Walmart mercury skin cream settlement pressures e-commerce accountability

A legal settlement between Walmart and the Mercury Policy Project (MPP) is reigniting debates over the responsibility of online retailers in selling unsafe cosmetics. Under the terms of Proposition 65 in California, US, Walmart has agreed to remove mercury-laced skin-lightening creams from its online store. The retailer has now committed to proactively requiring certain third-party sellers to test their merchandise for mercury before it is offered for sale. 

The move was prompted by a lawsuit from the MPP and represents a shift from the traditionally reactive stance online platforms have taken in removing hazardous stock — to a more preventive model.

Mercury is a toxic heavy metal illegally added to some skin-lightening creams to bleach the skin due to its inhibition of melanin production. Exposure to the toxin has been linked to kidney damage, neurological and nervous system disorders, and psychosis, with distinct and severe threats to women, particularly their reproductive wellness, and expectant mothers’ fetal growth.

International treaties such as the Minamata Convention ban mercury-containing cosmetics. However, online platforms have contributed to their global circulation for years due to a central argument that has protected them: that they bear no responsibility for products sold by independent vendors.

The outcome of the Walmart settlement now challenges that argument. Proposition 65, California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, requires businesses to warn consumers about significant exposures to chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects, or reproductive harm. The law empowers private groups to sue violators, a tool the MPP invoked to force Walmart into a settlement.

“We are glad to have resolved this matter,” Walmart says in a statement to Personal Care Insights.

Mercury can easily cross the placental barrier, causing increased risks of miscarriage, stillbirth, and premature delivery for pregnant women.“Walmart expects third-party marketplace sellers and their respective items to comply with the law. We have added additional protocols and procedures to identify and prevent non-compliant items from being listed for sale.”

The outcome of the settlement indicates a promising shift for the future of online platform liability, but raises further questions about the effectiveness of US federal bans against illegal products and enforcement.

“Breaking the law is bad for business”

The Walmart settlement is the second large-scale crackdown against an e-commerce giant selling mercury cosmetics this year in California. In February, there was another action against eBay.

In the latest move, MPP sent a required 60-day notice about its intention to sue Walmart under Proposition 65 in September last year. The toxic watchdog then settled the case in June 2026, securing over US$1 million in penalties and gaining agreement that the retail giant would impose mercury testing requirements on certain third-party sellers.

“It is a refreshing admission that they [online platforms] can and legally must protect their consumers,” Rachel Doughty, lead attorney from Greenfire Law representing MPP in the case, tells Personal Care Insights.

“It is what consumers quite reasonably expect from large corporate entities, in part because these entities foster that trust,” she adds.

However, when asked if Walmart’s settlement can be seen as evidence that online platforms are becoming more aware of their role in cosmetic safety, Doughty says, “Walmart did not do this until it was sued.”

Michael T. Bender, international co-coordinator at the Zero Mercury Working Group, tells us that almost all large online platforms already have prohibited product policies in place, but that they “aren’t being adequately enforced — if at all.”

Walmart is introducing additional safeguards for certain third-party marketplace sellers.“Once platforms are exposed and legally challenged, it’s in their enlightened self-interest to comply, since breaking the law is bad for business,” he says.

Doughty says that it is the work of activists, and Bender adds the role of governments, that is fostering the pattern of major platforms taking more actions against mercury-containing skin-lightening products.

“The shift is the result of governments starting to take steps to close the legal loopholes and clamp down on trade in mercury compounds and the black market of toxic online sales offerings,” explains Bender.

However, in the US, government action is different at the state and federal levels. 

Federal action falling short?

The Minamata Convention previously allowed up to one part per million (ppm) of mercury in cosmetics, but that was reduced to zero, so that customs officers can use cheaper scanners to detect the compound in products, rather than needing complete laboratories. 

The US FDA, however, allows mercury compounds in cosmetics as preservatives in eye area products. “The mercury must not be more than 65 parts per million (ppm) in the finished product — and only if no other effective and safe preservative is available,” the organization’s guidance reads.

“We have not found any eye area cosmetic products currently on the market that contain these preservatives. Mercury is not allowed in any other cosmetic products except in a trace amount of less than 1 ppm and only if its presence is unavoidable under good manufacturing practice.” 

In correspondence with Personal Care Insights, the FDA says it works closely with US Customs and Border Protection to monitor imports. 

“Under section 801(a) of the Food, Drugs, & Cosmetics Act, imported cosmetics are subject to review by the FDA at the time of entry through US Customs. Products that do not comply with FDA laws and regulations are subject to refusal of admission into the US,” the spokesperson tells us.

The Walmart settlement is raising new questions over online marketplace responsibility for unsafe beauty products.However, the skin-lightening creams found on Walmart’s website contained around 5,000 ppm of mercury, and are only the latest example of violation. In another instance earlier this year, eBay’s stock exceeded the FDA’s legal mercury limit 31,000 times.

In the US, multiple individual states beyond California have taken action to crack down on mercury-laced cosmetics. But the issue has taken years to address at the federal level.

Doughty says the “FDA is shrinking its responsibilities.” However, the organization says that states regulate cosmetics under different legal frameworks than the FDA, “which means that state and federal enforcement actions may differ in scope, timing, and authority.”

“Different countries and regions also regulate cosmetics under different legal frameworks, which can affect how and when products enter the US market and what enforcement options are available at the federal level,” the FDA tells us.

“With respect to mercury-containing cosmetics specifically, the FDA has taken a number of steps to address this issue, including market surveillance, import monitoring, and public safety communications.”

However, Bender argues that “since producers of toxic creams are practiced at the art of deception, increased vigilance by governments is necessary.”

Doughty adds that, “in the world we currently live,” there will be a continued demand for skin-lightening products. “As long as that is true, it is a basic human right that potential purchasers be informed that they will be exposed through use to a very toxic chemical — mercury, doubly true if the FDA is throwing its hands up.”