Texas AG Launches Glyphosate Investigation into Major Food Companies

/in ,

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has initiated an investigation into glyphosate residue in foods, especially foods containing oats, his office announced June 2, 2026.

The investigation will examine whether major food companies are complying with Texas law and whether consumers have been misled by health claims on common food products.  The office has already issued civil investigative demands to pesticide and food manufacturers including Bayer and PepsiCo, the press release states.

According to the release, the percentage of Americans with detectable levels of the herbicide in their bodies has risen sharply in recent decades—from 12% in 1993 to over 70% today.  The office attributes this largely to the widespread use of glyphosate as a desiccant, or drying agent, applied to crops shortly before harvest, which it claims accounts for over 90% of glyphosate found in food.

Oats are a particular focus.  While the EPA prohibits using glyphosate as a desiccant on oats grown domestically, the office alleges that “major food companies source their oats from foreign countries where the practice is allowed,” leading to elevated exposures in children through foods such as cereals, breakfast bars, and cookies.

“In fact, studies show that certain food products marketed to children are some of the most glyphosate-contaminated food products in the United States,” the release states.  “Other products are marketed as ‘healthy’ when manufacturers know their products are contaminated with dangerously high levels of glyphosate.”

The glyphosate probe comes less than two months after Paxton’s office announced a similar investigation into activewear company Lululemon over alleged consumer deception related to PFAS in its products.

Glyphosate is one of the most widely used herbicides worldwide and the active ingredient in Roundup.  In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen, a designation that EPA has not adopted.  Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), EPA sets pesticide food tolerances at levels at least 100 times below the dose that produced no adverse effects during animal testing.

EPA Takes TSCA Enforcement Action Against Chemical Importer

/in , , ,

EPA has initiated a far-reaching administrative enforcement action against Wego Chemical Group, alleging hundreds of violations of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) stemming from the New York-based chemical distributor’s chemical imports.

“Since at least 2016, Wego has imported hundreds of millions of pounds of hundreds of toxic chemicals, mostly from China, without meeting basic federal reporting requirements,” EPA stated in a press release announcing the action, which was filed May 22, 2026.

At the core of the complaint are allegations that Wego’s 2020 and 2024 Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) submissions were both late and incomplete.  EPA alleges the 2020 forms for more than 200 substances arrived more than four years after the reporting deadline.  The agency also claims that Wego reported all chemical use information as “not known or reasonably ascertainable” in both reporting cycles, despite allegedly relying on that same information in its sales and marketing materials.

The complaint also alleges that Wego:

  • Imported a chemical not listed on the TSCA Inventory without submitting a premanufacture notice (PMN) or import certification
  • Filed a notice of commencement (NOC) claiming importation of a substance that had not occurred
  • Failed to submit export notifications for two substances subject to proposed risk management rules
  • Distributed a substance in violation of its significant new use rule (SNUR) hazard communication requirements without filing a significant new use notice (SNUN)
  • Submitted a false certification of no manufacture

EPA seeks civil penalties under six of the complaint’s ten counts.  While no specific penalty figure is proposed, the agency notes that penalties of up to $49,772 could be assessed for each of 684 individual violations.

According to the complaint, EPA first requested TSCA compliance information from Wego in 2021 and entered into a tolling agreement with the company in July 2024.  Separately, in July 2025, an environmental organization announced it had reached its own settlement with Wego over alleged 2020 CDR violations involving 104 substances.

Texas AG Investigates Lululemon Over PFAS Concerns

/in ,

On April 13, 2026, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced the issuance of a civil investigative demand against Lululemon as part of an investigation into the potential presence of PFAS in the activewear company’s apparel.

The investigation will examine whether Lululemon has misled consumers about the safety, quality, and health impacts of its products, prompted by “emerging research and consumer concerns” that “raised questions about the potential presence of certain synthetic materials and chemical compounds in their apparel.”  According to the press release, the company’s health-conscious customers would not expect PFAS in its products given Lululemon’s sustainability- and performance-focused marketing.

