A BILL to amend and reenact §§ 59.1-200, 59.1-571, 59.1-573, and 59.1-574 of the Code of Virginia and to amend the Code of Virginia by adding in Chapter 52 of Title 59.1 an article numbered 2, consisting of sections numbered 59.1-574.1 through 59.1-574.4, relating to manufacture or sale of cosmetic products containing certain ingredients prohibited.
HB864 would expand Virginia’s consumer protection laws to create a new “Humane and Toxin-Free Cosmetics Act” within Title 59.1. The bill adds a new article that defines cosmetics and cosmetics manufacturers, prohibits cosmetic animal testing, and bars localities from adopting non-identical rules on cosmetic animal testing. It also creates a separate toxin-free cosmetics article that prohibits the manufacture, sale, delivery, offer for sale, or use in consumer transactions of cosmetic products containing intentionally added ingredients such as certain phthalates, formaldehyde-related compounds, mercury, parabens, specific phenylenediamines, and a list of PFAS chemicals.
The bill also amends the Virginia Consumer Protection Act’s prohibited practices section to make violations of the new cosmetics article a per se consumer protection violation. That means enforcement would run through existing VCPA remedies and the Attorney General’s enforcement authority, with civil penalties available for violations. The bill specifies that technically unavoidable trace contamination is not a violation if the product was manufactured in a process intended to comply with the law.
More broadly, HB864 would affect cosmetics manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and other sellers of cosmetic products in Virginia by imposing ingredient restrictions and compliance obligations. It would also preempt local cosmetic-animal-testing regulations unless they are identical to state law. The bill’s effect is to create a statewide ingredient ban regime for cosmetics and to fold those violations into existing consumer protection enforcement mechanisms.
The available legislative history suggests generally favorable treatment, as the bill was incorporated by General Laws by voice vote. No committee transcript or recorded roll-call vote is provided, so there is no detailed record of debate in the materials supplied. The voice-vote incorporation indicates the measure moved forward without visible opposition in the available record.
The main points of contention likely concern the scope of the ingredient bans and the compliance burden on cosmetics businesses, especially around PFAS, preservative chemicals, and trace contamination standards. Another possible issue is state preemption of local regulation on cosmetic animal testing, which limits local governments’ ability to adopt stricter or different rules. However, no specific objections are documented in the provided materials.
HB864 would amend Virginia’s consumer protection statute, § 59.1-200, to treat violations of a new cosmetics safety article as prohibited practices enforceable under the Virginia Consumer Protection Act. It would also add new definitions and substantive restrictions in Chapter 52 of Title 59.1, including a ban on cosmetic animal testing and a statewide prohibition on cosmetics containing specified intentionally added ingredients. The bill would create new compliance duties for manufacturers, sellers, and distributors of cosmetics and would authorize civil penalties enforced by the Attorney General.
The available context suggests the bill was received positively or at least without recorded opposition, since it was incorporated by General Laws by voice vote. There are no committee transcripts or recorded votes showing dissent, amendment debate, or controversy in the supplied materials. Based on the procedural history alone, the bill appears to have had a favorable or neutral reception in committee.
The likely areas of contention are policy and compliance related rather than procedural. Cosmetics manufacturers and retailers may object to the breadth of the prohibited ingredient list, especially the inclusion of PFAS and certain preservative chemicals, as well as the practical difficulty of ensuring products are free of intentionally added substances while allowing only technically unavoidable trace amounts. Another possible point of dispute is the bill’s preemption of local cosmetic-animal-testing regulations, which limits local autonomy. No specific opposition is documented in the provided record, but these are the issues most likely to draw scrutiny.