California Releases Preliminary List of Companies Covered by New Climate Disclosure Laws

/in ,

On September 24, 2025, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) released a preliminary list of covered entities under two new California climate disclosure laws that will require thousands of companies to report, with initial reporting deadlines beginning in 2026.

California’s SB 261 and SB 253, enacted in 2023, apply to companies formed under U.S. law that do business in California and have total annual revenues above certain thresholds:

  • SB 261 ($500 million threshold): Requires biennial disclosure of climate-related financial risk beginning January 1, 2026.
  • SB 253 ($1 billion threshold): Requires annual disclosure of scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas emissions for the prior fiscal year beginning in 2026, and scope 3 emissions beginning in 2027. CARB has proposed a June 30, 2026, deadline for the first submission.

For each company, the preliminary list indicates whether reporting is required under both laws or only under SB 261.

SB 261 Reporting Guidance

The preliminary list follows CARB’s September 2 release of draft guidance on compliance with SB 261, which clarifies what information covered entities must include in their biennial reports.

Under the draft guidance, covered entities can choose between three reporting frameworks to meet disclosure requirements for four different areas: governance, strategy, risk management, and metrics and targets.  For each reporting area, the draft guidance outlines minimum disclosure requirements.

The draft guidance acknowledges that disclosures “will vary depending on the company, the discretion of the preparers, and the chosen reporting framework.”  CARB also states that a “guiding principle in preparation of these reports should be meeting the needs of the users of the biennial reports,” such as “investors and other stakeholders.”

Notably, CARB is not currently requiring disclosure of scope 1, 2, or 3 emissions for the initial reporting period.  In addition, companies may submit disclosures based on either calendar year or fiscal year data for their first biennial report.

Prop 65 Warning for Titanium Dioxide Struck Down

/in ,

California’s Proposition 65 warning requirement for respirable titanium dioxide violates the First Amendment, the District Court for the Eastern District of California ruled on August 12, 2025, in The Personal Care Products Council v. Bonta, No. 2:23-cv-01006.

The decision is the latest in a series of rulings invalidating Prop 65 warnings for chemicals with disputed health risks. In 2023, the Ninth Circuit struck down a warning requirement for glyphosate, and in early 2025, the Eastern District of California invalidated a warning requirement for dietary acrylamide.  Blog posts on those cases can be found here and here.

The titanium dioxide order follows the same analytical framework. First, the court held that the warning failed the test set forth in Zauderer v. Office of Disc. Counsel, 471 U.S. 626 (1985), which allows for compelled commercial disclosures when they are “purely factual and uncontroversial.”

“[T]he parties admit that there is a clear debate over whether Listed Titanium Dioxide cases cancer in humans,” the order states.  “The Court finds the Prop 65 warning would likely improperly elevate ‘one side of a legitimately unresolved scientific debate.’”

As in the glyphosate and acrylamide cases, the court focused on how an average consumer would perceive the warning, not just whether each sentence was literally accurate.  “Even though each sentence on its own may be factually true, ‘the totality of the warning’ is nonetheless misleading,” the order states.

Second, the court found that the warning failed intermediate scrutiny under Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of New York, 447 U.S. 557 (1980) and was therefore unconstitutional.  The court concluded that the warning does not advance California’s interest in public health because titanium dioxide’s risks are not confirmed, and the state has less burdensome alternatives—such as making information available online.

Titanium dioxide is commonly used as a whitening pigment in cosmetic and personal care products. Its Prop 65 listing applies only to “airborne, unbound particles of respirable size.”

California Legislature Moves to Ban PFAS in Many Consumer Products

/in , ,

On September 12, 2025, California’s Assembly and Senate approved SB 682, a bill imposing sweeping prohibitions on the use of intentionally added PFAS in a wide range of consumer products.  The legislation now heads to Governor Gavin Newsom for consideration.

As reported in a previous post, SB 682 would prohibit the distribution, sale, or offering for sale of cleaning products, dental floss, juvenile products, food packaging, and ski wax with intentionally added PFAS starting in 2028, and cookware beginning in 2030.

