The Biweekly Pulse: 23rd January – French PFAS Law, Brazil RoHS, and US AI Regulation Updates
The Pulse was originally posted on 28th January, 2026. Further regulatory developments may have occurred after publication. To keep up-to-date with the latest compliance news, sign up to our newsletter.
Check out the latest 2026 Regulatory Compliance Updates with The Pulse, your biweekly source for global regulatory insights!
This Week’s Trending Sources in C2P
- AI Rules Are Changing: Key Regulatory Updates for 2025 & 2026, Webinar Presentation, January 2026
- A New Era for Batteries within the EU: Batteries and Waste Batteries Regulation 2023/1542, White Paper, September 2025
- EU: JRC Technical Proposal on EU Harmonised Waste Sorting Labels under the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation, Report, 2026
What is Our Content Team Talking About?
28 January 2026: Brazil’s Environmental Quality Technical Chamber (CTQA) to Discuss Latest Revised RoHS Proposal
by Joyce Costello, Senior Regulatory Compliance Specialist
Following the public consultation process for the CONAMA RoHS resolution proposal, appropriate adjustments have been made to the normative text, which have been made publicly available.
At its 9th Ordinary Meeting on 28 January 2026, the Environmental Quality Technical Chamber (CTQA) will meet to discuss and deliberate on the proposal.
By way of background, the RoHS proposal was submitted to public consultation and notified to the World Trade Organization (WTO) under G/TBT/N/BRA/1603, remaining open between 11 August 2025 and 24 September 2025.
The submissions received were analyzed and, as a consequence of the social participation process, the draft resolution underwent modifications based on the contributions.
CONAMA notes that, in general, despite the large number of contributions received, the draft did not undergo major adjustments, since many of the points raised had already been previously discussed within the scope of the RoHS Working Group.
What’s Changing?
Changes which have been made include:
- The requirement to provide a photograph in the self-declaration of conformity has been removed (several participants in the public consultation pointed out that such a requirement could raise issues related to confidentiality, especially in the case of products in the launch phase)
- Relatedly, a specific provision on confidentiality has been inserted into Article 9 (new §2), in order to ensure the protection of sensitive information in the electronic equipment sector, without prejudice to the need to publish the self-declaration of conformity
- In Articles 12 and 13, item IX was reinstated, with the purpose of establishing a minimum period for manufacturers and importers to maintain the documents necessary for the traceability of equipment (this is a resumption of the text originally prepared by the GT-RoHS)
- Improvement of Article 17 §1 In the application of Article 17 item IV (non-compliant equipment) consumers must be informed of the corrective measures to be adopted through advertising announcements broadcast in the press, radio, television or digital media, at the expense of the manufacturers or importers
- Throughout the entire text, the term “registration” has been omitted from the expression “registration of the self-declaration of conformity,” considering the self-declaratory nature of this instrument (the previous wording was considered to lead to the mistaken interpretation that the issuance of the self-declaration would be a registration or certification procedure within the scope of the National Registry).
Next Steps
Once CTQA approves or finishes its review of the draft, it is expected to be forwarded to the Câmara Técnica de Assuntos Jurídicos (CTAJ) before proceeding to the final stage – Plenária do CONAMA Plenary (full council).
What Are Our Knowledge Partners Talking About?
Showdown: New Executive Order Puts Federal Government and States on a Collision Course Over AI Regulation
by Cooley
On December 11, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order (EO) seeking to limit states’ regulation of artificial intelligence (AI) and to establish instead “a minimally burdensome national policy framework for AI.” Trump’s move creates significant uncertainty for states like California and Colorado, which have enacted comprehensive laws regulating AI and whose political leadership may be willing to challenge the administration. The EO cites Colorado as an example of a state with laws requiring developers “to embed ideological bias within models.” The federal government may also target states that have passed AI laws focused on specific industries or uses of AI, such as New York, which passed laws on AI companions and algorithmic pricing. The EO creates even less certainty with respect to the enforcement of pre-existing legal regimes, such as privacy and consumer protection, in a manner that could be seen to obstruct the president’s policy and burden AI development. However, carve outs in the EO indicate that the administration will not block state efforts to pursue child safety, manage AI data center infrastructure, and accelerate state government procurement and use of AI.
