Compliance is the Floor, Not the Ceiling – Key Takeaways from ICPHSO Florida 2026
This blog was originally posted on 5th March, 2026. Further regulatory developments may have occurred after publication. To keep up-to-date with the latest compliance news, sign up to our newsletter.
BY JOANNE O’DONNELL, HEAD OF GLOBAL REGULATORY COMPLIANCE, COMPLIANCE & RISKS
The annual International Consumer Product Health and Safety Organization (ICPHSO) symposium took place from 23 to 26 February in sunny Orlando, Florida and welcomed almost 800 product safety professionals, lawyers and regulators from around the world.
The event made one theme abundantly clear: the world of product safety is moving faster than ever, and a “check-the-box” approach is no longer sustainable. From new EU regulations and the impending US eFiling deadline to the complex trade-offs of sustainability and right to repair, the central message resonated: product safety remains a key business imperative and a matter of continuous, company-wide vigilance.
Here are the key takeaways that defined the conversation at ICPHSO 2026:
The EU Regulatory Shift: GPSR, ESPR and DPP Redefine Market Access
Europe is driving a new global standard for compliance with a trifecta of interconnected regulations set to reshape how products are designed, sold, and tracked:
- General Product Safety Regulation (GPSR): Sharpens obligations and raises the bar for manufacturers, importers, distributors, and online marketplaces. It strengthens accountability across the full product lifecycle and mandates a higher standard for risk assessment and proactive recall management.
- Eco-design for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR): Embeds sustainability into product design and makes durability, repairability, and recyclability regulated product requirements, not just voluntary claims.
- Digital Product Passport (DPP): One of the hot topics at ICPHSO 2026. The DPP, which is currently mandated in the EU by certain regulations (including the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation, the Toys Regulation and the Batteries Regulation), will require standardized data on materials, chemicals, and sourcing thereby ensuring product attributes are accessible to regulators, consumers, and supply chain partners. For companies beginning their journey, panelists advised that the first step is cross-functional alignment. Product Safety and Sustainability teams should cooperate to define ownership, minimize overlap, and identify verifiable data points, gaps, and workflows. Leveraging existing work on traceability (e.g., data that companies may already have collected under existing regulations such as the US UFLPA) could also provide a starting point.
The Clock is Ticking on US CPSC eFiling
Although the US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) was regrettably absent from this year’s symposium, there was much discussion about their mandatory eFiling rule which will require importers and manufacturers to electronically file Certificates of Compliance for regulated consumer products from 8 July 2026. Panelists noted that data challenges are significant and that gathering, validating, and submitting the detailed information will require coordination across the entire supply chain.
PFAS – aka Patchwork of Federal and State
The US federal versus state regulatory divide is not unique to PFAS regulations – but was certainly one of the big talking points at the event. In the absence of federal action, US states are ramping up their regulatory requirements thereby creating a patchwork of different rules that pose a significant compliance challenge for companies operating in those states.
With different definitions across different jurisdictions, the need for robust data and documentation systems as well as a system to stay on top of existing and emerging regulations were flagged as foundational for compliance by panelists.
EPR Regulations on the Rise – The Data you Need to Keep Up
The US federal versus state regulatory divide is also visible when it comes to Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) regulations and panel discussions on EPR for packaging highlighted the complexity of a state-by-state regulatory landscape and the critical role of data in compliance:
In the US, EPR is currently driven by 7 US state-specific regulations, leading to divergences in definitions, exemptions, goals, and fee structures. Whilst EPR legislation for Illinois, Rhode Island and Hawaii may also be on the cards, panelists acknowledged that legislation at federal level is still unlikely although there are discussions federally on consistency with regards to definitions.
While the Circular Action Alliance (CAA) acts as a single entity managing compliance programs in most of these states, harmonization remains a challenge, though federal discussions are occurring to align definitions.
In the EU, the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) is the main driver and is set to apply from 12 August 2026 although different transition periods are tied to forthcoming secondary legislation. This regime introduces comprehensive new obligations, including:
- Sustainability requirements such as minimum recycled content for plastic packaging, packaging minimization measures, reuse targets, and new rules on environmental claims.