Since that earlier update, lawmakers amended the bill to exempt certain components of cleaning products until 2031.  The final version also clarifies that, beginning in 2028, cleaning products must comply with California Air Resources Board volatile organic compound (VOC) regulations without reliance on regulatory variances.

Governor Newsom has until October 12, 2025, to act on the bill.

California Packaging EPR Rulemaking Resumes With Key Deadlines Ahead

/in , ,

On August 22, 2025, CalRecycle published proposed regulations to implement California’s SB 54, which imposes a state extended producer responsibility (EPR) program for single-use packaging and plastic food service ware.  Public comments on the proposal are due October 7, 2025, the same day CalRecycle will hold a hybrid public hearing.

The rulemaking is CalRecycle’s second attempt to implement SB 54.  In March 2025, California Governor Gavin Newsom directed CalRecycle to restart the rulemaking process, citing concerns with its costs.

What does SB 54 Require?

SB 54 is designed to shift the burden of plastic pollution from consumers to producers, which are “typically the companies that create—or package their products in—single-use packaging and single-use plastic food service ware,” according to CalRecycle.  Beginning in 2027, producers will pay fees totaling $500 million per year to offset recycling costs and environmental impacts.

By 2032, all covered materials must be recyclable or compostable, and at least 65% must actually be recycled.  SB 54 also mandates a 25% source reduction in plastic covered material compared to 2023.

Upcoming Compliance Deadlines for Producers

Producers face several near-term obligations under the program:

  • September 5, 2025: Deadline to register with California’s inaugural producer responsibility organization (PRO), Circular Action Alliance (CAA), which will oversee program administration and fee collection.
  • September 15, 2025: CAA opens its reporting portal.
  • November 15, 2025: Deadline to submit 2023 supply data through the portal.

As discussed in a previous blog post, an increasing number of states are implementing packaging EPR laws.  Our team is available to help businesses navigate this evolving regulatory landscape.

California Legislature Advances Bill to Expand PFAS Product Prohibitions

/in , ,

California has taken another significant step towards restricting the use of PFAS in consumer products with the advancement of SB 682, a bill that would add several new product-category PFAS bans beginning in 2028.  SB 682 has already passed the state Senate and is pending in committee in the Assembly.

What Products Would be Affected by SB 682?

Starting in 2028, SB 682 would prohibit the sale of products with intentionally added PFAS for the following product categories:

  • Cleaning products;
  • Dental floss;
  • Juvenile products;
  • Food packaging; and
  • Ski wax.

Starting in 2030, SB 682 would also prohibit the sale of cookware containing intentionally added PFAS.  Used products are exempt from the scope of the bill.

Existing Restrictions

SB 682 would not be the first California law to address the use of PFAS in the above product categories.  Since 2023, the state has prohibited the sale of plant fiber–based food packaging containing intentionally added PFAS, and beginning in 2024, cookware manufacturers have been required to disclose PFAS use on food contact surfaces.

California also enacted a ban on intentionally added PFAS in certain juvenile products in 2023.  SB 682 would broaden that restriction, extending it to any “product designed for use by infants and children under 12 years of age,” with limited exceptions.

Looking Ahead

If enacted, SB 682 would be California’s most far-reaching PFAS law to date, and its full Democratic support among voting senators signals a strong likelihood of passage in the Assembly.  Given California’s outsized market influence, the bill could also have spillover effects beyond state borders, encouraging broader adoption of PFAS-free product formulations.

California Proposes Listing Microplastics as an SCP Candidate Chemical

/in , ,

California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has proposed to designate microplastics as a “candidate chemical,” a move that could lead to future regulation of products that contain or generate microplastics under the state’s Safer Consumer Products (SCP) program.

Adding microplastics to the SCP candidate chemical list would not in itself create new regulatory requirements.  However, it would allow SCP to evaluate specific types of products containing microplastics for possible designation as a “priority product,” which could ultimately result in restrictions or other regulatory measures.

“Microplastics are pervasive, persistent, and increasingly linked to potential risks to human health, wildlife and the environment,”  DTSC stated in a June 20 press release.  “They have been found in nearly every corner of the planet, including oceans, soil, indoor air, and even on the highest mountain peaks.”

