MoCRA gave the FDA real authority over cosmetics for the first time in nearly a century. MAHA put ingredients under a microscope. But the exposure most likely to actually cost a beauty brand money in 2026 isn’t a missed FDA filing — it’s a marketing claim with no legal definition behind it.
The short version: Three forces are reshaping beauty compliance at once. MoCRA (in force since 2023–24) made the FDA a credible enforcer of cosmetics safety and labeling. MAHA is driving ingredient scrutiny that’s migrating from food into color cosmetics. And the words brands lean on hardest — “clean,” “non-toxic,” “natural,” “free-from” — have no FDA definition, which makes them easy for regulators and class-action plaintiffs to challenge and hard to defend. Add a fast-moving state patchwork (California, Washington, and a growing PFAS cluster), and the claim that’s fine federally can be a lawsuit in California. The defensible move is to substantiate or qualify every claim before it ships.
1. MoCRA: the FDA now has teeth (and most of it is already live)
The Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 (signed 29 Dec 2022, amending the FD&C Act) was the biggest expansion of FDA cosmetics authority since 1938. The parts that are in force right now:
- Facility registration & product listing — the FDA’s enforcement-discretion grace period ended 1 July 2024; this is now actively enforced (register every two years, update listings annually).
- Safety substantiation — the “Responsible Person” must hold records adequately substantiating each product’s safety.
- Serious adverse event reporting — within 15 business days, plus six-year recordkeeping.
- Mandatory recall authority — the FDA can now order recalls and suspend a facility’s registration (previously recalls were voluntary).
- Expanded adulteration/misbranding standards.
What’s not in force yet — and where the competitor commentary often gets it wrong:
- Cosmetic GMP rule: overdue. MoCRA told the FDA to propose GMP regulations by Dec 2024 and finalize by Dec 2025; the FDA missed both and the rulemaking is now a “long-term action” with no proposed rule published.
- Fragrance allergen labeling rule: also overdue — no proposed rule has been issued (the often-cited “June 2024” is the statutory deadline the FDA missed, not a rule).
- Talc/asbestos testing rule: the FDA proposed it in Dec 2024 but withdrew the proposal on 28 November 2025, saying the method couldn’t reliably distinguish asbestos forms; it intends to reissue, with no timeline.
The takeaway: MoCRA’s safety/operational duties are real and enforced today, but several headline rules are delayed — so the near-term legal pressure is shifting to the area that needs no rulemaking at all: claims.
2. MAHA: the dye dominoes (a food story spilling into beauty)
The “Make America Healthy Again” agenda formalized under Executive Order 14212 (13 Feb 2025), with the MAHA Commission’s assessment (May 2025) and strategy (Sept 2025) putting synthetic additives squarely in scope. The concrete actions so far are food actions:
- FD&C Red No. 3 authorization was revoked (15 Jan 2025) for food and ingested drugs (reformulation by Jan 2027/2028). Note: Red No. 3 has already been barred from cosmetics since 1990.
- An April 2025 plan to phase out petroleum-based dyes — Red 40, Yellow 5, Yellow 6, Blue 1, Blue 2, Green 3 — is largely voluntary/industry-agreement, not a finalized rule.
Why beauty teams should care anyway: those same dyes are everywhere in lip, eye, and color cosmetics. There is no parallel federal cosmetics-colorant ban yet — but regulatory pressure that starts in food has a habit of migrating, and consumer sentiment doesn’t wait for rulemaking. Brands marketing “clean” color cosmetics built on dyes in the MAHA spotlight are carrying reformulation and messaging risk.
3. The real exposure: claims with no legal anchor
Here’s the uncomfortable part. The FDA has no regulatory definition of “clean,” “natural,” “non-toxic,” “chemical-free,” or “hypoallergenic” for cosmetics — by the FDA’s own admission, such a term “means whatever a particular company wants it to mean.” That’s not freedom; it’s exposure:
- FTC deception standard applies regardless. Even without an FDA definition, an unsubstantiated or misleading claim is actionable under the FTC Act. The FTC’s Green Guides (last updated 2012, under review since 2022 with no finalized revision) specifically warn that unqualified “non-toxic,” “free-of,” and general “green” claims are hard to substantiate.
- Plaintiffs have noticed. There is an active wave of consumer class actions over “clean,” “non-toxic,” “natural,” and “free-of” beauty claims — typically under California’s UCL/FAL/CLRA and New York GBL §349/§350. These cases turn on exactly the gap above: a feel-good word with nothing behind it.
- “Free-from” backfires. Claiming a product is “free of” an ingredient it never contained, or that implies competitors are unsafe, is a recurring litigation trigger.
The fix is unglamorous: every claim needs substantiation or a qualifier, before it’s published — across packaging, the PDP, paid ads, and influencer content.