- Labeling requirements for material composition, identification elements and manufacturer / importer contact details.
- Compliance requirements such as carrying out a conformity assessment procedure, drawing up technical documentation, and issuing a Declaration of Conformity.
- Producer Responsibility (EPR) requirements which will harmonise requirements for appointing authorized representatives in each Member State, producer registration, content of reports, and criteria for recyclability to modulate EPR fees.
To keep on top of such a diverse regulatory landscape, companies were urged to prioritize collecting defendable packaging data now. This baseline data should include:
- Material type, weight by component, recyclability class, and recycled content.
- Supplier documentation (BOMs, test reports, audits, certifications).
- Data gaps can be addressed through 3rd party testing, contractual representations, or supplier certifications.
Panelists also spoke about where EPR is heading and its likely continued expansion beyond batteries, mattresses, textiles, electronics and packaging to potentially include end-of-life management of recall products.
50 Shades of Greenwashing
Greenwashing presents a growing legal, regulatory, financial and reputational risk as more countries move to regulate misleading and unsubstantiated environmental claims. To mitigate this risk, panelists highlighted that existing regulations in the EU, US and UK require that companies avoid using generic phrases such as “eco-friendly” or “sustainably made” on their products, packaging, websites, marketing /external communications and sustainability reports unless they are accompanied by verifiable data. Panelists also highlighted that greenwashing is not just limited to written claims but can also extend to sounds such as leaves rustling or flowing water as well as images such as using the color green or adding leafy imagery. Repeating, relying on or passing on a claim made by another party in the supply chain even if you did not originally create it may also amount to greenwashing in some jurisdictions whilst ‘omissions’ in the form of deliberately withholding relevant supplementary information to allow consumers fully understand the claim being made may also be high risk. The EU Commission FAQ document on the Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive published in November specifically notes that a lack of space (for example on packaging) is no justification for a shortened specification. If there is no space to specify the environmental claim, then the claim should generally not be made.
The Digital Safety Gap: Holding Online Marketplaces Accountable
Online marketplaces were identified at the symposium as a continuing challenge with regards to product safety with several representatives from these marketplaces notably in attendance at this year’s event.
With the EU General Product Safety Regulation (GPSR) coming into force, and the UK currently working through implementing legislation for the Product Regulation and Metrology (PRAM) Act, global product safety legislation is finally addressing the challenges posed by e-commerce and online marketplaces although one panel discussed whether the US Consumer Product Safety Act is lagging behind in this regard.
The EU GPSR addresses these concerns directly by mandating clearer responsibilities, strengthening accountability across the full product lifecycle, and setting a higher standard for risk assessment and proactive recall management whilst the UK PRAM Act also imposes specific obligations on online platforms to ensure compliance, safety, and traceability.
At the regulatory outlook panel, Health Canada discussed the success of the Canadian Consumer Product Safety Pledge launched in Sept 2023 which is a voluntary commitment made by signatories to strengthen and improve product safety online through a combination of preventative and corrective actions as well as annual reporting on the outcomes and effectiveness of these initiatives. Whilst the pledge has currently only been signed by Amazon, eBay and Temu, Health Canada informed attendees that other online marketplaces have expressed an interest.
Panelists also discussed the CPSC’s 2026 Operating Plan, launched on 6 January 2026, which flagged surveillance of unsafe imports – particularly low-value e-commerce shipments – a top enforcement priority relying increasingly on AI to assist in detecting high-risk products.
From Code to Courtroom….The Continued Rise of AI for Product Compliance
AI was a hot topic at this year’s symposium with several panelists discussing the pros and cons of its increased use by regulators, lawyers and companies across the globe.
On the Regulator Side, it is progressively being used as an enforcement tool. In the UK, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has developed an Ad Monitoring system that utilizes AI to identify non-compliant advertisements – including those that may contain potentially misleading ‘green’ claims – across digital platforms. Similarly, the EU surveillance webcrawler can crawl websites to find reappearances for products that EU member state authorities have already taken action against. In the US, the recently published CPSC’s 2026 Operating Plan outlines the Commission’s goal to increase their use of AI to identify high-risk goods and detect recalled products re-listed after removal and track repeat violators.