The press release also highlights the “economic burden” of microplastic pollution, noting that “healthcare costs linked to plastic-associated chemicals are projected to exceed $144 billion by 2025” in California.

A technical document accompanying the proposal defines microplastics as “plastics that are less than 5 millimeters (mm) in their longest dimension, inclusive of those materials that are intentionally manufactured at those dimensions or are generated by the fragmentation of larger particles.”

The document acknowledges the “structural heterogeneity and complexity of different plastic polymers,” but argues that microplastics still constitute a “chemical” under SCP’s governing regulations.

The proposal was foreshadowed by SCP’s most recent priority products work plan, released in 2024 and discussed in a previous blog post.  For the first time, the work plan identified products containing or generating microplastics as a consumer product category warranting evaluation for priority products.

Comments on the proposal will be accepted through August 4 via CalSAFER.

Court Blocks Prop 65 Acrylamide Warning for Food Products

/in , ,

On May 2, 2025, the District Court for the Eastern District of California ruled that California’s Proposition 65 (Prop 65) warning requirement for dietary acrylamide constitutes unconstitutional compelled speech, granting a permanent injunction barring its enforcement in California Chamber of Commerce v. Bonta, No. 2:19-cv-02019.

The court acknowledged that the entirety of the warning requirement—which included a notice of possible exposure to acrylamide and a reference to findings by one of several organizations regarding its cancer risks—was literally true. However, the court held that the warning was nonetheless “misleading and controversial,” and therefore unconstitutional, because it ignored a “vigorous scientific debate” over whether acrylamide’s cancer findings in rodents can be extrapolated to humans.

“[M]isleading statements about acrylamide’s carcinogenicity do not directly advance” California’s interest in “preserving the health of its citizens,” the ruling states.  “Accordingly, Prop 65’s warning requirement as to acrylamide in food fails intermediate scrutiny under the First Amendment.”

The court also rejected California’s arguments that the warning was not compelled because businesses are exempted if they can demonstrate that the chemical does not pose a significant risk at the product’s exposure levels.  Because businesses relying on the exemption “run the risk of incurring substantial costs in defending against enforcement actions,” the court held that the exemption does not offer a true “reprieve from Prop 65’s warning requirement.”

The court had previously enjoined a Prop 65 warning for dietary acrylamide in 2021. The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) subsequently revised the warning language and weakened it further following a 2023 Ninth Circuit decision striking down a similar Prop 65 warning for glyphosate.

That Ninth Circuit decision provided the basis for much the court’s ruling, including its position that a literally true disclosure can still be misleading in context.  A blog post on that case can be found here.

DTSC Finalizes SCP Priority Product Work Plan

/in , ,

This October, California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) released the final version of the Safer Consumer Products (SCP) Program’s Three-Year Priority Product Work Plan for 2024–2026.  The work plan identifies eight categories of consumer products that DTSC will evaluate to determine whether specific products within those categories should be designated as Priority Products—product-chemical combinations that may be subject to regulation.

Four categories remain largely unchanged from the 2021-2023 work plan:

  • Beauty, personal care, and hygiene products;
  • Cleaning products;
  • Building products and materials used in construction and renovation; and
  • Children’s products.

Two existing categories have been expanded:

  • Food packaging—expanded to include food contact articles; and
  • Motor vehicle tires—expanded to include motor vehicle parts, accessories, maintenance, and repair materials.

Finally, two new categories have been added:

  • Paints (previously included under building products); and
  • Products that contain or generate microplastics.

The work plan also touches on Senate Bill 502.  That 2022 California law expanded DTSC’s authority under the SCP Program, granting DTSC greater power to require product manufacturers to disclose product ingredients.  Importantly, the bill also established a process for DTSC to move directly to regulatory response for a Priority Product, bypassing an Alternatives Analysis.

A full list of Candidate Chemicals—substances that may lead to a product’s prioritization—is available on DTSC’s website.

