�鶹ֱ��

Key Takeaways:

• State‑driven regulation continues to shape product stewardship requirements, with California setting standards that may influence compliance strategies nationwide.
• Companies should review recyclability claims, PFAS use, and packaging decisions in light of increasingly detailed state laws and enforcement expectations.
• Extended Producer Responsibility programs are expanding across multiple states and are becoming an ongoing operational and financial consideration, with litigation adding uncertainty in some jurisdictions.
• Climate‑related disclosure obligations are broadening in scope, signaling continued growth in mandatory ESG reporting requirements for businesses operating in California and beyond.

�鶹ֱ�� recently hosted a webinar exploring key developments shaping the product stewardship landscape. As regulatory requirements continue to expand and environmental claims face increased scrutiny, businesses are encountering new compliance challenges across jurisdictions. A central theme throughout the discussion was that, in the absence of comprehensive federal regulation, states, particularly California, are driving much of the regulatory activity, resulting in a complex and evolving framework that companies must actively monitor and manage.

Recyclability Claims and California’s SB 343

A major focus of the webinar was California’s “Truth in Recycling” law, Senate Bill 343 (SB 343), which significantly raises the bar for recyclability claims ahead of its October 4, 2026 enforcement date. SB 343 requires companies to substantiate recyclability claims with detailed documentation and to ensure that such claims align with California‑specific criteria grounded in actual collection and processing rates rather than theoretical recyclability.

The law also restricts use of the familiar “chasing arrows” symbol unless these standards are met. Companies selling products into California should consider reviewing packaging, reassessing labeling and marketing claims, and strengthening internal documentation protocols to mitigate regulatory and reputational risk.

PFAS Regulation: Federal Stability and State Expansion

The discussion also addressed continued regulatory focus on per‑ and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). At the federal level, regulators are maintaining key initiatives, including reporting obligations under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), with reporting deadlines approaching 2026. At the same time, states are driving significant expansion, with hundreds of PFAS‑related bills introduced and increasing adoption of product‑specific bans across industries such as textiles, cosmetics, and food packaging.

This expanding patchwork of requirements means PFAS compliance is no longer limited to traditionally regulated sectors. Instead, PFAS presents a broad, cross‑industry challenge that requires enhanced supply chain visibility, data collection, and coordination.

Extended Producer Responsibility: Costs, Complexity, and Litigation

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) programs were another key area of focus. These laws shift recycling system costs upstream to producers, requiring companies to register, report, and pay fees, often through Producer Responsibility Organizations, based on packaging material and recyclability.

With programs already underway or coming online across multiple states, EPR obligations are increasingly viewed as a recurring operational and financial consideration rather than a one‑time compliance exercise. Ongoing litigation in jurisdictions such as Oregon and Colorado highlights continued legal uncertainty related to program structure, implementation, and enforcement authority. As a result, EPR is emerging as a board‑level issue rather than a discrete environmental compliance matter.

Climate‑Related Disclosure Requirements Continue to Expand

The webinar also addressed California’s climate disclosure laws, which have broad impacts and remain landmark climate rules for the U.S. Senate Bill 253 and Senate Bill 261 impose emissions reporting and climate risk disclosure obligations on large companies beginning in 2026, while Assembly Bill 1305 focuses on transparency in carbon neutrality and offset‑related claims.

Although CA SB 253 and SB 261 are subject to ongoing legal challenge, only SB 261 enforcement is currently paused. Additionally, we are seeing continued international focus on climate‑related disclosures, the introduction of additional state climate-related laws (i.e., New York), and increasing market demand for sustainable products and services. The overall trajectory suggests continued and potentially increasing expectations for climate‑related disclosures. Companies should anticipate additional regulatory and investor scrutiny as well as evolving compliance expectations in this area.

Considerations for Companies

In light of these developments, companies should consider:

• Reviewing product claims, labeling, and marketing materials for compliance with state requirements
• Enhancing supply chain data collection and documentation processes
• Preparing for multi‑state compliance obligations and potential cost impacts, particularly related to EPR programs
• Monitoring litigation and regulatory developments that may affect implementation timelines and enforcement expectations

Product stewardship is no longer a siloed compliance function. It is an enterprise‑wide issue that requires coordination across legal, operational, and sustainability teams. Organizations that take a proactive approach will be better positioned to manage risk and adapt as regulatory expectations continue to evolve.

If you were unable to join us for this webinar, we encourage you to view the recording. For questions regarding the topics discussed, please contact Amanda Beggs, Sarah Slack, Natasha Dempsey, Nick Johnson, Betsy Stone, or Judah Lieblich.