PFAS Reporting Gets Real In 2026 – Environmental Law

What You Need to Know

• Key takeaway #1
  
  Manufacturers, importers and brand owners of products containing
  PFAS components have until July 1, 2026 to comply with
  Minnesota’s reporting requirements.




• Key takeaway #2
  
  Several aspects of the regulations will make compliance
  challenging, including an obligation to report for products
  distributed by third parties.




• Key takeaway #3
  
  Given the anticipated reporting challenges, it is important to act
  now to assure compliance.

State regulation of PFAS-containing products will ramp up
significantly in 2026. Most notably, companies will have to comply
with Minnesota’s sweeping new product-reporting requirements.
As we explain below, Minnesota’s requirements cast a wide net,
capturing companies that may not sell products directly into the
state. This and other features of the state’s reporting program
are likely to present significant compliance challenges for a wide
range of businesses.

Minnesota’s Newly Enacted Reporting Regulations

In December 2025, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
issued final regulations implementing the state’s
precedent-setting reporting requirements for products made with
PFAS. The regulations mandate reporting by any
“manufacturer” of a product containing intentionally
added PFAS that is sold, offered for sale, or distributed in the
state. For purposes of the regulations, the term
“manufacturer” includes not only the entity that produces
a product, but also an entity whose brand name appears on the
product and, in some instances, the importer of a product (if the
producer or brand owner is not located in the U.S.). Importantly,
no product categories are exempt from the reporting requirement
(so, for example, drugs and medical devices, as well as other
products regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, must
be reported under the rule). There are also no exemptions for
products with de minimis levels of PFAS content.

Under the regulations, covered manufacturers must provide
detailed information regarding the PFAS substances contained in
their products, including information on chemical identity,
concentration, and the function of the PFAS in the product. All
reports must be completed by July 1, 2026.

At around the same time that the final regulations were issued,
MPCA conducted a limited release of its internet-based, PFAS
reporting tool for beta testing. According to the agency, final rollout of the
reporting tool, called PRISM (“PFAS Reporting and Information
System for Manufacturers”) is expected to occur sometime in
January.

Compliance Challenges

Several aspects of the Minnesota regulations virtually guarantee
that businesses will face significant challenges in complying with
the reporting requirements. Examples include the following:

• Under the regulations, the obligation for reporting falls on
  the “manufacturer” of a product sold, offered for sale,
  or distributed in Minnesota, without regard to whether the
  manufacturer has knowledge of the product being sold or distributed
  in the state. Because products may find their way into any given
  state through multiple and diverse distribution networks, there are
  likely to be numerous manufacturers that are not aware that their
  products are being sold or distributed in Minnesota and, therefore,
  whether the manufacturer has a reporting obligation.




• Another challenging aspect of the Minnesota reporting
  requirement is that it applies not just to products that are sold
  or offered for sale in Minnesota, but also to products that are
  “distributed” in the state. MPCA has made clear that, in
  its view, a product that is brought to a warehouse in Minnesota is
  “distributed” in Minnesota even if the product is
  subsequently removed from the warehouse and transported and sold to
  a customer outside the state (e.g., in Wisconsin or Illinois). So,
  to ensure compliance, businesses will not only need to know if
  their products (including components) are being sold or offered for
  sale in Minnesota, they will also need to understand whether the
  logistics for those products includes warehousing or other
  “distribution” in Minnesota.




• Further complicating compliance, MPCA has warned that products
  with intentionally added PFAS that are on the shelves in Minnesota
  as of July 1, 2026, must be included in a manufacturer’s
  report. This, coupled with MPCA’s position that manufacturers
  are responsible for reporting on products distributed by
  independent third parties, will pose a significant hurdle for
  companies that have less than perfect visibility into their
  distribution networks.




• Finally, because supply chains are often global and
  multi-tiered, manufacturers of complex articles may have limited
  visibility into whether a particular component or subassembly used
  in their finished product contains a part made with PFAS. To
  facilitate reporting for products (and product components) with
  complex supply chains, MPCA has included in its regulations a
  process whereby multiple manufacturers in a supply chain can enter
  into an agreement to submit what is essentially a combined report
  covering multiple PFAS containing components in a product sold in
  the state. However, given the practical difficulties inherent in
  identifying all relevant manufacturers in a complex supply chain
  and getting those manufacturers to sign an agreement for joint
  information submission, it is unclear whether this option for
  combined reporting will realistically facilitate reporting for
  products with complex supply chains.

Act Now

As illustrated above, manufacturers, importers, and brand owners
will face difficult challenges as they seek to understand and
comply with their obligations under Minnesota’s PFAS reporting
regulations. In addition to determining the PFAS content of their
products, businesses will need to evaluate their distribution
networks and assess their supply chains to understand what
reporting will be required, and how best to comply with any
reporting obligations. As we have noted in prior client alerts (here, here, and here), companies should also consider the
interplay between federal and state PFAS reporting requirements to
avoid duplicative efforts when gathering and analyzing product and
supply-chain information and ensure compliance at all levels with
the minimum amount of effort.

Crowell has been following the Minnesota (and other state and
federal) PFAS regulations closely and can respond quickly to assist
clients in efficiently complying with the state’s reporting
program.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.