Summary: California Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed AB 2253 on September 27. The bill would have expanded recycled-content claim recordkeeping requirements from plastic food containers to all products bearing voluntary recycled-content labels, including apparel, starting January 1, 2030, requiring companies to keep written records substantiating recycled fiber claims on labels, but without setting a minimum recycled-content percentage. Newsom said that with federal tariffs and trade policy already imposing economic pressure on manufacturers and suppliers, adding new compliance burdens would worsen their plight while offering limited consumer benefit.

Key Points

  • Newsom vetoed AB 2253 on September 27; the bill was introduced by Democratic Assemblymember Tasha Boerner and supported by Californians Against Waste
  • The bill would have extended recycled-content recordkeeping requirements from plastic food containers to products including apparel starting January 1, 2030, without setting a minimum recycled-content percentage
  • Dozens of organizations including the American Apparel & Footwear Association (AAFA) signed a joint letter on September 4 urging a veto

Supporters called the bill the "Protecting Consumers from Greenwashing Act." As designed, companies would have to keep written records substantiating recycled fiber claims on apparel labels; for products other than plastic food containers, companies would have to provide records to the state Attorney General upon request if a violation was suspected, with trade secret information still protected. The bill capped claims at the amount of recycled material third-party certified and supplied to a given product line, with audited records allowed as a substitute when certification was unavailable; given normal supply and production fluctuations, actual recycled content in individual products could be higher or lower than labeled, and the bill allowed averaging and other tracking methods, including limited proportional attribution.

In his veto message, Newsom said he shared the goal of ensuring environmental marketing claims are accurate and that consumers can trust the products they buy, but worried that expanding recordkeeping requirements would unduly burden manufacturers and suppliers already facing pressure from federal tariffs and trade policy, saying that adding complex compliance requirements at this time could exacerbate those pressures while offering little benefit to consumers.

Boerner's office framed the proposal as protecting consumers who pay more for products they believe are environmentally friendly. Responding to the veto on September 28, Boerner said misleading recycled-content claims erode that trust, and that people believe companies are honest about their products and often pay more for sustainable products that align with their values.

Apparel and retail groups were among those pushing Newsom to veto the bill. AAFA, the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Retailers Association and dozens of other organizations signed a joint letter on September 4 requesting a veto. The coalition said companies would need a separate system to verify recycled-content claims for California while also meeting the state's packaging and textile recycling obligations, warned that costs would rise, and said existing false advertising laws already address misleading recycled-content claims.

The bill came as California advances a sweeping overhaul of recycling rules. The SB 54 packaging law established an extended producer responsibility (EPR) system placing primary responsibility for post-use management of covered products on producers; that system focuses on waste management, while AB 2253 targeted claims companies voluntarily place on products. Another law, SB 343, addresses whether products and packaging can be labeled recyclable; CalRecycle said the restrictions apply to goods manufactured after October 4, but a federal court issued a preliminary injunction in July blocking enforcement, and the agency's study of which materials are collected and recycled continues. Recyclability and recycled content answer two different questions: the former is whether an item can be recycled after use, the latter is whether recycled material was used in manufacturing, and AB 2253 dealt with the latter.

The veto kept the proposed 2030 expansion requirements out of law. California's existing rules prohibiting false or misleading environmental marketing remain in effect, meaning apparel companies must still ensure their claims are truthful even without the bill's additional verification framework. For the used clothing and textile recycling industry, this round of legislative maneuvering in California shows that recycled-content claim regulation is advancing alongside packaging EPR and recyclability labeling rules, but the pace of regulation and corporate compliance costs have become real constraints on policy implementation.

Source: Newsom Vetoes Recycled-Content Labeling Bill, Citing Tariff Pressures · Originally published 2026-10-06