This development follows the adoption by the Committee for Risk Assessment (RAC) of its final opinion on March 3, 2026,1 on the proposed PFAS restriction concluding that PFAS pose an EU-wide risk that justifies restriction.1
Together, these steps signal that the process has moved beyond scientific risk assessment into a phase of regulatory and policy calibration, in which stakeholders are invited to provide evidence on key issues such as the availability of alternatives, the need for derogations and appropriate transitions.2
The restriction proposal was formally received by ECHA on January 13, 2023, having been prepared and submitted by the authorities of four EU member states—Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden—together with Norway as a contracting party to the European Economic Area.3 ECHA published the detailed restriction proposal on February 7, 2023.4 A six-month public consultation on the proposal ran from March 22 to September 25, 2023.5
Following the adoption of the committees' opinions, ECHA will submit them to the European Commission, which, together with the EU member states, will determine whether to adopt the restriction, including its scope, derogations and transition period.6
The proposal is notable for its unprecedented scope, covering more than 10,000 substances and targeting a broad group of chemicals rather than individual compounds.7 PFAS comprise a large group of synthetic substances characterised by their extreme persistence, mobility and resistance to degradation, properties which underpin both their widespread industrial use and their accumulation in the environment and potential adverse health effects, including contamination of water, soil and food chains.
Against this background, the PFAS restriction serves primarily as an entry point into a broader set of regulatory and commercial developments relating to PFAS, which are increasingly relevant across sectors. This note therefore focuses not only on the restriction proposal itself but on the wider implications for companies operating in the European Union.
PFAS restrictions under REACH
SEAC draft opinion—socio-economic calibration
The draft opinion of SEAC, agreed on March 10, 2026 and published for consultation on March 26, 2026,1 confirms that a broad PFAS restriction at EU level is appropriate, but reframes the regulatory question in terms of proportionality.8
SEAC concludes that a full ban with a short transition period is unlikely to be proportionate, given the limited availability of alternatives in several applications.8 In particular, SEAC expressed reservations about the 18-month transition period put forward in the initial proposal, considering it insufficient for a number of sectors where alternatives are not yet available.7 9
This shifts the centre of the regulatory debate from the existence of risk to the economic feasibility of substitution and the identification of sectors where transitional measures are required. In particular, SEAC highlights significant uncertainties in relation to certain sectors and considers the derogations identified as necessary to ensure proportionality, but not as sufficient on their own, noting that additional derogations may be required.8
While SEAC supports in principle the additional risk management measures recommended by RAC for derogated uses—including labelling, site-specific management plans and reporting requirements—the committee has cautioned that, because of currently available information, it cannot yet conclude whether these specific measures are proportionate.9
The consultation phase, which runs until May 25, 2026,1 therefore represents a key opportunity for stakeholders to provide evidence on alternatives, costs and sector-specific impacts, which will directly inform the final opinion.
RAC final opinion—scientific and legal baseline
The final opinion of the RAC, adopted on March 3, 2026,1 establishes the scientific and legal basis for the restriction, concluding that PFAS pose an EU-wide risk that is not adequately controlled and that a restriction constitutes the most appropriate EU-wide measure.
RAC's assessment is grounded in the extreme persistence of PFAS and their classification as non-threshold substances, meaning that emissions accumulate over time and lead to irreversible environmental contamination. As a result, RAC treats emissions as a proxy for risk and emphasises that effective risk management requires minimisation of releases at source across the lifecycle.7
The opinion supports a group-based restriction covering a broad range of PFAS substances and confirms that alternative regulatory approaches would be insufficient to address the identified risks.
The RAC final opinion endorsed the proposed universal ban on PFASs and confirmed that, of all the derogations put forward in the restriction proposal, the only one it could support from a risk-assessment perspective was the derogation for personal protective equipment and associated impregnating agents, on the basis that it is necessary to safeguard the health and safety of workers.
RAC further recommended that, should the decision-maker elect to grant any additional sector- or use-specific derogations beyond PPE, such derogations ought to be subject to supplementary risk management measures, including mandatory reporting obligations, product labelling requirements, and the preparation of site-specific PFAS management plans.10
Taken together, the RAC and SEAC opinions confirm that the regulatory process has moved from risk identification to the calibration of transition pathways across affected sectors. Both ECHA committees have concluded that a broad group-based restriction on PFAS across sectors is both appropriate and implementable, and that any continued use of PFAS under derogations should be accompanied by additional risk management measures to minimise emissions.9 The proposed restriction is inherently cross-sectoral and is expected to affect a wide range of actors, with implications across the value chain.
Both RAC and SEAC recognise that a REACH restriction alone cannot address the full range of PFAS-related risks and that complementary action under other EU legislative frameworks is essential.7
Cross-regulatory and commercial implications
The proposed universal restriction on PFAS under REACH is neither the starting point nor the endpoint of PFAS regulation in the EU. PFAS are already subject to a layered and expanding web of regulatory controls—spanning industrial emissions permitting, water quality, food safety, waste management, product safety and chemicals registration—each of which independently imposes compliance obligations, liability exposure and, increasingly, constraints on market access.
