The global cosmetics industry faces unprecedented regulatory scrutiny in 2025. Governments across the U.S., EU, Australia, and Asia are tightening ingredient restrictions to protect consumer health and the environment. This shift creates a complex compliance landscape. Brands must navigate conflicting regional rules, adapt formulations rapidly, and balance safety with efficacy. Below is a detailed breakdown of key bans, emerging regulations, and core challenges shaping global cosmetic compliance this year.
United States: State-Level Bans and Federal MoCRA Implementation
U.S. regulation in 2025 hinges on two parallel forces: state-specific ingredient prohibitions and MoCRA (Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act) rollout.
- PFAS Bans Go National: California, Maryland, Minnesota, Colorado, and Washington banned intentionally added PFAS in cosmetics by January 2025. California’s AB 2762 and AB 2771 lead the charge, prohibiting 13 specific PFAS (including PFOS and PFOA) plus all “forever chemicals” in beauty products. Washington’s HB 1047 extends the ban to 8 harmful substance classes and prohibits animal testing.
- Expanded Toxic Substance Bans: California’s AB 496 adds 26 new banned ingredients. These include fragrance allergen lilial (butylphenyl methylpropional) and persistent silicones like cyclotetrasiloxane. The state now prohibits formaldehyde, parabens (isobutylparaben, isopropyl paraben), and phthalates (dibutyl phthalate)—aligning with EU Annex II standards.
- MoCRA Compliance Hurdles: The FDA has delayed key MoCRA rules. GMP (Good Manufacturing Practices) guidelines launch in October 2025, while the agency delays fragrance allergen disclosure until January 2026. Brands must complete annual product listing updates. They also need to prepare for the new asbestos testing method, open for public comment until March 2025.
Core Challenges: Fragmented state regulations force brands to create region-specific formulations. A product legal in Texas may face a ban in California, driving up production costs. MoCRA’s phased implementation adds uncertainty. Companies await final guidelines while adapting to immediate state-level bans.
European Union: Sweeping Ingredient Restrictions and CMR Expansions
The EU’s 2025 regulatory agenda delivers some of the world’s most aggressive cosmetic ingredient controls. Revisions to the Cosmetics Regulation (EC 1223/2009) drive these changes.
- Nanomaterial and UV Filter Bans: EU regulators have prohibited 12 nano ingredients in cosmetics since February 2025. These include colloidal silver, gold, and platinum derivatives. 4-MBC (4-methylbenzylidene camphor) joins the banned list in May 2025, with a one-year sell-through period. Regulators now restrict homosalate and will ban non-compliant products by July 2025.
- New CMR Substance Prohibitions: Revised CLP Regulation (EU) 2024/197 will ban 21 additional CMR (Carcinogenic, Mutagenic, Reprotoxic) substances from September 2025. These join existing prohibitions on endocrine disruptors and toxic preservatives.
- Retinol and Brightener Restrictions: Stricter concentration limits for retinol, retinol acetate, and retinol palmitate take effect in November 2025. Regulators also restrict α-arbutin, kojic acid, and genistein. Brands must reformulate brightening and anti-aging products by late 2025.
Core Challenges: The EU’s rapid rule changes leave limited time for reformulation. Brands had just 11 months to remove 12 nano ingredients after the February 2025 announcement. Compliance requires navigating overlapping regulations—CMR bans, nano restrictions, and UV filter limits often impact the same formulations.
Australia: Sunscreen Ingredient Scrutiny and Safety Reviews
Australia’s TGA (Therapeutic Goods Administration) focuses on sunscreen safety in 2025. It has launched targeted reviews of high-risk ingredients.
- Sunscreen Ingredient Consultations: The TGA opened a public consultation in July 2025. It covers three sunscreen components: high salicylates, oxybenzone, and its degradation byproduct benzophenone. The TGA hasn’t imposed bans yet, but it recommends reformulation to meet stricter long-term safety standards.
- Reef-Safe Legacy Continues: Australia builds on prior reef protection rules. It maintains a regulatory focus on limiting environmental harm, aligning with global trends. This adds pressure for brands to prove both human and marine safety.
Core Challenges: Uncertainty during the consultation phase creates planning risks. Brands must invest in reformulation while awaiting final TGA decisions. They must balance compliance with product availability. Australia’s strict import controls require pre-market approval for new formulations, delaying time-to-market.
Asia: Regional Harmonization and Targeted Prohibitions
Asia’s 2025 regulatory landscape blends regional alignment (ASEAN) and market-specific bans. Japan and Malaysia lead key policy updates.
- Japan’s Eye Product Bans: Japan’s Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare has banned formaldehyde-releasing preservatives in mascaras and eye cosmetics. These include DMDM hydantoin and imidazolidinyl urea. The move targets ingredients linked to eye irritation and cancer risks, forcing brands to adopt gentler preservative systems (e.g., phenoxyethanol, caprylyl glycol).
- Malaysia’s ASEAN-Aligned Updates: Malaysia’s NPRA (National Pharmaceutical Regulatory Agency) has added 26 prohibited substances. These include benzophenone and pentetic acid, with rules taking effect in November 2026. The agency also imposes concentration limits on BHT and homosalate, set for 2027 implementation. These changes align with ASEAN Cosmetic Committee decisions, driving regional harmonization.
- Key Compliance Shifts: Asian markets prioritize consumer safety and environmental sustainability, mirroring global trends. Varying implementation timelines (e.g., Malaysia’s 2026-2027 deadlines vs. Japan’s immediate bans) create complexity for regional brands.
Core Challenges: Brands operating across Asia must manage divergent rules. What is allowed in South Korea may face a ban in Japan. Rapid policy updates (e.g., Japan’s preservative ban) require agile formulation teams to avoid stockpiling non-compliant products.
Global Compliance: Trends and Strategic Solutions
Three key trends emerge across all regions. First, regulators impose stricter limits on endocrine disruptors and persistent chemicals. Second, they increase focus on environmental impact. Third, they demand full supply chain transparency. To navigate these challenges, brands should:
- Invest in Flexible Formulations: Prioritize multi-region compliant ingredients (e.g., reef-safe UV filters, natural preservatives) to reduce regional SKU complexity.
- Leverage Regulatory Technology: Use AI-driven tools to track real-time policy changes and assess ingredient compliance across markets.
- Engage Early with Regulators: Participate in public consultations (e.g., Australia’s TGA reviews) to influence policy outcomes and gain clarity.
The future of cosmetic compliance lies in proactive adaptation. Brands that view regulation as a competitive advantage—rather than a burden—will thrive in 2025’s evolving landscape.
