Blog By: Grace Hager
For over a decade, the "Clean Beauty" movement has operated without bounds. With a lack of a formal FDA definition or regulation for terms like "clean," "natural," or "non-toxic," brands have enjoyed a broad creative license in their marketing, creating their own standards for clean beauty.[1] However, the tide is now turning. A surge of recent class-action lawsuits targeting industry giants like Supergoop, Ulta, and CeraVe suggests that the era of self-regulated "clean" claims is over.[2] As new FDA data and state-level bans emerge, it begs the question, can a product truly be "clean" if its ingredient lists are filled with the very synthetic chemicals it claims to avoid?
“Clean beauty” is a growing personal care trend focused on products made without potentially harmful ingredients, emphasizing transparency, nontoxic formulas, and sustainability.[3] Many clean beauty products promise safer, healthier skin by avoiding chemicals like parabens, phthalates, and formaldehyde, which have been linked to negative health effects.[4]
As the “clean beauty” movement faces a new wave of litigation, the industry must shift from vague marketing to complete and total transparency with its products. In several recent class-action suits, plaintiffs claim they were misled by the labeling of certain cosmetic products as “clean” and “natural” based on the alleged presence of PFAS.[5] PFAS are widely used, long lasting chemicals, which break down very slowly over time.[6] For example, in the recent case of Rush v. Athena Cosmetics, Inc., beauty company Athena deceptively marketed its products as “clean” and “natural” while failing to disclose the presence of DDDE, a PFAS and prostaglandin analog with known health risks, which allegedly caused the plaintiff to suffer pain and eye inflammation.[7]
Scientific studies have shown that exposure to some PFAS in the environment may be linked to harmful health effects in humans and animals.[8] A January 2026 FDA report revealed the true scale of the industry’s PFAS reliance: 51 different “forever chemicals” were intentionally added to 1,744 cosmetic formulations sold in the U.S.[9] Notably, everyday staples like eyeshadows and foundations account for over 56% of these PFAS-containing products, creating a significant point of contention for these “clean” marketing claims.[10]
The FDA findings establish the presence of these chemicals, but California’s recent PFAS ban (AB 2771) provides a new regulatory consequence. The California bill, signed into law in January of 2025 bans the entire class of PFAS, commonly known as “forever chemicals,” from personal care and beauty products sold in California.[11] Because it is uncommon for beauty brands to manufacture different versions of a product for different states, California’s strict law essentially sets a new national standard for the beauty industry. Due to these new regulations, labeling a product as “clean” when it contains PFAS is no longer just misleading marketing, it creates a significant legal risk that could result in costly litigation.
While initial lawsuits focused on the brands creating the formulas, recent lawsuits reflect a broader shift toward retailer accountability.[12] This new trend in litigation is creating a new standard where companies like Sephora and Ulta increasingly act as standard-setters that derive both marketing advantage and legal risk from their own “clean” certification systems.
Because the FDA has no official definition for "clean," retailers like Sephora and Ulta have stepped in to fill the void.[13] They aren't just selling products, they are acting as private regulators. For instance, Sephora’s "Clean at Sephora" seal originally launched with a list of roughly 50 banned ingredients such as parabens and sulfates, and that list has since grown to over 100.[14] Sephora responded that the "Clean at Sephora" seal has never claimed to be all-natural or free from any harmful ingredients, only that products bearing the seal are free from specific ingredients that can be found in other cosmetic products such as phthalates or parabens.[15] Retailers argue that their "clean" seals are non-actionable puffery, contending that a customers should verify those lists rather than assuming "clean" means "chemical-free".[16] Ultimately, this self-regulation has created a tricky situation where “clean” means whatever a retailer says it means.
