A California bill that would prohibit the sale of over-the-counter retinol and alpha hydroxy acid (AHA) skin care products to children under 18 is moving forward.
Industry stakeholders may recall that a nearly identical version of the bill introduced in 2023 failed to advance out of committee. As previously reported by CosmeticsDesign, at the time, critics raised similar concerns about the lack of clarity and the bill’s potential to create confusion among consumers and compliance burdens for sellers.
While the legislation is framed as a public health measure, the language of the bill has left manufacturers and retailers with unanswered questions about compliance.
About the bill
Assembly Bill 728, introduced by Assemblymember Alex Lee, is designed to prevent early exposure to anti-aging ingredients that some dermatologists say may be inappropriate for young users. “I think we can all agree that 10-year-olds don’t need anti-aging products,” Lee said in a February statement to ABC7 News. “We want young people to grow up confident in who they are, not feeling pressured to buy unnecessary products that could harm their health.”
The bill defines the restricted products as those containing the following:
(1) Vitamin A and its derivatives, including, but not limited to, retinoids and retinol.
(2) An alpha hydroxy acid, including, but not limited to, glycolic acid, ascorbic acid (vitamin C), or citric acid.
Further, the bill prohibits their sale “to a person under 18 years of age without first verifying the purchaser’s age and identity.”
The bill then stipulates that “for purposes of this section, ‘verifying age and identity’ may include, but is not limited to, any of the following:
(1) The documents described in Section 594.1 of the Penal Code, relating to spray paint and etching cream evidencing the age and identity of an individual, which have been issued by a federal, state, or local governmental entity, including, but not limited to, a motor vehicle operator’s license, a registration certificate issued under the federal Selective Service Act, or an identification card issued to a member of the Armed Forces.
(2) An age verification system, including a date of birth entry or checkbox verifying age system.
(3) Asking the buyer’s age verbally.”
Legal expert insights
The bill has serious implementation challenges, according to ArentFox Schiff’s Katia Asche. “The issue with this law, at least initially, is in its implementation,” she told CosmeticsDesign. “It sounds simple enough to ban the sale of retinol or alpha hydroxy to children, but these ingredients are not sold in isolation.”
That complicates enforcement. “The questions then become: must retailers equip their employees with the ability to scan ingredient lists for these substances, memorize which products contain them, maintain lists, keep abreast of new products, etc.?” Asche said. “And what is the margin for error? How soon after a new product hits the shelves must an employee prevent its sale to a minor before a penalty applies?”
According to Asche, the current draft of the bill offers no guidance on these points. “The law as drafted does not answer these important questions, leaving a wide chasm for the courts and stakeholders to fill,” she explained. “We would expect to see additional legislation and/or private agreements requiring,” she illustrated, and for “manufacturers to include conspicuous labels addressing the presence of these substances in their products.”
Further complicating matters for the industry is the bill’s potential for legal exposure. “As with most consumer protection laws (especially in California), though, the law probably does just enough to lay the groundwork for yet another breed of consumer class action,” she shared.
“We may also see an uptick in product liability claims against the manufacturers and sellers of these products,” she added. However, the bill does not clarify whether liability would fall on the manufacturer, the retailer, or individual employees.
Next steps: Watching the bill’s progress
Asche suggested that education—not enforcement—might be a more effective route for protecting children. “In the end, lawyers are probably the primary beneficiaries of the law,” she said. “In our view, children would benefit far more from an awareness campaign spearheaded by pediatricians and aimed at parents.”
After all, she concluded, “how does a 13 year old purchase enough $30 eye cream to cause damage if not with the help of their unwitting parents?”
The bill is currently under committee review. If passed, it could create new compliance requirements for manufacturers and retailers across the personal care sector, particularly those operating in or selling into California.