An act to add Article 18 (commencing with Section 25259.10) to Chapter 6.5 of Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code, relating to product safety.
AB 916, the Safer Soap Act, would add a new article to the Health and Safety Code prohibiting the manufacture, sale, distribution, delivery, or offering for sale in California of consumer hand soap and body wash containing certain antimicrobial ingredients. The bill identifies benzalkonium chloride, benzethonium chloride, and chloroxylenol as prohibited ingredients and cites legislative findings that these chemicals pose risks to human health and the environment, may contribute to antimicrobial resistance, and are no more effective than regular soap and water for preventing illness.
The prohibition would take effect on January 1, 2028, and would not apply to products intended for use in health care facilities. By July 1, 2028, manufacturers would have to register with the Department of Toxic Substances Control, pay a registration charge set by regulation, and certify compliance. The department would also have to publish accepted testing methods, maintain enforcement regulations, and could require technical documentation such as analytical test results to verify compliance.
The bill gives the department enforcement tools including notices of violation, administrative or civil penalties with a minimum of $10,000 per violation, and the ability to seek injunctions through the Attorney General in superior court. Penalties would be deposited into a new Safer Soap Act Fund in the State Treasury. The bill also makes it a crime to willfully interfere with lawful enforcement, which is why it is described as creating a state-mandated local program, though it states no reimbursement is required.
The bill’s impact on state law would be to create a new product-safety regulatory regime specifically for consumer soaps and body washes, centered on the Department of Toxic Substances Control. It would add new compliance, testing, registration, and enforcement requirements for manufacturers and sellers, while exempting health care facility products and conditioning agency implementation on available funding in the Toxic Substances Control Account and legislative appropriation.
The general sentiment reflected in the bill text and the available vote is supportive of stronger consumer-product restrictions, with the measure advancing out of committee on a 5-2 vote. The bill’s findings frame the issue as a public-health and environmental protection matter, emphasizing children’s exposure and the lack of added benefit from antibacterial ingredients. No committee transcript is available, so the main visible opposition is inferred from the two no votes and the bill’s regulatory and penalty-heavy approach.
Notable points of contention are likely to include whether the targeted ingredients are sufficiently harmful to justify a statewide ban, whether the exemption for health care facilities is appropriately drawn, and whether the registration and enforcement scheme is burdensome for manufacturers. The bill also appears to raise concerns about administrative costs, funding contingencies, and the use of civil and criminal penalties to enforce product-safety requirements.
AB 916 would add Article 18 to Chapter 6.5 of Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code, creating a new California restriction on consumer hand soap and body wash containing benzalkonium chloride, benzethonium chloride, or chloroxylenol. It would require DTSC rulemaking, manufacturer registration, product compliance certification, testing-method guidance, notices of violation, civil or administrative penalties, and a new Safer Soap Act Fund, while exempting products intended for health care facilities and conditioning implementation on available funding and legislative appropriation.
The available record suggests generally favorable sentiment toward the bill’s public-health goals, as reflected in the committee’s 5-2 do-pass vote. The bill is framed as a consumer-safety and environmental-health measure, and its findings strongly support restricting antibacterial ingredients in everyday soaps. At the same time, the no votes indicate some concern about the scope, enforcement structure, and regulatory burden of the proposal.
The main points of contention are likely the scientific and policy basis for banning these ingredients, the breadth of the prohibition, and the compliance burden placed on manufacturers. Critics may question whether the ingredients are sufficiently harmful in consumer products, whether the health care facility exemption creates inconsistency, and whether the registration, testing, and penalty framework is too aggressive or costly. Supporters, by contrast, emphasize public health, antimicrobial resistance, and the lack of evidence that these ingredients improve effectiveness over regular soap.