Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Panel advances bill allowing private suits and a restitution fund for harmful hair chemicals
Loading...
Summary
SB 656, advanced by the committee, creates a private right of action for individuals harmed by products containing listed banned ingredients, establishes a 3‑year statute of limitations and a 'harmful hair chemical restitution fund' to receive state enforcement recoveries; the bill moves forward with amendments requiring proof of actual harm.
The Senate Finance Committee voted March 13 to advance SB 656, which adds civil remedies and administrative enforcement authority for violations involving cosmetic products that contain certain intentionally added banned ingredients.
Presenter (S2) explained the bill creates civil liability for anyone who knowingly manufactures, sells, delivers, holds or offers for sale a covered cosmetic product and authorizes the Maryland Department of Health to investigate complaints and inspect premises. Two amendments were described: one technical change and a second that requires plaintiffs to prove actual harm to bring a private action, establishes a three‑year statute of limitations, permits treble and punitive damages for prevailing plaintiffs in addition to reasonable attorney fees, and creates a harmful hair chemical restitution fund to support research and treatment for conditions caused by harmful hair chemicals. Funds recovered by the state in enforcement actions would be credited to that fund; recoveries in private suits would remain with the private plaintiff.
Committee members asked practical questions about investigation scope and how the fund would be financed. A committee member (S9) asked whether investigators could enter private premises; Presenter (S2) said inspections are intended to target premises where products are offered for sale or manufactured, not private homes. The committee voted to report the bill favorably with the amendments.
Why it matters: The bill creates both a private enforcement pathway and a state restitution fund intended to support research and treatment for injuries alleged to be caused by certain banned cosmetic additives. Requiring proof of actual harm narrows the private cause of action compared with strict‑liability approaches.
What happens next: SB 656, as amended, will proceed from committee with a favorable report.
