The French Law banning PFAS in certain products, including consumer textiles, marks a decisive shift in managing PFAS and requires companies to make structural changes in their practices. It comes before any Universal restriction on PFAS is implemented in the EU and it means that companies must immediately adapt their compliance strategy in France, then readapt it again in response to the upcoming general ban at European level. On top of that, there are other laws already in force or being drafted in Europe (Denmark) and internationally (USA, Australia).
The ban in France is effective starting 1st January 2026 while the Decree is expected to be published in December 2025. This leads to a very limited time for Companies to conduct regulatory and environmental audits to identify PFAS-related risks, to invest in substitution technologies or processes to limit or eliminate PFAS emissions and to anticipate new obligations and avoid potential penalties.
EURATEX, representing the European textile and clothing industries value chain, strongly advocates for a delay of the publication of the upcoming Decree by 12 months. This request could be further justified by the concerns explained here after:
- Risk for the EU Single Market: This unilateral action made by a Member State ahead of the UPFAS restriction would create barriers to trade and would be negatively distorting the single market by creating fragmented rules in the EU. More specifically, the French draft decree on PFAS in consumer products introduces thresholds that diverge from harmonised limits already established under the POPs Regulation and REACH restrictions. As illustrated in Annex I, the decree (i) lowers the thresholds for “related substances” (1000 ppb or 260 ppb under POPs/REACH) down to 25 ppb; (ii) introduces cumulative sum thresholds across all PFAS (250 ppb) that are not foreseen under EU law; and (iii) adds a fluorine content criterion (50 ppm TF) absent from the harmonised framework. Such national actions taken ahead of harmonised EU legislation undermine the fundamental objective of the Single Market and the principle of uniform implementation of chemical legislation. PFAS management should remain harmonised at EU level under REACH and the POPs Regulation to ensure consistent enforcement and equal market access across all Member States.
Based on the above, we can assume that the proposed decree conflicts with Article 67 of REACH, which provides that substances, mixtures, and articles complying with Annex XVII restrictions may be placed on the Union market, and with Article 67(3), which allows stricter national measures only if they were already in force before the relevant EU restriction entered into force. The French decree is being adopted after the POPs restrictions on PFOS, PFOA, PFHxS, and C9–C14 PFCAs, as well as after the adoption of the REACH restriction on PFHxA (entry into application 2026) and, therefore, cannot rely on this safeguard clause. It also bypasses Article 129 of REACH, which permits national provisional measures only in emergency situations where risks are not adequately controlled at Union level and requires notification and review, and undermines Article 187, which mandates that REACH be applied in a way that does not disrupt the functioning of the internal market.
Furthermore, the POPs Regulation is directly applicable across all Member States and implements the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, giving it a global dimension beyond EU law. It establishes binding concentration limits for PFOS, PFOA, PFHxS, and C9–C14 PFCAs that must be applied uniformly in all Member States. Because these thresholds are internationally agreed and leave no margin for stricter national measures, the French draft decree’s 25 ppb individual PFAS limit, 250 ppb sum limit, and 50 ppm total fluorine criterion conflict directly with binding POPs thresholds and create legal uncertainty for manufacturers and importers.
Denmark, in the meantime, published an executive order (BEK No. 464) during the summer (effective from 1 July 2026) that restricts PFAS in clothing, shoes and impregnation agents for consumers. This adds further disparity within the EU in the definition of what is compliant goods. Such divergences between Member States further highlight the urgent need for a coordinated EU approach that ensures consistency while allowing technically justified differentiation.
For these reasons, any further PFAS regulation in consumer products, such as textiles, should either be pursued exclusively through harmonised processes under REACH, or, at a minimum, the French measure should explicitly exclude substances already regulated under the POPs Regulation and REACH in order to avoid direct conflicts with Union law, legal uncertainty, and barriers to the internal market.
- Scope of substances: Compliance is formally required for thousands of PFASs, many of which cannot currently be measured due to the absence of analytical standards. There is no official target list tailored to the type of matrix, creating risks of inconsistency and misaligned laboratory results. As discussed, the newly proposed limits also differ substantially from the existing patchwork of EU PFAS restrictions for apparel (e.g., 25 ppb total for specific PFAS substances and their salts, 1000 ppb total for specific PFAS-related substances, and 260 ppb total for other PFAS-related substances; see Annex) and this would lead to technical complexity and legal uncertainty upon implementation. Therefore, we reiterate that it is important to include in the body of the French text the exclusion of substances already covered by the REACH and POP Regulations.
