Most brands under $25M have never checked which ones apply to them. I find out, document it, and give you the records to prove it — before a retailer, a regulator, or a plaintiff's firm asks.
If your listings say water-resistant, stain-resistant, wrinkle-free, or easy-care, you've described a finish chemistry — and several of those are now restricted in states you almost certainly ship into.
California has covered all textile articles since January 2025 — bedding and towels, not just apparel — and the threshold tightens again in January. Maine, Vermont, and Minnesota came into force in 2026. France banned PFAS in clothing textiles the same month.
There is no volume threshold and no small-business exemption in most of these statutes. And enforcement in this category increasingly arrives as a demand letter from a plaintiff's firm rather than a notice from a regulator — which means the practical deadline isn't when someone official notices. It's when someone running purchase-and-test programs does.
A fast read on your product mix and sales geography against current law, and a written go/no-go: which SKUs are in scope, in which states, and whether a full audit is worth your money. Most people start here.
5 business days · credited in full against an audit booked within 60 daysSKU-by-SKU assessment across every applicable jurisdiction. I read what your suppliers actually sent you and tell you what it does and doesn't establish. You get a ranked gap register, a sequenced remediation plan, and a testing specification where paperwork can't settle the question.
3–5 weeks · scales with SKU countThe laws keep moving. I track the ones that touch your categories, chase your suppliers for documentation, keep your records audit-ready, and screen new SKUs before they enter the line. Quarterly written position update.
Monthly · three-month minimumDocumentation assembly and technical narrative when a demand letter, retailer questionnaire, or regulatory inquiry arrives. I work alongside your attorney — not instead of them.
Hourly · retainer availableEvery restriction that applies to your specific products — statute, scope, threshold, date. Not a generic list.
Line by line: in scope, out of scope, or unresolved pending supplier response.
What each document you hold actually establishes — and where a declaration wouldn't survive scrutiny.
Findings ranked by severity and remediation cost, in the order you should tackle them.
Where analysis is genuinely needed: which method, which lab, what it costs — so you buy the right test once.
Plain-language summary of what the science behind each restricted class actually shows, for internal alignment and customer-facing claims that hold up.
I'm Tova Thurman. My background is regulated health data and clinical audit — HEDIS auditing across major payers, Medicaid analytics, chart abstraction, public health surveillance. The work was always the same underneath: open a documentation set, check it against a written rule, and find precisely where it fails.
Textile restricted-substance law asks for the same discipline, and it's moving faster than most brands can track.
What's different here is the second half. Most compliance consultants can quote you a threshold. Fewer can tell you what the exposure literature actually shows, where the evidence is strong, where it's thin, and how to describe it without overstating. That distinction is what keeps a brand out of both a compliance action and a greenwashing complaint — and it's the reason I do this work rather than someone else's version of it.
Usually not. A supplier declaration establishes what your supplier asserted — not what's substantiated. Most of these statutes put the burden on the seller, which means you. If a demand letter ever arrives, the difference between a declaration and the underlying technical data is the whole case.
This is the single most common gap I find, and it's rarely anyone acting in bad faith. It's just that nobody asked the follow-up question.
There's no volume threshold and no small-business exemption in most of these statutes, so your size doesn't change your legal position. It does change whether acting right now is the best use of your money.
That's what the Exposure Screen is for. Five days and a fixed fee to find out whether you have a real problem — and I'll tell you plainly if you don't.
You can, and it's usually the expensive way to learn very little. Total organic fluorine is a screening proxy, not a PFAS measurement — a result over threshold doesn't tell you which substance is present, and fluorine can come from sources that aren't PFAS at all.
Documentation resolves most questions for free. Testing is for what's left, and it should be specified before it's commissioned.
No, and this isn't legal advice. I assess documentation and exposure, and I produce the records a decision rests on. Where something has legal consequence, that's a conversation for your attorney — and my reports are built to hand straight to one.
Then you have a documented, defensible position that you didn't have before, which is worth having when a retailer asks. It happens — plenty of brands are already using compliant chemistry and simply never collected the evidence.
I'd rather tell you that than manufacture a problem. Overstating exposure is how consultants in this field burn their reputation, and it's a small industry.
Screens generally begin within a week of a signed engagement. Audits schedule two to three weeks out, depending on line size.
If you're up against a retailer deadline or a production cutoff, say so in your first email. I'll tell you honestly whether I can meet it rather than take the work and miss it.
Five days, a fixed fee, and a written answer on whether you have a problem. Credited in full against a Line Audit booked within 60 days.
Tell me what you make, where you ship, and whether any listing mentions a finish. That's enough to quote from.