Estée Lauder Companies (ELC) will pay CAD$750,000 (about US$548,000) after the Ontario Court of Justice ruled on 13 January 2026 that the conglomerate had sold eyeliners containing Perfluorononyl Dimethicone — a fluorinated silicone classified as a PFAS — without notifying Canadian regulators.

The court handed down the penalty after ELC pleaded guilty to two counts of violating the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA). The first count covers ELC's failure to file a "Significant New Activity" (SNA) notice before introducing the chemical into commerce; the second covers ELC's failure to comply with a compliance order Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) issued in June 2023.

What triggered the case?

ECCC investigators identified Perfluorononyl Dimethicone on eyeliner products in the Canadian market in May 2023. Under Schedule 1 of CEPA, importing, selling or distributing a cosmetic that contains the substance counts as a Significant New Activity, which legally requires prior notification so the federal government can screen the chemical for human and ecological risk.

ELC never filed the notice. ECCC's June 2023 order instructed the company on steps to remediate; ELC failed to comply within the timeline. That produced the second charge and the plea.

What does the ruling change beyond the fine?

Three downstream obligations hit harder than the cheque:

• ELC must formally notify shareholders of the conviction under Canadian securities disclosure rules.
• The corporate name goes onto Canada's public Environmental Offenders Registry.
• The judgment establishes that CEPA's SNA trigger follows the brand owner, not only a local importer or distributor.

For procurement, regulatory and brand-protection teams, the message is clear: domestic SNA-tracked INCI entries have to be screened before each new market launch, not after enforcement letters arrive.

Why the chemistry matters

Perfluorononyl Dimethicone sits inside the broader PFAS family of roughly 12,000 man-made substances, prized across industries for oil and water repellency. In cosmetics, PFAS show up for the conditioning, slip and shine they give skin and hair — common in lipsticks, eyeshadows, moisturisers, blushers, rouges, foundations, nail polish and cleansers.

PFAS persist in the environment because they do not break down. Studies cited by Health Canada associate exposure with kidney cancer, testicular cancer, hypertension, thyroid disease, low birth weight and childhood immunotoxicity. PFAS can enter a formula either by design or through raw-material impurities and the breakdown of other intentionally added PFAS.

What compliance teams should review now

Brand owners and their contract manufacturers selling into Canada should audit three documents inside 30 days:

• INCI cross-checks against the CEPA Significant New Activity list (Schedule 1) for any fluorinated silicone, acrylate or ester.
• Supplier specifications confirming PFAS content at the raw-material level — not only the finished formulation.
• SNA notification files for any new chemical introduction to the Canadian market in the past 36 months.

ELC did not respond to a request for comment before publication.

The next data points to watch: Health Canada's reassessment decisions on additional PFAS under CEPA, and the European Commission's broader PFAS restriction, which moved through committee review in early 2026 and could compress global reformulation timelines within 24 months.