In August 2025, the restriction proposal—revised by the submitting authorities—was published in the form of an updated background document. 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 ran until May 25, 2026. The committees’ final opinions 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 represent a fundamental change. The basic approach of a comprehensive and undifferentiated PFAS ban with a large number of time-limited and very specific exemptions remains in place. Such a ban, regardless of the risk assessment, would have massive negative impacts on the entire industry and on companies’ ability to innovate and compete. From the industry’s perspective, the updated restriction proposal is particularly problematic due to the lack of a risk-based approach, the absence of an exemption for fluoropolymers, and the high complexity and lack of practical feasibility of the regulatory approach.

A Highly Relevant Regulatory Precedent

This proposal sets a precedent under which many very different substances and their uses are to be banned across the board and without a risk assessment. With the elimination of several thousand PFAS, many urgently needed applications could no longer be manufactured in the EU, as no suitable alternatives currently exist.
PFAS are used in many areas of application 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 high or low temperatures, high friction, or aggressive chemical environments—require them. Due to their properties, PFAS help extend the service life of equipment and products, reduce maintenance requirements, and enhance safety.

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 imperative to determine whether a PFAS substance or its use poses an unmanageable risk to the environment or human health 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, such as strengthening European sovereignty or achieving environmental and climate protection goals.

Positions and Proposed Solutions from the BDI’s Perspective

To limit the impact on companies and the European business environment, the 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.
To this end, the regulatory approach should be reversed, and instead of a broad ban with countless exceptions, there should be targeted restrictions on individual, high-risk uses—as actually provided for in REACH. Substance groups, such as fluoropolymers, that pose no risk during the use phase and for which hazards during manufacturing and the end-of-life phase can be adequately controlled, should generally 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 identified key solutions. As part of the SEAC consultation, the BDI commented on the key socio-economic aspects of the restriction process. In addition, procedural criticisms were highlighted, which were examined in a brief legal opinion.