance obligations, affected industries may anticipate and prepare for forthcoming regulatory burdens.
Potential challenges
DTSC’s proposed definition of microplastics is likely to generate significant debate. It proposes:
[P]lastics that are less than 5 millimeters (mm) in their longest dimension, inclusive of those materials that are intentionally manufactured at those dimensions or are generated by the fragmentation of larger plastics.
First, while consistent with the EU’s REACH regulations and public statements from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) – which is also investigating microplastics exposure – the proposed sizing significantly departs from the conventional understanding of “micro” substances. It therefore encompasses a vast variety of materials with diverse physical, chemical, biological, and ecological impacts.
Even more significant challenges likely await regarding DTSC’s approach to identifying Priority Products containing microplastics. Unlike prior chemicals regulated under the SCP, microplastics are ubiquitous – found in every environment, and generated by nearly any plastic product or packaging. Under the current proposal, manufacturers could be subject to regulatory oversight regardless of the actual risk posed by their specific product.
Although DTSC may set an Alternatives Analysis Threshold (AAT), allowing exemptions from analyses if chemical concentrations fall below certain limits, manufacturers will still be required to submit detailed AAT notifications and provide rigorous scientific evidence and testing to demonstrate compliance.
These substantial enforcement challenges and compliance burdens highlight potential fairness concerns with targeting manufacturers in isolated product categories. Given the global scale and multitude of sources contributing to microplastic pollution, imposing substantial regulatory and economic responsibilities on specific groups of manufacturers and businesses is likely to be perceived as arbitrary, inequitable, and subject to legal challenge.
California initiatives in plastics legislation, regulation, and enforcement
For several years, California has steadily increased its legislative, regulatory, and enforcement focus on plastics and plastic pollution. Through a combination of new laws, regulatory proposals, and lawsuits, the state continues to shift the burden of addressing plastics pollution onto businesses. The microplastics proposal also aligns with a broader trend in these regulatory efforts, including:
- Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act (SB 54): Mandates major plastic waste reductions, potentially intersecting with SCP obligations
- Attorney General (AG) lawsuit against a large plastics manufacturer: California’s AG has filed a lawsuit against a large plastics manufacturer for allegedly misleading the public about the environmental impact of plastic pollution
- Truth in Recycling Labeling (SB 343): Restricts the use of recycling symbols on products unless they meet stringent recyclability criteria in California
- Rigid Plastic Packaging Container Law: Mandates that rigid plastic packaging sold in California meets specific recycled-content requirements or demonstrates source reduction, reusability, or high recycling rates
- California’s Water Board microplastics monitoring project: A four-year initiative to monitor microplastics in drinking water
- Microbeads ban: Banned the use of microbeads in personal care products to prevent microplastic pollution
These California initiatives are paralleled by similar efforts in other jurisdictions:
- United States: A pending Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) petition advocates for monitoring microplastics in drinking water, indicating possible future federal involvement
- Canada: The government classified plastic-manufactured items as “toxic substances” in 2021 under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, and has since enacted regulations prohibiting the manufacture, import, and sale of six categories of commonly used single-use plastic products, reflecting sustained and escalating regulatory emphasis
- EU: REACH regulations have been progressively phasing out intentionally added microplastics, impacting global supply chains
- United Nations: Currently under negotiation through an intergovernmental negotiating committee, the United Nations Plastics Pollution Treaty is a global initiative that aims to establish a binding international framework to reduce plastic pollution worldwide, indicating a strong global commitment to addressing plastics comprehensively
Next steps
Companies producing or marketing consumer products containing or potentially releasing microplastics may consider:
- Assessing products and supply chains. Thoroughly evaluating existing product formulations, materials, and manufacturing processes can help identify the most significant areas for potential microplastic generation during product use and disposal
- Engaging suppliers proactively. If not already receiving, product manufacturers should consider obtaining more detailed information on the polymer construction of key plastics components of their plastic products and packaging
- Preparing for regulatory scrutiny. In light of this and many other plastic-reduction mandates, businesses may consider evaluating plastic reduction opportunities and materials or designs that could mitigate microplastic release
- Engaging in rulemaking. Interested stakeholders have until August 4, 2025, to submit comments on DTSC’s proposal. Providing substantive scientific, technical, or economic insights at this stage can meaningfully influence DTSC’s ultimate determinations
- Monitoring momentum. Track DTSC’s Priority Product selections, EPA’s drinking-water rulemaking, and EU implementation dates to maintain a single, globally coherent compliance roadmap
Looking ahead
DTSC’s proposal builds upon sustained regulatory attention to microplastics, previously detailed in our client alert from May 2023. Early and strategic engagement can position businesses to manage this evolving regulatory landscape effectively. While listing microplastics will not impose immediate burdens on businesses, it opens the gate for product-specific mandates and exemplifies California’s intent to address persistent contaminants through the SCP program.
Companies that act now – by generating data, engaging regulators, and investing in safer materials – can reduce risk and capture competitive advantage as sustainability expectations rise.
Learn more
For further information or assistance in preparing comments or developing compliance strategies, please contact the authors or your DLA Piper relationship attorney.