For businesses, this means that even if the restriction proposal were to be narrowed, delayed or disapplied to certain uses, the cumulative effect of these parallel regulatory regimes will continue to reshape the commercial landscape in which PFAS-dependent operations must function. The following regulatory interfaces are particularly significant.
- Environmental permitting and emissions control: PFAS emissions are relevant in the context of permitting under the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED), including through the Best Available Techniques (BAT) conclusions. Sector-specific BAT reference documents (BREFs) already impose emission limit values and monitoring requirements with direct relevance to PFAS—notably the BREFs on textiles industries; waste incineration; surface treatment of metals and plastics; landfills; and common waste water and waste gas treatment/management systems in the chemical sector—with which operators must comply on pain of permit refusal, suspension, or revocation. Ongoing and future revisions of these and other BREFs, driven in part by the EU's Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability, are expected to lead to materially stricter emissions limits, with the BREF review process increasingly identifying non-PFAS alternatives as BAT and the continued use of certain PFAS as non-BAT. The cross-regulatory effect—linking the IED/BAT framework with the broader PFAS restriction agenda under REACH and the Chemicals Strategy—is that obtaining and maintaining environmental permits for PFAS-emitting installations will become significantly more restrictive and onerous.
- Water regulation (Water Framework Directive/Environmental Quality Standards Directive/Groundwater Directive): The Water Framework Directive (WFD) (2000/60/EC) requires member states both to prevent deterioration of the status of all water bodies and to improve their quality towards good ecological and chemical status (surface waters) and good chemical and quantitative status (groundwater). PFAS are subject to environmental quality standards (EQS) under the Environmental Quality Standards Directive (EQSD) (2008/105/EC, as amended), with PFOS classified as a priority hazardous substance since 2013. The September 2025 provisional agreement on the revision of the WFD, the EQSD and the Groundwater Directive (2006/118/EC) will introduce strict new EU-wide EQS for PFAS in both surface waters and groundwater, to be transposed by December 21, 2027 with compliance deadlines of 2039 (extendable to 2045). These tighter standards must be read together with the WFD's non-deterioration obligation, the full implications of which are considered below.
Under the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, in particular Case C-461/13 (Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland, the "Weser" judgment),11 the non-deterioration obligation under the WFD must be assessed at the level of each individual quality element: deterioration is established as soon as any single element falls by one class, even if the water body's overall status classification remains unchanged.
Accordingly, competent authorities must refuse authorisation for projects that would lead to a deterioration of water status or prevent compliance with environmental quality standard. As a result, any PFAS release into the environment may significantly affect the permitting landscape for PFAS emitting installations.
- Soil contamination and remediation regimes: PFAS contamination is increasingly addressed under environmental liability regimes and interacts with broader frameworks such as the Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) Regulation. RAC also notes the relevance of the EU Soil Monitoring Directive (Directive (EU) 2025/2360).12 SEAC notes that remediation costs are projected to be very high, citing a recent third-party study (Ling, 2025) that conservatively estimates costs of EUR2 trillion over 20 years for the most contaminated European sites,13 although SEAC notes that the exact figures could not be confirmed.
- Product compliance and safety requirements: PFAS-related constraints may affect the ability to place products on the market, particularly where sector-specific requirements or customer specifications apply. This may require material substitution, product redesign or requalification, with significant lead times particularly in sectors subject to certification (e.g. medical devices, transport, energy. For example, the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2025/40) introduces a harmonised EU-wide ban on intentionally added PFAS in food-contact packaging, with mandatory compliance from August 12, 2026. Other areas where product compliance and safety requirements can arise include, for example medical devices, transport and energy.
- Public procurement frameworks: contracting authorities are increasingly applying environmental criteria that restrict or exclude PFAS-containing products. This may affect eligibility for public tenders, including in sectors such as defence and infrastructure, irrespective of whether PFAS use remains formally permitted.
These developments illustrate that PFAS are no longer confined to chemicals regulation but are embedded across multiple regulatory regimes affecting operations and market access.
A three-pillar risk framework
Against this background, the implications of the PFAS restriction can be structured across three interrelated dimensions:
(i) Substitution—SEAC notes that no overall conclusion on the availability of alternatives is possible across all sectors; substitution potential varies considerably by application, and may require significant lead times.
(ii) Business model exposure—the impact extends across the value chain, from PFAS producers to downstream users, with SEAC identifying the concern that supply for niche derogated applications may not be ensured due to reduced market size.
(iii) Contamination and remediation—backward-looking environmental liability linked to historical PFAS use, including soil and groundwater contamination and remediation obligations.
