Snapshot: The Responsible Textile Recovery Act of 2024

California’s governor Gavin Newsom signed a bill this past weekend that will establish an Extended Producer Responsibility (“EPR”) scheme for the collection and recycling of “covered products” in the state. Called the Responsible Textile Recovery Act of 2024 (SB 707), the newly-signed and chaptered law, which was introduced by California Senator Josh Newman, will enhance recycling and reuse of textiles in California.

Among the key elements of the Responsible Textile Recovery Act of 2024 are …

> The law will “enact a stewardship program known as the Responsible Textile Recovery Act of 2024, which would require a producer of apparel … or textile articles, as defined, to form and join a producer responsibility organization or (‘PRO’),” which will be required to “submit to the [Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery], for approval or disapproval, a complete plan for the collection, transportation, repair, sorting, and recycling, and the safe and proper management, of apparel and textile articles in the state.”

> TIMELINE: Producers must form a PRO by January 1, 2026; join the PRO by July 1, 2026; and participate in the PRO’s product stewardship plan by July 1, 2030 – or when CalRecycle approves the PRO plan, whichever is sooner – or face civil penalties.

> “Upon approval of a plan, or commencing July 1, 2030, whichever is earlier, the bill would make a producer subject to specified civil penalties, unless the producer is a participant of a PRO and all apparel and textiles are accounted for in the plan.” (The bill will also authorize the department to impose administrative civil penalties for a violation of the program’s requirements, not to exceed $10,000 per day, or not to exceed $50,000 per day for an intentional or knowing violation, as specified.)

> It will “require the PRO to review the plan at least every 5 years after approval” and to “submit an annual report to the department.”

A few critical definitions …

> A “covered product,” according to the law, is defined as “an apparel or textile article.”

> “Apparel” is defined as …

> A “textile article” refers to “an item customarily used in households or businesses that are made entirely or primarily from a natural, artificial, or synthetic fiber, yarn, or fabric. For purposes of this chapter, “textile article” includes only blankets, curtains, fabric window coverings, knitted and woven accessories, towels, tapestries, bedding, tablecloths, napkins, linens, and pillows.” (This does not include “single-use products including paper towels, paper napkins, toilet paper, facial tissue, and wet or dry wipes.”)

> A “producer” is …

Response from Stakeholders

SB707 has been welcomed by some stakeholders, including the American Apparel and Footwear Association, which withdrew its opposition to the legislation this summer following amendments to the bill that “addressed some AAFA concerns by tightening a loophole for online marketplaces, ensuring brands’ resale efforts will be accounted for, ensuring brands’ circularity partners will be able to participate in the program, and removing brand liability for counterfeit products, among other concerns.” The AAFA said in a statement in August that “the industry would have preferred to see some additional amendments, such as language to provide for harmonization with the European Union on the recycling definition, to eliminate restrictions on the sale of recycled textiles, and to fully close the loophole for third-party sellers on online marketplaces.”

It has similarly garnered at least some criticism for the “extensive and burdensome” requirements that it will place on businesses in California. Arnold & Porter Policy Advisor Yuvaraj Sivalingam, for instance, stated in August 2023 (prior to certain amendments) , “The stewardship plan’s requirements alone are extensive and burdensome — calling for an array of information from financial and product data to education and outreach planning descriptions on how the operator will provide collection containers, support nonprofit entities, fund infrastructure development, and reduce environmental impacts. Much of this required information would be on topics and planning that is outside the operator’s typical area of expertise. Additionally, complying with these requirements may place additional costs on local California businesses — costs that competitors elsewhere, and particularly overseas, may not have to bear.”

The Bigger Picture

The law establishes the first EPR textile recycling program in the U.S. but it may not be the last. DLA Piper’s Kristy Balsanek, George Gigounas, Jesse Medlong, and Amanda McCaffrey stated in a recent note that a bill proposed in New York, for example, “would require fashion sellers to follow standardized environmental due diligence policies, make supply chain disclosures, and contribute to a state fashion remediation fund.” (More about that bill here.)

At the same time, similar initiatives have also been implemented in the European Union, with France enacting an EPR program for apparel and footwear back in 2007, and EU Parliament voting in favor of a proposed revision of the Waste Framework Directive, which endeavors to put greater responsibility on manufacturers of clothing and footwear, earlier this year.