As part of the investigation, the office of the attorney general says it will review “the company’s Restricted Substances List, testing protocols, and supply chain practices to determine whether Lululemon’s products comply with its stated safety standards.”

Three days later, on April 16, Lululemon published a webpage entitled “Created without PFAS: What to know about lululemon’s products,” stating that the company does not use PFAS in its products today and requires vendors to conduct regular testing.  “Our ongoing focus is to help prevent the unintentional reintroduction of PFAS into our products through ongoing testing, monitoring, and collaboration with suppliers and third parties,” the page says.

The webpage also links to Lululemon’s restricted substances list, which sets a 50 ppm limit on all PFAS as measured by total organic fluorine and more stringent limits on specific compounds such as PFOS and PFOA.

DOJ Unveils First Unified Corporate Enforcement Policy

/in

On March 10, 2026, the Department of Justice (DOJ) released its first-ever department-wide Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy (CEP).  The CEP supersedes all existing enforcement policies at DOJ, including the Criminal Division’s policy that it closely resembles.  The CEP applies to corporate criminal cases except those relating to antitrust.

“Incentivizing corporate self-disclosures — while still permitting prosecutions in appropriate circumstances — allows the Department to quickly pursue culpable individuals, secure justice for victims, and deter white-collar crime, all while not unduly burdening American businesses,” DOJ stated in a press release.

Part I: Declination Path

Under the CEP, DOJ will decline to prosecute a company for criminal conduct if all of the following criteria are met:

  • The company voluntarily self-disclosed the misconduct to an appropriate DOJ criminal component.
  • The company fully cooperated with DOJ’s investigation.
  • The company timely and appropriately remediated the misconduct.
  • There are no aggravating circumstances, described as those that relate to the nature and seriousness of the offense, egregiousness or pervasiveness of the misconduct within the company, severity of the harm caused by the misconduct, or corporate recidivism.

Even where aggravating circumstances exist, prosecutors retain discretion to recommend a declination.  In all cases, the company must pay all disgorgement, forfeiture, restitution, and victim compensation.  All declinations will be made public.

Part II: “Near Miss” Path

Companies that do not qualify for the Part I Declination Path—because their self-report falls short of a qualifying voluntary disclosure or because aggravating circumstances warrant a criminal resolution—may still be eligible for eased enforcement under Part II, provided they fully cooperated and timely remediated.  Under Part II, DOJ shall:

  • Provide a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), absent particularly egregious or multiple aggravating circumstances.
  • Allow a term length of fewer than three years.
  • Not require an independent compliance monitor.
  • Provide a reduction of 50-75% off the low end of the US Sentencing Guidelines range.
Part III: All Other Cases

All remaining cases proceed under Part III, which grants prosecutors discretion to determine the appropriate resolution but caps any fine reduction at 50% under the Sentencing Guidelines.

How the CEP Differs from Existing Policy

The CEP’s three-part structure and criteria are largely identical to the DOJ Criminal Division’s enforcement policy, released in May 2025.  However, there are a few differences:

  • Broadened recidivism standard.  While the Criminal Division’s policy applied a fixed five-year lookback period, the CEP requires consideration of “criminal adjudication or resolution either within the last five years or otherwise based on similar misconduct” (emphasis added).
  • Reduced guaranteed relief under Part II.  The Criminal Division’s policy provided a fixed 75% reduction, but the CEP offers a range of 50–75%.
  • Faster eligibility notification. Prosecutors are now encouraged to notify companies of their Part I or Part II eligibility as soon as practicable.
  • Heightened interview requirements.  To be considered in full cooperation, a company must now make “agents who possess relevant information” available for interviews.
  • Company-tailored cooperation assessments.  DOJ must now consider a company’s “size, sophistication, and financial condition” when evaluating cooperation—a more flexible standard than the Criminal Division’s prior approach, which placed the burden of proof on companies to demonstrate financial impairment.
  • Greater transparency on cooperation credit.  Corporate resolution agreements must now include sufficient information explaining why a company received a particular level of cooperation credit.