4. The state patchwork: compliant federally, exposed in California
There is no single national standard, and the states are moving faster than Washington, D.C.:
- California — Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act (AB 2762): bans 24 intentionally-added ingredients (certain phthalates, formaldehyde donors, mercury, parabens, 13 named PFAS), effective 1 Jan 2025; AB 496 adds ~26 more substances (verify effective date before relying).
- California — PFAS ban (AB 2771): intentionally-added PFAS in cosmetics prohibited, effective 1 Jan 2025 (distinct from AB 2762’s named PFAS).
- California — Safe Cosmetics Act + fragrance right-to-know (CFFIRKA): ingredient reporting to the state.
- Prop 65: warning obligations for listed chemicals — a perennial cosmetics litigation source.
- Washington — Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act (HB 1047): restricts PFAS, ortho-phthalates, formaldehyde/releasers, lead, mercury and more, effective 1 Jan 2025.
- A widening PFAS-in-cosmetics cluster — Colorado, Minnesota (Amara’s Law), Maryland and others — with staggered effective dates (confirm each before relying).
Federally, the Safer Beauty Bill Package (four bills reintroduced in the House on 18 July 2025) would tighten ingredient bans and transparency — but it’s pending in committee, not law. Don’t market against it as if it were.
What beauty brands should do now
- Substantiate or qualify every claim. “Clean,” “non-toxic,” “free-from,” and sustainability claims need evidence or a clear qualifier on file before launch — not after a demand letter.
- Check the whole funnel, not just the label. The same claim on an influencer reel, a retailer PDP, or an affiliate page carries the same liability as the box.
- Map claims to the state patchwork. A formulation/claim that’s fine federally can violate California AB 2762/AB 2771, Prop 65, or Washington’s HB 1047. Build a per-state view.
- Watch the MAHA dye list if you sell color cosmetics — track reformulation and adjust “clean” messaging accordingly.
- Keep an audit trail. When a regulator or plaintiff asks “what’s your basis for ‘non-toxic’?”, the answer needs to be a document, not a Slack thread.
How ZebraTruth helps
ZebraTruth checks beauty marketing content — ads, PDPs, packaging copy, influencer scripts — against the rules that actually create exposure: FTC deception and substantiation standards, the Green Guides posture on “non-toxic”/“free-of”/“green,” and the state ingredient/PFAS/Prop 65 patchwork — flagging unsubstantiated “clean”/“natural”/“non-toxic” claims and “free-from” traps before they ship, each with the exact rule citation, a recommended fix, and an audit trail you can hand a regulator.
Start free · Book a compliance walkthrough
Related reading: The FTC is now enforcing its Consumer Review Rule · The Ultimate Guide to Gen AI Compliance
FAQ
Are “clean” and “non-toxic” beauty claims regulated? There’s no FDA definition of “clean,” “non-toxic,” or “natural” for cosmetics — but that doesn’t make them safe to use. They’re regulated indirectly through the FTC’s deception/substantiation standard and are a leading target of consumer class actions, so they must be substantiated or qualified.
What does MoCRA require beauty brands to do? As of 2024 it requires facility registration and product listing, safety substantiation, serious-adverse-event reporting within 15 business days, and recordkeeping — and it gives the FDA mandatory recall authority. GMP and fragrance-allergen labeling rules are still pending.
Does MAHA ban dyes in cosmetics? Not yet. The 2025 MAHA-era dye actions are food-focused — only FD&C Red No. 3’s revocation is finalized (and it was already barred in cosmetics since 1990); the broader dye phase-out is voluntary. But the same dyes appear in color cosmetics, so reformulation and “clean” messaging risk is real.
Why are beauty brands getting sued over “clean” claims? Because the terms have no fixed legal meaning, plaintiffs argue they mislead consumers — typically under California’s UCL/FAL/CLRA and New York’s GBL §349/§350. Unsubstantiated or “free-from” claims are the most common triggers.
Is a federally compliant claim safe in every state? No. California (AB 2762, AB 2771, Prop 65), Washington (HB 1047), and a growing PFAS cluster impose stricter ingredient and warning rules — a claim can be fine federally and create exposure in those states.
Sources: FDA — MoCRA · FDA — registration & listing deadline · Federal Register — talc testing proposal withdrawal (28 Nov 2025) · FDA — revoking FD&C Red No. 3 · HHS — phasing out petroleum-based dyes · FDA — “natural”/“organic” cosmetics claims · FTC — Green Guides · California AB 2762 (Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act) · Washington Dept. of Ecology — Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act
General information, not legal advice. Cosmetics rules and state laws are changing quickly and several federal rules are delayed or pending; verify against the primary sources before relying on any rule or date. Published 21 June 2026.