How can businesses prepare
We are closely monitoring developments across this area. Our approach integrates EU regulatory, environmental and product compliance expertise, enabling a comprehensive assessment of PFAS-related exposure. Key points for your consideration include:
- Assess PFAS-related regulatory exposure, including the proposed REACH restriction and related environmental regimes.
- Identify potential regulatory constraints, including impacts on permitting processes and product placement on the EU market.
- Evaluate environmental liability and permitting risks including site-specific contamination and remediation exposure.
- Review contractual arrangements and supply chain frameworks, with a focus on the allocation of PFAS-related compliance and risk responsibilities.
- Consider public procurement implications, including evolving environmental criteria that may affect eligibility for tenders.
- Monitor regulatory developments and participate where appropriate, including engagement with consultation and decision-making processes.
Conclusions and next steps
PFAS-related constraints are likely to arise not only through the REACH restriction, but through parallel regulatory and market mechanisms—including environmental permitting, water regulation, soil and waste management, product compliance and public procurement—affecting both operations and market access. Companies should consider PFAS as a cross-cutting regulatory issue requiring coordinated assessment across legal, technical and operational functions.
Following the consultation period, SEAC is expected to adopt its final opinion by the end of 2026.6 The final opinions of RAC and SEAC will then be submitted to the European
Commission, which will propose a restriction for discussion and vote in the REACH Committee.14
Footnotes
1. European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), ECHA's Risk Assessment Committee adopts its opinion on PFAS restriction proposal, news release, March 3, 2026, available at: https://echa.europa.eu/-/echa-s-risk-assessment-committee-adopts-its-opinion-on-pfas-restriction-proposal (accessed March 26, 2026); ECHA, ECHA supports PFAS restriction with targeted derogations, news release, March 26, 2026, available at: https://echa.europa.eu/-/echa-supports-pfas-restriction-with-targeted-derogations (accessed March 26, 2026).
2. European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), Highlights from December RAC and SEAC meetings, news release ECHA/NR/25/46, December 17, 2025, available at: https://echa.europa.eu/-/highlights-from-december-2025-rac-and-seac-meetings (accessed March 26, 2026).
3. European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), ECHA receives PFASs restriction proposal from five national authorities, news release ECHA/NR/23/01, January 13, 2023, available at: https://echa.europa.eu/-/echa-receives-pfass-restriction-proposal-from-five-national-authorities (accessed March 26, 2026). The five submitting authorities are: BAuA (Germany), RIVM (the Netherlands), KEMI (Sweden), the Norwegian Environment Agency and the Danish Environmental Protection Agency.
4. European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), ECHA publishes PFAS restriction proposal, news release ECHA/NR/23/04, February 7, 2023, available at: https://echa.europa.eu/-/echa-publishes-pfas-restriction-proposal (accessed March 26, 2026).
5. European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), ECHA seeks input on proposed PFAS restriction, news release, March 22, 2023, available at: https://echa.europa.eu/-/echa-seeks-input-on-proposed-pfas-restriction (accessed March 26, 2026). The six-month public consultation ran from March 22 to September 25, 2023.
6. European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), ECHA to consult on PFAS draft opinion in spring 2026, news release ECHA/NR/25/28, September 15, 2025, available at: https://echa.europa.eu/-/echa-to-consult-on-pfas-draft-opinion-in-spring-2026 (accessed March 26, 2026).
7. Background Document to the RAC/SEAC Opinion on the Universal PFAS Restriction (Version 14, June 24, 2025), available at: https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/cd583492-f5d4-e2e7-9938-a1d602084c72 (accessed March 26, 2026).
8. European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), Consultation on the SEAC draft opinion on restricting per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) — Guidance for Respondents, December 2025, available at: https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/17091/upfas-seac-do_consultation_guidance-for-respondents_en.pdf (accessed March 26, 2026).
9. ECHA Press Release, ECHA's scientific committees finalise their assessment of the proposed PFAS restriction, March 26, 2026, available at: https://echa.europa.eu/view-article/-/journal_content/title/echa-s-scientific-committees-finalise-their-assessment-of-the-proposed-pfas-restriction (accessed March 26, 2026).
10. ECHA, Committee for Risk Assessment (RAC), Opinion on an Annex XV dossier proposing restrictions on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs), adopted March 3, 2026, Section 3.4.2.1, available at: https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/d6aac737-e665-cbae-58c8-17780de44bd5 (accessed March 26, 2026).
11. Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of July 1, 2015, Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland eV v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Case C-461/13, EU:C:2015:433.
12. Directive (EU) 2025/2360 of the European Parliament and of the Council of November 12, 2025 on soil monitoring and resilience, OJ L, 2025/2360.
13. Ling, T., (2025), as cited in the SEAC draft opinion on the PFAS restriction.
14. European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), Restrictions under consideration — REACH Restriction Process, available at: https://echa.europa.eu/restrictions-under-consideration (accessed March 26, 2026).