The CEP also aligns with EPA’s new “Compliance First” enforcement policy, memorialized in December 2025, further signaling a broader regulatory shift toward industry self-policing and voluntary disclosure.  While a disclosure made solely to a regulatory agency generally does not qualify under the CEP, “good faith disclosures…may qualify if appropriate under the circumstances.”

New Executive Order Targets False ‘Made in USA’ Claims

/in ,

On March 13, 2026, President Trump signed an executive order directing the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to prioritize enforcement of false “Made in America” claims.

“Americans have a right to clear, accurate, substantiated, and accessible information regarding whether products advertised as “Made in America” are actually made in the United States,” the order states.  “Yet in the age of the modern digital marketplace, foreign manufacturers and sellers represent that their products are made in the United States to target patriotic consumers when, in fact, those products are largely produced and manufactured in other countries.”

The executive order includes several directives:

  • FTC enforcement priority. The FTC is directed to prioritize enforcement actions in cases involving unlawful “Made in America” or “Made in USA” claims.
  • Online marketplace oversight. The FTC is directed to consider issuing proposed regulations providing that an online marketplace’s failure to establish procedures to verify country-of-origin claims may constitute an unfair or deceptive practice under the FTC Act.
  • Country-of-origin labeling guidance. Federal agencies with country-of-origin labeling authority, in consultation with the FTC, are directed to consider new regulations and guidance promoting voluntary country-of-origin labeling for products made or manufactured in the United States.
  • Federal procurement verification. Agencies responsible for government-wide acquisition contracts and schedules must periodically verify American-origin claims for products acquired through those contracts and refer violators to the United States Department of Justice (DOJ).

Even before the executive order, the FTC had signaled increased scrutiny of “Made in USA” claims.  The agency designated July 2025 as “Made in the USA” Month and sent warning letters to four manufacturers regarding potentially deceptive origin claims.  The FTC also contacted Amazon and Walmart, urging both platforms to strengthen oversight of claims made by third-party seller.

Enforcement activity is also occurring in federal procurement.  DOJ is currently prosecuting two federal contractors who allegedly misrepresented the origins of forklifts sold to the US government.

For more information on the FTC’s “all or virtually all” standard governing “Made in USA” claims, visit the FTC’s website.

EuroChem Faces TSCA Lawsuit Over Alleged CDR Reporting Failures

/in , ,

On December 15, 2025, the Center for Environmental Health (CEH) filed suit against EuroChem, alleging that the fertilizer giant failed to report billions of pounds of chemicals imported into the US between 2016 to 2019.

EPA’s Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule, promulgated under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), requires that manufacturers and importers report all chemicals manufactured or imported in volumes of 25,000 pounds or more per site per year.  According to CEH, EuroChem failed to submit CDR reports by the 2021 reporting deadline for at least nine chemicals that allegedly exceeded this threshold during the 2016–19 reporting period.

The chemicals at issue include ammonium nitrate and ammonium sulfate, which CEH claims “cause respiratory irritation if inhaled and can lead to serious health problems with significant exposure,” according to a press release announcing the lawsuit.  Another chemical, monoammonium phosphate, was allegedly imported in quantities of over 45 billion pounds in 2018 alone.

“Eurochem’s failure to report these imports undermines EPA’s efforts under TSCA to evaluate and address chemical risks,” the complaint reads.  “It also prevents the public from tracking the movement of unsafe chemicals in commerce as well as monitoring their presence in communities”

The lawsuit is the latest in a series of actions brought by CEH, which systematically cross-references publicly available import data with CDR submissions to identify potential violations.  According to the press release, CEH has settled with fourteen companies to date over their CDR omissions.

