EPA Loosens PFAS Reporting, But Your PFAS Liability Just Got Trickier - A Joint Brief from EcoPulse and Baker Botts L.L.P

On November 10, 2025, EPA announced its plan to significantly revise the reporting rule for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA”), a proposal that would significantly reduce the reporting obligations for industries in the United States.  

Although the announcement provides some immediate relief for companies, it does not eliminate the due diligence and internal PFAS review that should be done to address PFAS risks under other liability schemes.  

Accordingly, companies should adopt a structured program to identify and track PFAS across materials, products, and supply chains, leveraging tools such as EcoPulse’s PFAS AI platform to develop a defensible record of PFAS use, support disclosures under federal and state regimes, and proactively manage emerging PFAS liabilities.

Proposed Amendments and Background on TSCA PFAS Reporting Rule

The PFAS Reporting Rule, under Section 8(a)(7) of TSCA, was established by a 2020 congressional act that directed EPA to promulgate a rule collecting information from “each person who has manufactured [PFAS] since January 1, 2011.”  

Pursuant to this directive, on October 11, 2024, EPA published a Final Rule requiring reporting by any entity that has manufactured or imported any PFAS or any articles containing PFAS in any amount at any time since January 1, 2011. See, (“2024 PFAS Reporting Rule”). Under the 2024 PFAS Reporting Rule, such entities are required submit a one-time report to EPA, which may include detailed information on PFAS uses, production volumes, disposal methods, exposures, and hazards—for each relevant PFAS chemical.  

This week, EPA released a Press Release titled “EPA Proposes Changes to Make PFAS Reporting Requirements More Practical and Implementable, Reducing Regulatory Burden” (“Press Release”), along with a prepublication version of a Proposed Rule to make these changes. The Proposed Rule would amend the 2024 PFAS Reporting Rule to include a number of exemptions and modifications that EPA suggests would make the reporting requirements “more practical and implementable and reduce unnecessary, or potentially duplicative reporting.” Specifically, the rule would amend the 2024 PFAS Reporting Rule to incorporate the following exemptions to the scope of reportable manufacturing activities:

• PFAS manufactured or imported in mixtures or products at concentrations of 0.1% or lower (de minimis exemption);  

• All imported articles containing PFAS (under TSCA, an “article” is defined in 40 CFR as “a manufactured item” formed to a specific shape or design for a specific end use and has limited change in chemical composition during its end use);  

• The manufacture of PFAS as byproducts, impurities, non-isolated intermediates, or upon incidental exposure; and

• PFAS used for research and development.

Under the Proposed Rule, the reporting period would open two months after publication of the final rule and would stay open for three months. According to the Spring 2025 Unified Agenda, EPA intended to publish the Proposed Rule in December 2025, and expects to publish a final rule in June 2026.  

Ongoing PFAS Liability Risks

Despite the changes introduced by the Proposed Rule, multiple PFAS-related liability risks remain that warrant ongoing due diligence. These risks arise from enforcement of both federal and state laws, as well as from civil litigation by private parties.

Although the Proposed Rule relaxes certain PFAS reporting requirements, PFAS is generally not an area where the Trump administration is focusing its deregulatory efforts. For example, the administration’s decision to retain the Biden-era rule designating PFOS and PFOA as “hazardous substances” under CERCLA indicates that PFAS regulation remains a federal priority. It therefore cannot be assumed that federal enforcement of PFAS-related requirements will diminish for the remainder of the administration’s term.

Further, PFAS regulation varies considerably at the state level. States such as Maine and Minnesota have passed laws that will ultimately ban the sale of all PFAS-containing products unless determined by the state to be unavoidable. A number of states have adopted targeted restrictions, such as bans on PFAS in food packaging, cosmetics, and children’s products. Many states have set maximum contaminant levels for specific PFAS compounds in drinking water, and some impose PFAS reporting obligations that are stricter than federal requirements. This patchwork of state laws on PFAS necessitates that companies remain aware of any PFAS use throughout their supply chains.

The risk of PFAS litigation also persists, particularly in consumer products cases. These lawsuits allege economic harm from deceptive marketing or product liability, allowing plaintiffs to bring claims without establishing physical injury or causation. A majority of these initial cases focus on PFAS in food, cosmetics, and medical devices. While many of these cases are still ongoing, the rise in consumer product litigation represents a growing source of potential liability for companies.  

