5,000+ companies owe Minnesota a PFAS report by September 15.Most don’t know yet.
PFASMatrix tells you in sixty seconds whether your products are covered — in Minnesota and 15 other states — then helps you get answers out of your suppliers, keep proof you tried, and file with confidence.
As of June 15, 2026 only ~700 of 5,000+ expected manufacturers had registered — MPCA’s own count. source
supplier response rate one appliance-industry group reported after eight months of chasing its top 225 suppliers.
how far EPA raised its own PFAS-reporting cost estimate ($10.8M → $876M) once it priced in getting data from suppliers.
51 enacted PFAS product rules tracked — bans, labels, notifications, and filings — each with its citation and verification date.
The form takes an afternoon.
The supplier chase takes months.
States made filing cheap on purpose — Minnesota charges a flat $800 and publishes a free template. What nobody solved is upstream: suppliers who don’t answer, answer late, or refuse chemical names as confidential. Well-resourced industry groups report response rates under 40% after months of trying.
And “we don’t use PFAS” isn’t an exit — Minnesota expects you to keep asking until information is known, and to keep records proving you did. When a retailer, regulator, or plaintiff asks, the paper trail is the product.
Check
Map every SKU against 16 states' bans, labels, and filing duties — with citations.
Chase
Send supplier attestation requests that don't get ignored; automatic reminders; no supplier logins.
Prove
Every ask, answer, and escalation lands in an evidence log — one click to a due-diligence report.
File
Turn collected answers into a PRISM-ready Minnesota upload, Washington's format next.
The state’s portal wasn’t built for small brands. Your on-ramp to it can be.
We prepare your data to drop into Minnesota’s PRISM system — correct product grouping, the exact concentration ranges from Minn. R. 7026.0030, chemical names matched to the state’s list, unknowns handled the way the rule allows. You (or we, as your authorized consultant) hit submit.
“The product was nearly impossible to use, plagued with IT and substantive errors…”
Sixteen states. Four kinds of obligation.
Minnesota Sprint
early cohort · one-time · includes 3 months of Growth
Done-with-you before the deadline: applicability review, supplier outreach for up to 20 suppliers, PRISM-ready data package, extension help if you need Dec 14.
Reserve a spot →Growth
200 products · 50 suppliers · all exports as shipped, parsing assist, priority support
Full pricing →FAQ
Who counts as a “manufacturer” under Minnesota's law?+
More companies than you'd think: the producer, but also the brand owner whose name is on the product, and — when neither has a US presence — the importer or first domestic distributor. Selling into Minnesota through e-commerce counts as selling in Minnesota.
My products are marketed PFAS-free. Am I done?+
Not automatically. A PFAS-free claim still needs supplier verification behind it — Minnesota's standard requires you to keep asking suppliers until information is known, and Prop 65 plaintiffs test 'PFAS-free' claims with lab panels. If your supply-chain answers confirm no intentionally added PFAS, you may have nothing to report — but you want the paper trail proving it.
What does the Minnesota report actually require?+
For each product (grouping of similar products is allowed): a description with a product code (UPC, HTS, or SKU), each intentionally added PFAS by name/CAS number, its function, and its amount in state-defined concentration ranges — plus an $800 one-time fee per manufacturer. Unknowns are permitted if you document your efforts to find out.
What happens if I just… don't file?+
Minnesota has stated a cooperative first-cycle posture toward companies that file best-available information and document their efforts. But the statute lets MPCA direct retailers to stop selling a non-compliant manufacturer's products — for a consumer brand, delisting is the real risk, not just fines.
Is this legal advice?+
No. PFASMatrix is compliance software and information. Every rule we show carries its citation, source link, and the date we last verified it — and flags where rules are contested. For judgment calls, bring your counsel; we make the factual groundwork fast and defensible.
Which states actually require filings, versus bans or labels?+
Today: Minnesota (reports due Sept 15, 2026), Washington (reports due Jan 31, 2027), and New Mexico (labeling + reporting from Jan 1, 2027, currently under legal challenge). Connecticut requires labeling plus notification since July 1, 2026. Twelve more states have category bans — where you mostly need to know what you can sell, and prove what's in your products.