Bill to Ban The Sale of Anti-Aging Skin Care Products to Minors Halted In Assembly

Retail groups called AB 728 'virtually impossible to comply with'

By Evan Symon, May 29, 2025 7:46 am

29 May 2025 7:46 am

A bill aimed at banning the sale of anti-aging skin care products to those under the age of 18 was halted this week following the bill being moved to the suspense file, all but certainly ending the bill this year.

Assembly Bill 728, authored by Assemblyman Alex Lee (D-San Jose), would make it unlawful to sell an over-the-counter skin care product or cosmetic product that lists as an ingredient vitamin A or an alpha hydroxy acid without first verifying the purchaser's age and identity. In addition, the bill would define verifying age and identity to include, among other things, verbally asking the buyer's age and asking for documents that are evidence of age and identity related to the age-based prohibitions for aerosol paint and etching cream.

Lee wrote the bill to combat a TikTok and YouTube trend amongst younger people in which they use anti-aging skin products. As they aren't meant for younger people, the creams can actually damage the skin of younger people and lead to permanent scarring. The use of these by younger people can also lead to a multitude of other issues, including an increased chance of sun damage and sunburns. The trend actually began last year, with Lee creating a similar bill last session that would have done the same thing but included the age restriction at 13 rather than 18. That bill, AB 2491, died in the Assembly following trade groups informing the Assembly that such a law would be impossible to comply with or enforce, and that it over-regulated so much that it even affected many products beneficial towards young people.

Lee's office added that "droves" of "Sephora kids" are buying anti-aging products despite the health risks posed by these products.

"Growing consensus among experts have highlighted the harms anti-aging products can cause to children. We've heard countless stories of kids buying anti-aging products and subsequently experiencing skin issues," said Assemblyman Lee last month. "But the multi-billion beauty industry in the U.S. continues to profit off of kids using these products. It's time for the industry to take real and meaningful action, and AB 728 will protect children from products that aren't meant for them."

However, opposition against AB 728 turned out to be fiercer than expected. Trade groups like the California Retailers Association laid out how AB 728 would be a nightmare for retailers, especially struggling ones that rely on makeup sales to remain afloat. And since products change so often, compliance would be virtually impossible.

A compliance nightmare

"We are opposed to AB 728 because it's virtually impossible for us to comply with," said California Retailers Association lobbyist Margaret Gladstein. "These bans exist because the products either do damage to the person or to have risk for property damage and we ban these across the board. We don't prohibit the sale of red paint, but allow the sale of blue and green paint. We don't prohibit some etching creams with certain ingredients and allow other etching creams with different ingredients, but that's what AB 728 does. It will create a compliance nightmare because it prohibits the sale of some skin care products but not others. In order to follow the law.

"Some retailers may choose to ask every person buying any type of skin care product what their age is. Some customers may be abused, others may be very annoyed and choose to shop elsewhere. Other retailers may choose to identify which products meet the requirements of the law, but that just about the time they would get their list in order products change. Products can be announced seasonally. Ingredients change, so they'll never be able to comply.

"In either scenarios, both big stores and mom and Pops will have to spend significant resources training their staff and become the skin care police. This is precisely the kind of law that increases costs across the board and threatens affordability in California."

In addition, many medical professionals also pointed out how retinol-based products were not as dangerous as the bill made them out to be.

While the bill did pass the Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee last month, it only did so following a close 4-2 vote with one abstention. The abstaining Assemblywoman, Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D-Orinda), specifically pointed out how broad the bill was and how it didn't even say how aging and anti-aging creams were different.

"But I also think that there needs to be serious work on ensuring that if this does move forward, it is incredibly clear to the folks that we're expecting to comply," said the Assemblywoman. "What is an anti aging cream and what is anti aging? What is not because the ingredients are often overlapping."

While the bill wouldn't need state money to operate, the lack of clarity in the bill and the enormous costs to retailers sealed the fate AB 728 this week. The bill was placed in the suspense file, being one of the few flagged as "Non-Fiscal" and "Non-Appropriations". AB 728 or a bill similar to it can return next session, albeit with likely major changes.

Assemblyman Lee was contacted by the Globe about his bill being placed on the Suspense File, but no reply was provided.

Author Recent Posts Evan SymonEvan V. Symon is the Senior Editor for the California Globe. Prior to the Globe, he reported for the Pasadena Independent, the Cleveland Plain Dealer, and was head of the Personal Experiences section at Cracked. He can be reached at [email protected]. Latest posts by Evan Symon (see all) Bill to Ban The Sale of Anti-Aging Skin Care Products to Minors Halted In Assembly - May 29, 2025 DOJ Launches Investigation Into California State Law on Transgender Athletes Competing In Women's Sports - May 29, 2025 San Francisco Mayor Lurie To Spare SFPD, Other Public Safety From Budget Cuts - May 28, 2025 Spread the news: RELATED ARTICLES New Bill Bans Sale of Anti-Aging Skin Care Products to Minors February 19, 2025 California Anti-Phishing Act July 12, 2022 California Banned the Sale of Flavored Tobacco Products October 5, 2020