SB656, the Crown and Care Act, regulates certain cosmetic products sold in Maryland by prohibiting the manufacture, sale, delivery, holding, or offering for sale of cosmetics that intentionally contain specified harmful ingredients. The banned substances include several phthalates, formaldehyde and related compounds, mercury, certain parabens, phenylenediamines, and a list of PFAS chemicals. The bill also creates an exception for technically unavoidable trace amounts that result from impurities, manufacturing, storage, or packaging when the product was made in a process intended to comply with the law.
The bill expands enforcement by making a violation of the cosmetic-ingredient ban an unfair, abusive, or deceptive trade practice under Maryland’s Consumer Protection Act. It also authorizes civil damages for individuals who suffer actual harm from a violation, with a three-year limitations period from discovery of the injury and potential remedies including treble damages, punitive damages for willful violations, and attorney’s fees. In addition, the Maryland Department of Health may investigate complaints, inspect premises, and sample products to determine compliance.
SB656 also establishes the Harmful Hair Chemicals Restitution Fund, a special nonlapsing fund administered by the Attorney General. Money collected through enforcement actions, excluding amounts owed to injured parties and litigation costs, is directed into the fund, along with interest earnings. The fund is intended to support research and treatment, including screenings and diagnosis, for fibroids, uterine cancer, hair loss, and related conditions linked to harmful hair chemicals, as well as restitution and other laws benefiting victims. The bill exempts the fund from the general rule that interest on certain state funds accrues to the General Fund.
The bill’s impact on state law is to add a new consumer-protection violation tied to cosmetic ingredient restrictions, create a private civil remedy for harmed individuals, and give state health officials investigative authority over suspected violations. It also amends state finance law to preserve interest earnings for the new restitution fund and requires the Department of Health and Attorney General to develop and report a plan for administering the fund. The act takes effect July 1, 2026.
The overall sentiment reflected in the voting history appears supportive, with the bill passing both chambers by clear margins, though not unanimously. The measure’s framing around protecting communities from harmful hair chemicals suggests a public-health and consumer-safety rationale that likely drove support. Any contention appears to center on the breadth of the ingredient ban, the new civil liability exposure for manufacturers and sellers, and the enforcement powers granted to the state, including inspections and damages remedies.
SB656 amends Maryland’s Commercial Law and Health-General statutes to prohibit the sale and distribution of cosmetic products containing specified harmful ingredients, and it adds those violations to the list of unfair, abusive, or deceptive trade practices. It creates a private right of action for individuals who suffer actual harm, authorizes the Maryland Department of Health to investigate complaints and inspect premises, and establishes the Harmful Hair Chemicals Restitution Fund to finance research, treatment, and restitution related to injuries from harmful hair chemicals. The bill also modifies State Finance and Procurement law to ensure interest earnings remain in the new fund rather than reverting to the General Fund.
The bill appears to have been generally well received, as reflected by its passage in both chambers with substantial majorities. The legislative framing emphasizes public health, consumer protection, and harms associated with hair-care products, suggesting broad policy support for restricting toxic ingredients. The recorded votes indicate some opposition, but not enough to prevent enactment, and there is no committee transcript indicating major procedural resistance.
The main points of contention likely involve the scope of the prohibited-ingredient list, especially the inclusion of PFAS and other widely used cosmetic chemicals, and whether the law could impose compliance burdens on manufacturers, distributors, and retailers. Another likely area of debate is the creation of civil liability, including treble damages, punitive damages for willful violations, and attorney’s fees, which increases litigation risk for businesses. The inspection authority granted to the Maryland Department of Health and the use of enforcement proceeds to fund restitution and research may also have raised concerns about regulatory reach and the handling of collected funds.