BlogLine

Microplastics phase two has arrived: The regulatory inflection point

4/14/26

By: Joshua Ferguson and Kevin Ringel

For anyone who has watched PFAS litigation unfold over the last decade, the early signals are starting to look familiar.  First came the science headlines.  Then public concern.  Now, regulators are stepping in.  Last week’s EPA announcement elevating microplastics to a priority drinking water contaminant may mark the beginning of Phase Two in the lifecycle of an emerging environmental mass tort: regulatory attention following public awareness, which is often a precursor to litigation.

In its April 2 release, the EPA announced that microplastics will, for the first time, appear on the agency’s draft Sixth Contaminant Candidate List under the Safe Drinking Water Act, along with pharmaceuticals, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), and disinfection byproducts.  In its release, the EPA explicitly stated its designation of microplastics as a priority contaminant group was “a direct response to the concerns of millions of Americans.” 

This action does not set enforceable limits, nor does it require removal.  Instead, it signals that microplastics will now be prioritized for research, monitoring, and potential future rulemaking.  The agency expressly framed this as a data-gathering and science-driven step, acknowledging both the ubiquity of microplastics and the lack of consensus on human health effects and dose-response thresholds.

The practical implications are incremental but meaningful, especially in light in overall deregulation we have seen since 2025.  Placement on the Contaminant Candidate List may bring increased testing, funding, and scrutiny, particularly for public water systems and industries connected to drinking water, wastewater, and plastics supply chains.  Just as importantly, regulatory recognition tends to shape narratives.  Once a contaminant is formally on the regulatory radar, it may be easier for plaintiffs’ attorneys, regulators, and the media to frame future claims around “known concerns” rather than purely hypothetical risks.

This does not mean that a flood of microplastics litigation is inevitable or imminent.  However, experience from PFAS suggests that regulatory attention frequently accelerates the transition from narrow, early claims to broader theories of liability.  For claims professionals and businesses, this moment is less about panic and more about preparedness: tracking regulatory developments, monitoring evolving science, and stress-testing products, marketing, and operations before the litigation curve steepens.  If PFAS taught us anything, it’s that Phase Two is often the last clear window to get ahead of what comes next.

For more information, please contact Joshua Ferguson at joshua.ferguson@fmglaw.com, Kevin Ringel at kevin.ringel@fmglaw.com or your local FMG attorney.

Information conveyed herein should not be construed as legal advice or represent any specific or binding policy or procedure of any organization. Information provided is for educational purposes only. These materials are written in a general format and not intended to be advice applicable to any specific circumstance. Legal opinions may vary when based on subtle factual distinctions. All rights reserved. No part of this presentation may be reproduced, published or posted without the written permission of Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP.