After a $750,000 fine for PFAS in eyeliners: why “forever chemicals” are drawing renewed scrutiny in Canada

Weeks after the ruling, the case is resurfacing not as a breaking headline but as a consumer and environmental accountability story. On January 13, 2026, the Ontario Court of Justice fined Estée Lauder Cosmetics Ltd. $750,000 after the company pleaded guilty to two offences under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA). The core issue is not an immediate nationwide recall announcement, but a compliance failure that regulators say prevented proper pre-market scrutiny of a chemical use tied to PFAS.

Environment and Climate Change Canada says enforcement officers found in May 2023 that certain eyeliner products being sold listed perfluorononyl dimethicone as an ingredient. The department describes the substance as a silicone polymer used to increase hold, durability, and water resistance, and notes it falls within the PFAS class. According to the federal release, the first offence involved failing to inform the government about a “significant new activity” related to selling or distributing products containing the substance, and the second offence involved failing to comply with an environmental protection compliance order issued on June 8, 2023.

Why does the court focus so heavily on “notification”? Under CEPA, the “significant new activity” trigger is designed as a preventive checkpoint. Regulators rely on advance information to assess exposure scenarios and potential risks before a substance or use becomes widespread. With PFAS, the concern is amplified because these chemicals are widely described by regulators as highly persistent, meaning they can remain in the environment for long periods and may be harder to manage once they enter waste and water systems through everyday use and washing.

The consequences went beyond the fine. The court also ordered the company to notify its shareholders, and the federal release says the conviction will be reflected in the Environmental Offenders Registry, with the fine directed to Canada’s Environmental Damages Fund. The enforcement message is straightforward: compliance steps that look “administrative” can have real public-interest weight when they sit upstream of health and environmental safeguards.

As for health and environmental concerns, PFAS is a broad class, and evidence varies by compound and exposure level. Health Canada notes that studies in animals link exposure to certain PFAS to developmental, endocrine, liver, kidney, and immunological effects, while human studies for specific substances (notably PFOA and PFOS) have reported associations with effects on liver and metabolism, immune outcomes, and infant birth weight. This is why regulators increasingly discuss PFAS as a class and emphasize reducing exposure where practical.

Cosmetics matter because they can be used daily and close to sensitive areas. An OECD report on PFAS in cosmetics explains that PFAS have been used for functions such as oil- and water-resistance and performance properties, which helps explain why they appear in some “long-wear” products. For consumers, the practical point is cumulative exposure: cosmetics may represent an additional pathway alongside drinking water, food, and household dust, even if a single product is not the dominant source.

When is the risk worth paying closer attention to? Typically, when products are used frequently, marketed as long-lasting or waterproof, used in combination with multiple similar items, or used by people with recurrent irritation around the eyes. The most useful response is not panic but risk management: check ingredient lists, keep the product name and lot/batch information, and follow official Canadian safety and recall alerts for any future updates related to cosmetics.