Sectoral applicability: Limits are cross-sectorial, yet technical feasibility differs substantially between matrices. Textiles are particularly affected due to matrix effects, recycled content, and heterogeneous structures (different components in one article). No matrix-specific guidance or applicability table is provided.
PFAS thresholds needed for legal certainty: While clear thresholds are essential for enforcement, the proposed limits (25 ppb, 250 ppb, 50 ppm) make reproducible and enforceable results difficult, especially regarding the target analysis in the ppb area (see below unclear enforcement scope). The Danish Law, for example, uses the total fluorine (TF) content of 50 mg F/kg as a threshold while the restriction in California starts with a 100 ppm total organic fluorine threshold in 2025, then lowers it to 50 ppm in 2027, providing a transition period to allow for adaptation to new limits. For now, we support a single threshold based on total fluorine of 50 ppm (incl. polymers) for practicality of compliance, testing and enforcement. However, not all fluorine compounds are PFAS, e.g. fluorine containing textile dyes, which results in additional analytical challenges. To address these concerns, we suggest incorporating wording from the REACH universal restriction proposal on PFAS into the French bill, specifically: If total fluorine exceeds 50 mg F/kg, the manufacturer, importer, or downstream user shall, upon request, provide to the enforcement authorities proof of whether the measured fluorine content originates from PFASs or non-PFASs.
- No consideration of cross-contamination: The French decree 2025-188 acknowledges potential PFAS contamination risks in recycling and manufacturing environments but leaves unclear how unintentional contamination will be handled. There is no guidance on defined tolerance levels, required evidence, or potential “due diligence” defences for companies. The concept of intentional use versus unintentional presence is crucial in PFAS regulation and has already been recognized in legislative frameworks such as California’s AB1817. If targeted PFAS analysis exceeds the established thresholds, the manufacturer, importer, or downstream user should be allowed to provide evidence to the enforcement authorities that the measured PFAS content results from unintentional cross-contamination or background presence rather than intentional use.
Unclear enforcement scope: While it is proposed to use targeted PFAS analysis to comply with the 25 ppb and 250 ppb thresholds, which inherently requires specific PFAS analysis, the restriction does not provide a master list of target substances for enforcement. This omission makes compliance efforts extremely complex, especially in view of the recent publication of EN 17681-1:2025. In case standard EN 17681‑1:2025 was deemed to be suitable, most of the Limits of Quantification (LoQ) described in said standard would not be low enough to reach the threshold described in the French Law. Moreover, the method has not been sufficiently validated at the concentration levels relevant for these limits, and its applicability for regulatory compliance and enforcement remains uncertain. The standard is already under review to address both analytical and methodological shortcomings identified after its publication. The French decree defines limits of 25 ppb and 250 ppb which exclude polymers while EN 17681-1:2025 partially includes polymers and could therefore lead to false positive results. Therefore, reference to EN 17681-1:2025 should be avoided until a harmonised, matrix-specific method explicitly aligned with the regulatory thresholds and scope is available.
- Lack of alignment of thresholds and available analytical methods: No fully harmonised or regulatory-validated testing protocols exist for all relevant PFAS substances and textile matrices. Differences in analytical approach (targeted analysis vs. total fluorine determination) and extraction procedures can lead to significant variability in results, particularly for complex or multi-material textile articles.
No specific provisions for recycled materials: The decree does not provide any specific exemption for recycled content, which makes it unclear for the companies that are working to reach the EU circular economy objectives. This lack of clarity risks undermining key EU circular economy and waste-reduction objectives. In the Danish Law, PPE, reused and recycled textiles, medical devices and transit goods are exempted. The updated UPFAS proposal also foresees derogations for recycled materials.
- No derogations for goods produced and placed on the market for the first time before entry into force: Neither Law No. 2025-188 nor the draft decree clarify if existing stocks available in the market or distribution facilities fall under the restriction. Typically, chemical restrictions include a provision allowing the sale of existing stocks to avoid unnecessary and wasteful destruction of unsold goods, which is becoming a more regulated activity in the EU, with a ban on such destruction set to take effect in July 2026 for apparel and footwear (ESPR).
In this context, the Danish law could serve as a valuable blueprint. By combining a clear fluorine-based threshold, explicit exemptions for recycled and PPE textiles, and a transition period that allows companies to adapt, it offers a pragmatic and enforceable framework. While not perfect, it demonstrates that workable solutions are possible and could therefore be considered as an important reference point when aligning national approaches with the upcoming universal PFAS restriction at EU level. However, any national legislation should remain temporary and aligned with EU developments to avoid permanent fragmentation of the internal market and duplication of the regulatory obligations.
