Key takeaway
What This Development Means
California AB 1744 has passed the Legislature but is not yet law. If signed, it would restrict reef safe and similar claims for sunscreens containing six named UV filters, so affected businesses should review claims and formulas.
Is California AB 1744 already law?
No. The Legislature enrolled AB 1744 on 24 August 2026 and sent it to the Governor. Until it is signed, it creates no new statutory sunscreen claim restriction. Existing advertising and consumer-protection duties still apply.
Which sunscreen ingredients would affect the proposed claims?
The enrolled bill names avobenzone, homosalate, octinoxate, octisalate, octocrylene and oxybenzone, with their CAS numbers. A product containing any listed chemical ultraviolet filter could not use the covered environmental claims if the bill becomes law.
Source basis: California Legislative Information, Assembly Bill 1744 status and enrolled text (24 August 2026)
California Assembly Bill 1744 was enrolled on 24 August 2026 after passing the state Legislature, sending a proposed restriction on reef safe and similar sunscreen claims to the Governor. If signed, the bill would affect sunscreen manufacturers, ingredient suppliers, brands, retailers and advertising teams selling products in California, but it does not create a current labelling duty.
California Reef Safe Sunscreen Claims Would Face A Formula-Based Test
The enrolled text would prohibit selling a sunscreen in California with claims such as “reef safe”, “reef friendly”, “ocean safe”, “marine safe”, “ocean friendly”, “marine conscious”, “reef conscious” or a similar environmental representation unless the product is free of specified chemical ultraviolet filters.
The listed filters are avobenzone, homosalate, octinoxate, octisalate, octocrylene and oxybenzone, identified by Chemical Abstracts Service numbers 70356-09-1, 118-56-9, 5466-77-3, 118-60-5, 6197-30-4 and 131-57-7 respectively. The bill text also lists the filters by substance name, so compliance reviews should not rely on marketing or trade names alone.
Sunscreen is defined by reference to products regulated by the United States Food and Drug Administration as over-the-counter drugs, including lotions, sprays, sticks, gels and solid formats. The proposal therefore focuses on an environmental marketing claim attached to a regulated product rather than changing federal sunscreen safety or efficacy requirements.
What Changed And What Remains Unchanged
The new trigger is enrolment. The Senate passed the measure 38 to zero on 20 August, and the Legislature completed the enrolled version on 24 August. The bill now awaits Governor action. It is not an adopted law, and the official status page showed no signature or veto when checked on 25 August.
Existing California rules requiring advertisers to possess evidence supporting environmental marketing claims remain relevant now. AB 1744 would add a product-specific statutory condition if enacted. It would not determine whether a permitted claim is scientifically substantiated, approve alternative wording or change the Food and Drug Administration’s sunscreen monograph.
What Sunscreen Businesses Should Do Now
Brands should inventory California-facing packaging, websites, retailer listings, influencer briefs and point-of-sale materials for the listed and similar claims. Formula records should map each named filter by substance and CAS number, including private-label and imported products. Retailers and marketplaces should identify who controls product-copy changes and how quickly listings can be amended.
Analysis: the bill would turn a broad environmental representation into a comparatively extractable formula check. That could shift risk upstream because brand owners will need reliable ingredient declarations from formulators and suppliers, while retailers may need defensible evidence that apparently compliant claims are not attached to reformulated or legacy stock. This is an inference from the enrolled text and current supply-chain practice.
Companies should monitor Governor action before treating the proposal as binding and preserve the evidence supporting any environmental claim independently of the bill.
Related Articles
California Targets Triphenyl Phosphate In Nail Products Under Safer Consumer Products Programme
California has added nail products containing TPhP above 250 ppm to its Priority Products List, triggering SCP notifications and safer-alternative review duties.
OPSS Rejects Bare Anatomy Shampoo Import Over Lilial And Allergen Breaches
The border rejection shows why cosmetics suppliers and marketplaces need formula, allergen, label and batch evidence for imported products.
Israel Consults On Micron Silver Limits For Cosmetics Until 24 August 2026
Israel is consulting on micron-sized silver limits across five cosmetics product groups until 24 August 2026 at 10:56 Israel time.