In line with Trump’s EO 14179 from earlier this year, “Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence,” this latest EO argues that the growing patchwork of state laws threatens US technological leadership and economic competitiveness. The EO does not pre-empt the many state AI laws that have already been passed. However, it mobilizes federal officials and agencies to take action that may curtail state efforts to enforce their laws and regulate AI. These actions raise potentially wide-ranging ramifications for state governments, technology companies and companies deploying AI systems across sectors.
The EO comes on the heels of a prior attempt by the White House and some members of Congress to rein in state AI regulation. In May, the House of Representatives passed a 10-year moratorium on state AI laws as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. However, the Senate struck the AI provision from the final version of the bill. Efforts to include a moratorium or pre-emption in the yearly must-pass National Defense Authorization Act also failed. This EO again brings to the fore the conflict between states’ interest in regulating AI and the federal government’s inability to develop and pass legislation on the topic.
In line with its national AI policy framework, the EO directs federal agencies and officials to:
- Create an AI litigation task force: The Justice Department must establish a task force within 30 days of the EO to challenge state AI laws. The EO directs the task force to challenge state AI laws “on grounds that such laws unconstitutionally regulate interstate commerce, are pre-empted by existing Federal regulations, or are otherwise unlawful.”
- Review state AI laws: The Commerce Department must publish within 90 days of the EO an evaluation identifying “onerous” state AI laws that conflict with the national AI policy outlined in the EO and refer to the task force laws that should be challenged. This evaluation must include state AI laws that “require AI models to alter their truthful outputs, or that may compel AI developers or deployers to disclose or report information in a manner that would violate the First Amendment or any other provision of the Constitution.” However, in a change from a draft version, the EO adds that the evaluation may identify state AI laws that promote innovation consistent with the EO’s AI policy.
- Restrict federal funding, particularly for broadband: Within 90 days of the EO, the Commerce Department must publish a policy notice identifying conditions under which it may withhold federal broadband and infrastructure funds from states with AI laws that conflict with the EO’s AI policy. Specifically, states that the administration find to have “onerous AI laws” on the books, as determined by the Commerce Department per above, will no longer be eligible to receive their “non-deployment funds” under the National Telecommunications and Information Administration-run Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) Program. The BEAD program allocated funds to the states for broadband deployment and nondeployment projects, with the infrastructure deployment portion of the program to be prioritized and take place first sequentially. Only after the states had accounted – and committed – funds for network connectivity to each unserved or underserved location within their jurisdictions could the states then plan to use the remaining funds for nondeployment initiatives. When the White House implemented the “Benefit of the Bargain” reforms to the BEAD program this past summer, the programmatic changes meant that states were required to consider the cost-efficiency of the proposed deployment project above all other criteria, thereby increasing the share of nondeployment funds left over for each state. States that have laws regulating AI now risk losing access to the millions of BEAD dollars that they may have already budgeted for nondeployment initiatives, such as digital literacy programs, telehealth, remote learning and affordability efforts. For example, Colorado, the sole state to be explicitly called out in the EO, is likely to be blocked from using the $405.9 million BEAD funds that would otherwise go toward telecom and broadband workforce programs that the state had originally planned for. The EO also directs other federal agencies to review whether any of their discretionary grant programs may be restricted for states enacting AI laws conflicting with the EO’s AI policy.
- Develop federal AI standards: The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) must review how their authorities pre-empt state AI laws.
- Within 90 days of the EO, the FTC must publish a policy statement explaining how its authorities prohibiting “deceptive acts or practices affecting commerce” pre-empt state AI laws that “require alterations to the truthful outputs of AI models.”
- The FCC is given a longer timeline to act. Within 90 days of the Commerce Department publishing its state AI law evaluation, the FCC must start a process to determine “whether to adopt a Federal reporting and disclosure standard for AI models that pre-empts conflicting State laws.”