Chemium Settlement

In the press release, CEH also notes that it recently reached a settlement with Chemium International Corporation, a Texas-based chemical supplier, for similar alleged CDR violations.  According to CEH, Chemium submitted CDR reports to EPA for eight chemicals imported between 2016 and 2019 and agreed to conduct an internal audit.

A post discussing another recent CEH CDR settlement, with Wego Chemical Group, can be found here.

EPA Formalizes “Compliance First” Enforcement Framework

/in ,

On December 5, 2025, the acting assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) issued a “compliance first” directive to the agency’s enforcement staff.  A memo detailing this directive was issued to personnel both at headquarters and in regional EPA offices.  The memo, obtained by POLITICO’s E&E News, signals a paradigm shift in the agency’s enforcement philosophy.

“The primary focus for the Agency in all inspection, investigation, EPA enforcement, state/tribal enforcement coordination, and compliance assistance activities must be on achieving and ensuring timely compliance,” the memo reads.  OECA adds that compliance should be attained in “the most efficient, most economical, and swiftest means possible, while ensuring that our actions align with the clearest, most defensible interpretations of our statutory and regulatory mandates.”

OECA outlines six factors that will underpin the agency’s enforcement philosophy:

  1. Deployment of compliance assistance tools,
  2. State partner coordination,
  3. Open communication,
  4. Clear and well-tailored findings of violation,
  5. Restrained use of injunctive relief, and
  6. Reasoned decision-making.
Key Changes to Enforcement Practice

Several provisions in the memo mark notable departures from previous practice.

First, EPA inspectors and enforcement staff must now immediately elevate concerns raised by regulated entities about how the agency has applied a statute or regulation in enforcement actions at their facilities.  Decisions on how to proceed will be made at the national level, with regional counsel required to consult with the relevant Office of General Counsel (OGC) and OECA offices.

With respect to injunctive relief—court orders to compel or cease specific actions—the directive substantially narrows EPA’s authority.  Approval from the OECA assistant administrator will now be required for injunctive relief that falls outside “clear regulatory or statutory requirements,” which will only “be appropriate in limited, case-specific circumstances.”  The memo rescinds the agency’s earlier policy—issued in 2021—that allowed for more expansive injunctive relief.  Under the 2021 policy, EPA could use tools such as advanced monitoring, third-party auditing and monitoring, electronic reporting, and enhanced public reporting.  These tools are now generally discouraged.

In addition, the directive tightens settlement procedures.  The memo explains that agency personnel must now obtain approval from the OECA assistant administrator prior to initiating negotiation on any proposed settlement that could include mitigation or a stipulated remedy until additional guidance is issued.  Similarly, the memo prohibits the use of supplemental environmental projects (SEPs) in settlements until further guidance is developed.

Finally, in the memo EPA states that it plans to develop consolidated criteria across all media to categorize violations and assign appropriate enforcement responses to improve consistency across programs and regions.  OECA says that existing enforcement response policies, “together with the best reading of each requirement,” will inform the basis of the consolidated criteria.  The memo also notes that EPA “must act swiftly to limit actions from third parties who, through citizen suit litigation, unfairly impact policy through abusive litigation tactics.”

Implications for Industry

OECA’s compliance first framework—particularly its emphasis on achieving timely compliance through efficient and economical means—signals renewed support for industry self-policing.

The memo expressly directs enforcement staff to “promote voluntary compliance through self-reporting and voluntary audits.”  That instruction, coupled with the memo’s focus on open communication, early issue elevation, and restrained use of injunctive relief, suggests an enforcement environment more receptive to self-identified violations that are promptly disclosed and corrected.

For companies that manufacture chemicals or use chemicals to produce consumer, commercial, or industrial products, self-auditing offers an opportunity to establish a clear compliance baseline and move potential violations off of balance sheets.  EPA’s Audit Policy, discussed below, provides substantial protection to entities that systematically discover, disclose, and correct violations.

