Maryland lawmakers failed to pass legislation during the recent General Assembly session that would have implemented sweeping changes to the use in Maryland of polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), also known “forever chemicals.”

House Bill 1022, which was withdrawn before the end of the legislative session, would have, among other measures:

• Expanded product bans for specified consumer products that contain intentionally added PFAS chemicals
• Required manufacturers to register their products that contain intentionally added PFAS chemicals with the Maryland Department of the Environment by Jan. 1, 2028 and pay a related registration fee
• Established related compliance, enforcement and penalty provisions
• Created a newly established Maryland PFAS Chemicals Protection and Remediation Fund, which would prevent and remediate PFAS chemical contamination by, among other things, providing grants and loans to public and private entities for related projects

National Landscape

In 2015, Delaware became the first state to pass legislation aimed at regulating PFAS and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). Since then, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Rhode Island, New York, Vermont and Virginia have enacted legislation of varying degrees. 

Although the Maryland bill was withdrawn, the scope of its proposed requirements provides insight into how the state may regulate PFAS in the future. The breadth of the proposed legislation in Maryland — and similar laws advancing in other states — signals where regulation may be heading.

Why Companies Should Still Be Paying Attention

Unlike other states, which have broader exemptions for specific industries such as semiconductors, motor vehicles, military applications and specialized equipment, Maryland would limit any exemptions for compliance only to federal preemption, resold products and for products for which it is currently unavoidable to use PFAS. 

Maryland also would be more stringent than other states by explicitly banning PFAS in paints, sexual intimacy products and pet food packaging. The proposed legislation also included a broader definition than most states of personal care products applicable to both humans and pets (shampoo, conditioner, soap, bath gel, any other bath product, toothbrush, toothpaste, dental floss, mouth wash, shaving gel and sunscreen).

Finally, although the civil penalties for first violations were largely lower than other states (up to $500 for a person who violates the proposed law and up to $15,000 for a manufacturer) the proposed Maryland law would require manufacturers to buy back any remaining stock of the affected product from the seller. This is particularly interesting given that for certain products (carpets/rugs and firefighting foam), House Bill 1022 contained a retroactive provision for those products of Jan. 1, 2024, despite the Bill having an effective date of October 2026. 

Although there are other nuances to this now-withdrawn legislation, companies should take note of the potential compliance issues they may be facing in the future in Maryland and elsewhere.

Businesses that manufacture, distribute or sell consumer products in Maryland — or supply products into the state — should consider evaluating:

• Whether PFAS may be present in their products or packaging
• Whether their suppliers use PFAS-containing materials
• Whether future state-level restrictions could affect product availability or distribution
• Whether internal compliance processes are sufficient to address emerging PFAS reporting obligations

Early awareness and preparation may help reduce future compliance risks and avoid operational disruption as PFAS regulation continues to evolve across the country. Miles & Stockbridge’s lawyers are monitoring changes to PFAS legal standards at the federal and state levels and are available to help clients identify legal requirements and procedural steps required for compliance with data submission requirements.

Opinions and conclusions in this post are solely those of the author unless otherwise indicated. The information contained in this blog is general in nature and is not offered and cannot be considered as legal advice for any particular situation. The author has provided the links referenced above for information purposes only and by doing so, does not adopt or incorporate the contents. Any federal tax advice provided in this communication is not intended or written by the author to be used, and cannot be used by the recipient, for the purpose of avoiding penalties which may be imposed on the recipient by the IRS. Please contact the author if you would like to receive written advice in a format which complies with IRS rules and may be relied upon to avoid penalties.