In August 2025, the proposing authorities published an updated background document containing the revised restriction proposal. As part of the ongoing scientific evaluation process, the ECHA committees have now published their opinions (RAC) and their draft opinion (SEAC), respectively. A public consultation on the draft SEAC opinion was open until May 25, 2026. The final opinion of both committees are expected by the end of 2026.

Assessment of the Updated Restriction Proposal

Even though the background document, revised in August 2025, provides for additional exemptions, it does not constitute a fundamental change. The underlying approach of a broad and undifferentiated PFAS ban with a large number of time-limited and highly specific exemptions remains in unchanged. Such a restriction, irrespective of the individual risk assessment of substances and uses, would have massive negative impacts on the entire industry and on companies’ ability to innovate and compete. From the industry’s perspective, key concerns regarding the updated restriction proposal include the absence of a risk-based approach, the lack of an exemption for fluoropolymers, and the high complexity and limited practical implementability of the regulatory approach.

Regulatory Precedent with Far-Reaching Implications

The proposed restriction would set a significant regulatory precedent by introducing a broad ban on a large and highly diverse group of substances without assessing the risks associated with specific uses. With the removal of several thousand PFAS from the market, many urgently needed applications could no longer be manufactured in the EU, as no suitable alternatives currently exist.

PFAS are used across a wide range of applications and, due to their specific properties, are of great importance for innovation and technical advancements, particularly in the field of future technologies, for example, in semiconductor manufacturing or fuel cells. PFAS are used in many industries whenever extreme operating conditions, such as extreme temperatures, high mechanical friction, or aggressive chemical environments, require them. Due to their performance characteristics, PFAS contribute to extending product lifetime, reducing maintenance requirements and enhancing safety in industrial equipment and products.

Differentiated and Risk-Based Regulation of PFAS

A differentiated and risk-based strategy is essential for the sustainable regulation of these substances. In this context, it is essential to assess whether a PFAS substance or use poses an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment and whether suitable alternatives exist. If this is not done, there is a risk that urgently needed chemicals will no longer be available on the market and that innovative future technologies will not be able to be developed. This would have serious consequences both for Europe as a business location and for key strategic objectives of the EU. These include strengthening European technological sovereignty, enhancing the resilience of strategic value chains, and achieving ambitious environmental and climate goals.

Positions and Proposed Solutions from the BDI’s Perspective

To limit the impact on companies and the European business environment, BDI has repeatedly advocated for a comprehensive revision of the proposed restrictions, involving a differentiated assessment and regulation of the various substances, or at least of PFAS subcategories, based on their respective properties.
This would require a shift in the underlying regulatory approach. Rather than pursuing a broad restriction accompanied by countless derogations, regulation should focus on specific uses that pose an identified risk, in line with the principles of the REACH Regulation. Substance groups such as fluoropolymers, which do not present a risk during the use phase and for which risks associated with manufacturing and end-of-life can be adequately controlled, should in general be excluded from the scope of the restriction. This would significantly reduce the negative consequences for industry and substantially lower the high complexity of the regulation.

The BDI has assessed the restriction dossier in several position papers and outlined policy recommendations. As part of the SEAC consultation, the BDI provided detailed comments on the main socio-economic aspects of the restriction process. In addition, procedural concerns were identified and examined in a brief legal opinion.