- Propose federal legislation, with key exceptions: White House AI and crypto officials must draft a legislative proposal for “a uniform Federal policy framework for AI that pre-empts State AI laws that conflict with the policy set forth in this order.” In a key change from the draft version, the EO carves out regulatory domains where the legislative proposal should not pre-empt state AI laws, including those related to child safety, AI data center infrastructure, state government procurement and use of AI, and “other topics as shall be determined.”
Next Steps
Prepare for upheaval as states and the federal government clash over AI regulation.
- In the short term, expect legal challenges. States and others may challenge the EO in court. In parallel, the federal government, following directives from the Justice Department’s AI litigation task force, may challenge state AI laws in court. However, unless paused by a court or revoked by a state, AI compliance requirements under state law remain in place.
- In the medium to long term, federal AI standards may be coming. Legislative proposals from White House officials must still be passed by Congress to have the force of law. However, other federal agencies may act sooner to regulate AI. For example, companies should keep a close eye on FCC and FTC rules that may affect their reporting requirements or result in AI regulatory investigations.
Companies will need to walk and chew gum at the same time, tracking federal efforts to curtail state AI laws while remaining in compliance with state AI rules that stay on the books, especially in blue states. Whether operating as a developer or deployer of AI, companies may consider reviewing existing compliance programs and engaging with counsel to prepare for federal and state regulatory contingencies as the AI tumult continues.
What Are Our Clients Asking About?
Under the New French Law on PFAS, Is There a List of CAS Numbers for the Substances in Scope? And What Are the Methods to Verify Their Presence and Concentration? Is There a Transition Period for Products Already in Stock?
Answered by Dieudonné Ymedji, Senior Regulatory Compliance Specialist
The French Law No. 2025-108 and its implementing Decree No. 2025-1376 do not provide a comprehensive list of CAS numbers for all PFAS substances. Instead, they categorize PFAS substances as a class and establish specific thresholds for total fluorine and individual PFAS compounds. In alignment with the OECD (2021) definition, PFAS substances are generally described in the Decree as “any substance containing at least one fully fluorinated methyl (-CF₃) or methylene (-CF₂-) carbon atom without any attached H, Cl, Br, or I atoms.”
Additionally, the Decree does not designate a specific “official” analytical technique or testing method for determining PFAS thresholds in products. Instead, it emphasizes concentration limits, suggesting that any validated analytical method, such as liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS), ion chromatography, or other suitable methods that can meet these limits, is acceptable. In practice, companies are required to use accredited laboratories and standardized analytical methods to verify compliance with the specified thresholds.
Regarding the final aspect of your query, the decree prohibits, from 1 January 2026, the manufacture, import, export, and sale of a wide range of PFAS-treated products, including textiles, clothing, footwear, cosmetics, and wax products. According to Article 2, products manufactured before this date can be sold or exported until 31 December 2026, giving businesses time to adjust to the new regulations.
Stay Ahead Of 2026 Regulatory Compliance Updates with The Pulse
Want to stay on top of 2026 Regulatory Compliance Updates?
All insights in The Pulse come directly from C2P – the trusted compliance platform used by over 300 of the world’s leading brands. With coverage across 195+ countries, C2P empowers you to achieve, maintain, and expand market access faster and with confidence.
C2P is an enterprise SaaS platform designed to meet your unique compliance needs. It brings together everything in one place – regulations, standards, requirements, and evidence – so you can manage compliance across the enterprise with ease.
Need more? Our tailored add-on packages unlock use-case-specific solutions, enriched global regulatory content, and direct access to a global team of subject matter experts and professional services.
C2P is your key to unlocking global market access.
- Accelerate time-to-market for products
- Reduce non-compliance risks that impact your ability to meet business goals and cause reputational damage
- Enable business continuity by digitizing your compliance process and building corporate memory
- Improve efficiency and enable your team to focus on business critical initiatives rather than manual tasks
- Save time with access to Compliance & Risks’ extensive Knowledge Partner network
Keep Your Finger on the Pulse of Regulatory News!
Join 30,000+ compliance professionals for 2026 regulatory compliance updates on hot compliance issues, market insights on the latest trends, and free regulatory webinars and whitepapers