In addition, potential CERCLA liability may arise from the disposal of PFAS-containing products in landfills. Therefore, even if certain reporting obligations are loosened under the Proposed Rule, it remains wise for companies to identify and track PFAS in any of their products that may end up in landfills.

Finally, companies may face PFAS-related exposure from customers and other downstream buyers who seek detailed disclosure of PFAS use in products; the adequacy of such disclosures can materially influence procurement decisions, contract awards, and broader business opportunities.

‍AI-First Solution

As the scope of PFAS reporting and liability evolves globally, a consistent theme runs through both regulation and litigation: companies must be able to identify and quantify PFAS use across products, processes, and supply chains in a defensible way. That capability underpins liability risk mitigation, regulatory reporting, proactive phase-out, and the ability to respond credibly to customer demands.

Traditional workflows—manual SDS review, supplier questionnaires, and targeted testing—remain essential, but they struggle with three realities that federal, state and global regulations make painfully clear: the volume of materials can be enormous, the available data is incomplete or inconsistent (i.e. SDS), and PFAS chemistry and regulation are both moving targets. This is exactly where specialized, domain-aware AI can support and change the nature of the problem rather than simply speeding up existing tasks.

What a PFAS-Specialized AI Can Do

Unlike general-purpose AI, a PFAS-focused system can be trained and tuned on various verified industry datasets such as PFAS chemical lists and regulatory definitions across jurisdictions, Safety Data Sheets and technical specifications and scientific and industry literature on PFAS uses, pathways, and concentrations.

By combining these data sources with a set of coordinated large language models, such a system can take in product or material records (individually or in bulk) and generate structured PFAS risk insights: whether PFAS are likely present, which specific chemistries are implicated, the estimated concentration ranges, and the supporting evidence and references. Those outputs then feed into human expert review and a workflow for follow-up actions and documentation.

EcoPulse PFAS AI as an Example

EcoPulse’s PFAS AI is one example of this AI-first approach. The patent pending solution:

• Ingests material and product data one by one, via batch files, or through integration with existing systems (e.g., ERP).

• Uses multiple specialized large language models together with a proprietary PFAS Knowledge Base to perform in-depth PFAS analysis.

• Produces a structured view for each material/product: PFAS yes/no, likelihood, specific PFAS chemical(s), estimated quantity, and links to the underlying research and regulatory context.

• Routes results to experts for quick review, approval, and action tracking, while also enabling analysis at higher levels—by product category, supplier, site, or product line—to prioritize where effort and spend will matter most.

This kind of workflow does not replace legal judgment, supplier engagement, or laboratory testing. Instead, it enables complete and in-depth due diligence and helps shrink the haystack to a manageable set of high-priority materials and suppliers and creates a more complete, traceable evidence file for both compliance and potential future litigation.

Immediate Returns from PFAS AI

AI-first platforms such as PFAS AI can deliver three immediate, practical benefits in the context of TSCA PFAS reporting, PFAS due diligence and beyond:

• Deeper, decision-ready analysis
  Not just a PFAS “yes/no,” but an estimate of specific PFAS chemistries and likely quantities, linked to current scientific and regulatory sources. This supports data preparation, triage, and prioritization for reporting and risk management work.

• Efficiency and scale
  Automated analysis for thousands of materials/products in minutes rather than weeks of manual review. That makes it realistic to build near-complete PFAS inventories and risk maps, even for global portfolios with large, dynamic material lists.

• Reliability, security, and defensibility
  A patent-pending architecture, curated and continuously maintained PFAS Knowledge Base, and secure cloud deployment provide a governed environment where assumptions, evidence, and changes over time can be traced—critical for both regulatory scrutiny and litigation readiness.

Beyond PFAS: A Pattern for Product Compliance

While the immediate driver is PFAS and the evolving TSCA reporting obligations, the underlying pattern is broader: domain-specific AI + curated compliance knowledge + workflow. The same architecture can be extended to other classes of chemicals and product safety regimes, enabling companies to move from ad hoc document review toward continuous, data-driven product compliance management.

For companies now facing expanded PFAS reporting and long-tail liabilities, specialized AI should be viewed not as a replacement for lawyers, chemists, or regulators, but as a force multiplier. It can make the required work feasible at scale, surface deeper insights than manual review alone, and lay a more robust foundation for ongoing product safety and compliance stewardship.