New Mexico PFAS Labeling Rule Faces Federal Legal Challenge

On July 1, 2026, New Mexico's PFAS in Products regulation became effective. That same day, the American Chemistry Council (ACC), joined by several national trade associations and business organizations, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico challenging portions of the regulation. The plaintiffs also filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction to temporarily block enforcement of the rule's product labeling requirements before they take effect on January 1, 2027.

The lawsuit was filed by the following organizations:

• American Chemistry Council
• Alliance for Automotive Innovation
• American Coatings Association
• Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers
• National Association of Manufacturers
• National Electrical Manufacturers Association
• National Federation of Independent Business
• New Mexico Retail Association

Preliminary Injunction Request

The lawsuit included a request for preliminary injunction, asking the court to pause enforcement of the regulation (requiring products containing intentionally added PFAS to display an Erlenmeyer flask icon labeled "PFAS" beginning January 1, 2027) until the conclusion of the suit. The plaintiffs contend that the labeling requirement violates the First Amendment by compelling manufacturers to communicate a government-mandated message that is neither purely factual nor noncontroversial and improperly burdens interstate commerce under the U.S. Constitution’s Dormant Commerce Clause.

Among the principal arguments raised in the motion are:

• The required label functions as a health risk warning rather than a factual disclosure. 
• PFAS are not a single chemical but rather a broad class of thousands of distinct substances with varying properties, uses and potential risks to human health and the environment. 
• The required disclosure extends beyond the consumer transaction, which the plaintiffs argue falls outside the circumstances in which compelled commercial speech has traditionally been permitted. 
• Compliance would impose significant burdens on manufacturers and interstate commerce.  

Relief Requested

The plaintiffs are asking the court to issue a preliminary injunction prior to the January 1, 2027, compliance deadline. They believe they have a strong argument based on the merits of their constitutional claims, would suffer irreparable First Amendment and economic harm without court intervention, and that the public interest favors pausing enforcement while the case proceeds.

RV Industry Association Position

During the New Mexico rulemaking process, the RV Industry Association expressed several concerns that overlap with issues raised in the lawsuit, although the Association is not a party to the litigation. The RV Industry Association advocated on behalf of its members to exempt RVs from labeling. In addition to written comments, the Association testified before the Environmental Improvement Board highlighting the inconsistencies in the proposed rule that would require labeling of products, such as RVs, that are otherwise exempt from the major portions of the rule. 

The RV Industry Association argued that requiring labeling on RVs would be extraordinarily burdensome and would send a confusing message to consumers about the safety of the products. Further, the Association highlighted the fact that most components that may contain PFAS are internal to the RV, under-the-hood, pose no exposure risk, and are necessary for the safe performance of the RV. 

As a result, the final rule did not include the proposed hazardous-warning language and provides manufacturers with greater flexibility regarding label placement, as well as a process for requesting a labeling waiver. RV manufacturers should evaluate whether individual products or product classes may qualify for a waiver; requests for waivers are due by October 31, 2026.

What does the litigation mean for RV Industry Association members?

The lawsuit is only related to the legal validity of New Mexico's labeling requirement, not the underlying safety of PFAS substances or other aspects of the legislation. Currently, the court has not ruled on the merits of the case or the request for preliminary injunctive relief.

Although this legal challenge represents an important development, manufacturers should continue preparing to comply with the regulation's upcoming requirements. It may take weeks or months for the court to rule on the preliminary injunction, and the outcome remains uncertain.

The RV Industry Association will continue to closely monitor the litigation and provide members with updates as significant developments occur. For more information about this issue, please contact Bill Erny, Senior Manager of Regulatory Affairs at berny@rvia.org.