On the Litigation Side, class-action lawyers and litigation funders are also leveraging AI to quickly identify discrepancies between a company’s internal data and their public marketing statements – the goal of which is to find inconsistencies that may form the basis of legal action.
Finally, on the Company Side, AI is increasingly becoming a mandatory “pre-scan” tool used by legal teams to vet claims for compliance and risk before they are released to the public.
Right to Repair: The Safety Paradox
As circularity continues to reshape and influence product design, several sessions at ICPHSO discussed how to balance regulatory obligations such as right to repair with the product safety challenges that can also arise:
- Risk of Improper Repairs: The main concern is the risk of unqualified people repairing products with high-risk components (such as lithium-ion batteries or heating elements), which can lead to fires, shocks, or mechanical failures.
- Component Integrity: Allowing third-party parts raises the challenge of preventing unsafe substitutions that could compromise product testing standards or safety certifications.
Panelists discussed the need for both regulators and manufacturers to strike a balance between enabling a consumer’s right to repair and preventing the inadvertent bypassing of essential safety features. Companies are therefore advised to implement smart testing, advanced traceability tools, and collaborative frameworks to protect consumers while still successfully advancing sustainability goals.
In terms of legislation, regulations in this area are on the rise in the EU, US and across the globe. The EU is leading the way with its 2024 Right to Repair Directive, which applies from 31 July 2026 whilst in the US most states have now introduced some form of right-to-repair legislation (e.g., California, Minnesota, New York, Texas) although no legislation exists at the Federal level. Elsewhere, countries such as Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, are also pursuing legislation in this area.
The Double Danger: Data Governance & Documentation Management
A major theme from this year’s symposium was that data governance as opposed to data collection is one of the big challenges faced by companies who can remain fully compliant with their regulatory obligations and yet still miss serious safety problems due to incomplete, inaccurate and/or siloed data. When information such as online customer reviews, customer service calls, warranty claims, and returns is managed by separate departments, critical warning signs can go unnoticed.
Companies should therefore ensure that they have a centralized, coordinated and connected system that brings all this information together. In addition, companies should focus on risk assessment, mitigation and reduction in addition to regulatory requirements to promote safer product design from the start. Moreover, supplier buy-in and engagement with regards to the data that they provide you is key – as one panelist noted, companies are only as strong as their weakest supplier.”
Regulatory Avalanche: How to Stay on Top of Existing and Emerging Regulations
One of the biggest challenges outlined by speakers and attendees is the difficulty for companies in keeping up with global regulations and timelines. Indeed, this was flagged as THE biggest challenge in a poll undertaken by attendees during one of the panels at the event This is not a new challenge but the increased focus on granular data to demonstrate compliance with the new wave of regulations means that companies must start preparing now for regulatory obligations that are coming down the line – focusing on data governance and cross-functional alignment.
Looking Ahead
ICPHSO 2026 offered crucial insights into the dynamic and rapidly changing realm of product safety. As highlighted above, several key factors are driving this evolution:
- First, the increasing integration of AI is revolutionizing how product safety is managed, from risk assessment and incident response to regulatory trend analysis.
- Second, the shifting regulatory landscape, marked by new legislation and updates in major markets like the EU, UK, and US, demands constant vigilance.
- Third, volatile political and geopolitical tensions are adding another layer of complexity, potentially leading to trade disruptions and fluctuating regulatory priorities (most notably the ‘ESG” regulatory pushback at US federal level).
- Finally, heightened consumer awareness and expectations regarding product safety coupled with increased regulatory obligations are pushing companies to adopt more transparent and responsible practices.
Given these multifaceted influences, continuous regulatory tracking and horizon scanning is not merely advisable, but absolutely essential. Companies must proactively monitor both existing and emerging regulations to ensure compliance, mitigate risks, and stay ahead of the curve in this ever-evolving field.
Simplify Corporate Sustainability Compliance
Six months of research, done in 60 seconds. Cut through ESG chaos and act with clarity. Try C&R Sustainability Free.