California Sues ExxonMobil for Deceptive Marketing on Plastic Recycling

/in , , ,

ExxonMobil deceived the people of California by falsely promoting single-use plastics as sustainable, a complaint filed by California’s attorney general on September 23, 2024, alleges.

The lawsuit, filed in the San Francisco County Superior Court, argues that ExxonMobil conducted a “decades-long campaign of deception” to convince the public that plastics recycling was a sustainable solution to plastic waste, despite knowing that plastics recycling “is technically and economically nonviable to handle the amount of plastic waste [the company] produces.”  ExxonMobil is the largest producer of plastic polymers in the world.

“ExxonMobil’s deceptions undermined consumers’ ability to make informed choices to avoid the catastrophic harms we are experiencing,” the complaint states.  The attorney general asserts that “single-use plastic chokes our waterways, poisons our oceans, harms already endangered and threatened wildlife, blights our landscapes, contaminates the recycling stream, increases waste management costs, pollutes our drinking water, and expands landfills.”

Special focus was given in the complaint to ExxonMobil’s claims about “advanced recycling,” a collection of non-mechanical recycling technologies designed to convert certain plastic wastes into “fuels, chemicals, waxes, and petrochemical feedstock.”  According to the suit, ExxonMobil conceals several key limitations of its advanced recycling program, including that only 8% of processed waste becomes new plastic and that its “certified circular polymers” are made of “virtually no waste plastic.”

The lawsuit alleges violations of state nuisance, natural resources, water pollution, false advertisement, and unfair competition laws.  The complaint seeks abatement funds, disgorgement, and civil penalties.  California’s attorney general reportedly said they want “billions of dollars” for the abatement fund.

It has been reported that ExxonMobil responded by claiming that California officials have known for decades that their state recycling program is ineffective, arguing that the officials “failed to act, and now…seek to blame others.” The company has been quoted as asserting that “[i]nstead of suing us, they could have worked with use to fix the problem and keep plastic out of landfills.”

DTSC Approves Preliminary Report on 6PPD Alternatives

/in , ,

This August, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) approved a revised stage 1 alternatives analysis report for 6PPD (CASRN 793-24-8) from the U.S. Tire Manufacturers Association (USTMA).  The preliminary report identified seven potential 6PPD alternatives for use in tires, which will be further assessed in the stage 2 alternatives analysis report due in August 2026.

6PPD, or N-(1,3-Dimethylbutyl)-N’-phenyl-p-phenylenediamine, has been used as an anti-degradant in tires since about the 1950s.  In 2020, it was discovered that 6PPD has a transformation product, 6PPD-quinone, that is extremely toxic to salmon and other aquatic species.  According to USTMA’s website, the organization “is not aware of any new motor vehicle tires available today that do not contain 6PPD.”

The seven potential 6PPD alternatives identified by the preliminary report are 7PPD, IPPD, 77PD, CCPD, specialized graphene, octyl gallate, and Irganox 1520, selected based on available information on potential hazards, performance, and chemical and physical properties indicative of exposure potential.  7PPD, IPPD, 77PD, and CCPD come from the same chemical family as 6PPD.  Eliminating the use of 6PPD without replacement is not an option, according to the preliminary report.

The stage 2 alternatives analysis will include a “more in-depth evaluation of hazard and exposure potential,” including additional evaluation of potential transformation products.  “At the end of [stage 2], we are optimistic that we will have identified one or more possible alternatives that hold promise to replace or materially reduce 6PPD in motor vehicle tires,” the preliminary report states.

The initial report was revised due to a notice of deficiency issued by DTSC, which was described by USTMA as “a standard step in the alternatives analysis process” that allows “regulators to provide suggestions and seek clarification about certain parts of a preliminary submission.”  Octyl gallate and Irganox 1520 were added to the list of potential alternatives in the revised report.

DTSC added 6PPD to the list of Priority Products under California’s Safer Consumer Products Program effective October 2023, prompting the alternatives analysis.  The following month, EPA granted a Toxic Substances Control Act citizen petition requesting that EPA take action to prohibit its use in tires.  EPA has since proposed a data call for substances including 6PPD-quinone, discussed in a previous blog post.