Requires certain anti-aging skin care products to contain a warning label; sets forth requirements for the language, size, and placement of such warning label; establishes penalties for violating such provisions.
This bill would add a new section to New York’s General Business Law requiring certain over-the-counter anti-aging skin care products to carry a conspicuous warning label. The bill defines covered products broadly to include cosmetics or skin care products containing ingredients such as vitamin A derivatives (including retinoids and retinol), alpha hydroxy acids, salicylic acid, DMDM hydantoin, quaternium-15, oxybenzone, octinoxate, or talc. The warning must appear on the product packaging and, for online sales, on the product display page before purchase.
The required warning would state that the product may cause skin irritation, increased sun sensitivity, or other adverse reactions, particularly for individuals under 18, and would advise consulting a healthcare professional before use. The bill also requires the label to be clearly legible and placed where consumers are likely to see and understand it under ordinary purchase and use conditions. Violations would be subject to civil penalties of up to $250 for a first offense and up to $500 for each subsequent offense, and the bill would take effect 180 days after becoming law.
The bill would create a new consumer-protection labeling requirement in state law for retailers selling specified anti-aging skin care products in New York. It would impose compliance obligations on manufacturers, brand owners, and sellers, including online retailers, by requiring warning language, font, and placement standards, and it would authorize civil penalties for noncompliance. The measure would not ban the products or ingredients, but it would regulate how they are marketed and sold to consumers, especially minors and their caregivers.
Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears to be framed as a public-health and consumer-information bill, with a focus on informing purchasers about potential irritation and sun-sensitivity risks. There is no recorded committee transcript or vote history in the provided materials, so there is no documented opposition or support to gauge legislative sentiment beyond the bill’s protective intent. The overall tone of the proposal is precautionary and disclosure-oriented rather than restrictive.
The main point of potential contention is the breadth of the ingredient list and the definition of “anti-aging skin care product,” which could capture a wide range of common cosmetics and skin care items. Retailers and manufacturers may also object to the warning requirement as burdensome or as implying risk for products that are widely used, while supporters would likely argue that the label is needed to protect younger consumers and ensure informed use. Another possible issue is the inclusion of online display-page labeling, which adds compliance obligations for e-commerce sellers.