The era of "clean beauty" as a self-regulated marketing buzzword must come to an end. Between new FDA data on PFAS and California’s strict ban, brands can no longer hide behind vague definitions. Moving forward, "clean" must be measured in a lab rather than a retailers’ monthly marketing meeting, and companies that fail to keep a close eye on their supply chains to ensure that they have documentation supporting the claims will face increasingly costly days in court.[17]
[1] What is Clean Beauty?, RMS BEAUTY, https://www.rmsbeauty.com/blogs/news/what-is-clean-beauty [https://perma.cc/FFW7-TWXM].
[2] Supergoop Class Action Claims Mineral Sunscreen Products Contain Synthetic Ingredients, TOP CLASS ACTIONS (Jan. 5, 2026), https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/lawsuit-news/supergoop-class-action-claims-mineral-sunscreen-products-contain-synthetic-ingredients/ [https://perma.cc/FT2X-N85G]; Ulta Class Action Alleges Clean Beauty Products Contain Banned Ingredients, TOP CLASS ACTIONS (Oct. 28, 2025), https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/lawsuit-news/ulta-class-action-alleges-clean-beauty-products-contain-banned-ingredients/ [https://perma.cc/UZ93-CW4X]; Certain CeraVe Acne Treatments Contain Harmful Levels of Benzene, Class Action Says, CLASS ACTION (Feb. 9, 2026), https://www.classaction.org/news/certain-cerave-acne-treatments-contain-harmful-levels-of-benzene-class-action-says [https://perma.cc/QE7Z-44EQ].
[3] Hope Gillette, The Truth Behind ‘Clean’ Beauty and Skin Health, Healthline (Apr., 8, 2025), https://www.healthline.com/health/the-truth-behind-clean-beauty-and-skin-health [https://perma.cc/5J29-GX46].
[4] Id.
[5] Merrit M. Jones & Jennifer A. Jackson, “Clean” Marketing Claims Land Cosmetics Companies in Messy Class Action Lawsuits, BCLP (May 3, 2023), https://www.bclplaw.com/en-US/events-insights-news/clean-marketing-claims-land-cosmetics-companies-is-messy-class-action-lawsuits-based-on-the-alleged-presence-of-pfas-and-other-synthetic-chemicals.html [https://perma.cc/98ZA-GK6M].
[6] PFAS Explained, U.S. ENVTL. PROT. AGENCY (Sept. 30, 2025), https://www.epa.gov/pfas/pfas-explained [https://perma.cc/D2MF-RJZZ].
[7] Rush v. Athena Cosmetics, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-10078-HDV-AJR, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89584 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2025).
[8] Id.
[9] U.S. Food & Drug Admin., Report on the Use of PFAS in Cosmetic Products and Associated Risks 8–9 (Jan. 2026), https://www.fda.gov/media/190319/download [https://perma.cc/28ET-94MU].
[10] Id. at 9
[11] California PFAS-Free Cosmetics Act (AB 2771 – Friedman), Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, https://www.bcpp.org/resource/california-pfas-free-cosmetics-act-ab-2771-friedman/ [https://perma.cc/G8TF-V9K8].
[12] Top Class Actions, supra note 2.
[13] RMS Beauty, supra note 1.
[14] Sephora Public Chemicals Policy 2023, Sephora (Nov. 2023), https://www.inside-sephora.com/sites/default/files/2023-12/Sephora%20Public%20Chemicals%20Policy%202023.pdf [https://perma.cc/L88H-XDAG].
[15] Clean Beauty Under Fire, Pedrero Regul. Consulting (May 15, 2024), https://pedreroregulatory.com/industry-news/f/clean-beauty-under-fire [https://perma.cc/LV64-7E9J].
[16] Sephora Faces Lawsuit Over “Clean Beauty” Amid Cosmetics Regulatory Vacuum, The Fashion Law (Jan. 4, 2023), https://www.thefashionlaw.com/sephora-faces-lawsuit-over-clean-beauty-amid-cosmetics-regulatory-vacuum/ [https://perma.cc/6ULB-65HW].
[17] Merrit M. Jones & Jennifer A. Jackson, supra note 5.