Given OECA’s new approach, companies facing compliance questions should strongly consider whether self-auditing and voluntary disclosure can help manage enforcement risk while demonstrating good-faith compliance efforts.

* * *

EPA’s long-standing Audit Policy, last revised in 2000, remains the primary mechanism for obtaining credit for self-auditing.  Under the policy, regulated entities that systematically discover, disclose, and correct violations may be eligible for significant enforcement incentives, including:

  • Up to 100% mitigation of gravity-based penalties.
  • No recommendation for criminal prosecution.
  • No routine requests from EPA for the audit report.

More information on EPA’s Audit Policy can be found on EPA’s website.

EPA Enforcement Under Trump 2.0: What Regulated Industries Need to Know

/in , , ,

The Trump administration’s second term has brought notable changes to environmental enforcement priorities at the Environmental Protection Agency. Recent data shows a shift in the mix of enforcement actions, with changes to both agency resources and enforcement philosophy that chemical manufacturers and other regulated industries should understand.

Enforcement Activity: A Mixed Picture

Recent enforcement data shows divergent trends across different types of actions:

Civil Judicial Cases Down: In the administration’s first six months, the Justice Department initiated 14 lawsuits for environmental violations, compared to 42 in Trump’s first term and varying numbers under previous administrations, as reported by USA Today. By eight months, DOJ had initiated 9 major civil cases on behalf of EPA, compared to 46 in the same timeframe under Biden and 53 during the equivalent period in Trump’s first term, according to the Washington Post.

Settlements have also decreased. Through the first eight months, Justice completed 28 environmental enforcement cases, compared with 81 under Biden and 80 in the first Trump administration during the same period.

Administrative Actions Stable: EPA maintains that administrative enforcement actions—which handle smaller offenses without court involvement—have remained steady or increased. The agency’s administrative case metrics match or exceed past presidencies, according to EPA statements. According to figures EPA provided to Inside EPA, the agency concluded 126 national-priority civil enforcement cases between January 20 and May 7, 2025, up from 97 cases over the same period in 2024.

Criminal Enforcement Claims: EPA asserts it has opened more environmental criminal cases in its first six months than the Biden administration. However, publicly available data does not yet confirm this—the most recent criminal cases in public databases date to 2023, making independent verification difficult at present.

Long-Term Context: Civil judicial cases have trended downward for over a decade. The Obama administration filed 102 lawsuits in the first six months of its first term in 2009, representing the peak of this enforcement metric. Every subsequent administration has seen declines, partly reflecting resource constraints across multiple administrations.

Staffing and Resource Changes

EPA and DOJ enforcement offices are undergoing significant personnel changes. EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance budget has decreased by approximately $200 million since 2011 (inflation-adjusted), with staffing reduced by over 500 employees across multiple administrations, USA Today reported. The current administration is pursuing a 23 percent staff reduction at EPA—approximately 4,000 positions.

The Department of Justice’s environmental enforcement section has also experienced staff reductions. Reports indicate the unit’s attorney count dropped from approximately 120 earlier in 2025 to an estimated 65-70 lawyers by mid-year.

The government shutdown in late 2025 temporarily furloughed approximately two-thirds of surveyed EPA enforcement staff, according to union data. These furloughs affected inspections and case work during the shutdown period.

Policy Changes and Enforcement Priorities

The administration has established new enforcement priorities through formal guidance:

Environmental Justice Considerations: A March 2025 EPA memo states that “environmental justice considerations shall no longer inform EPA’s enforcement and compliance assurance work.” The memo specifies that enforcers will not consider whether affected communities are overburdened or vulnerable when making enforcement decisions.

In a statement to USA Today, the EPA described this as promoting equal treatment, adding that the agency will “make sure that enforcement targets the worst pollution and threats to human health, wherever they occur.”

Energy Production: The March memo establishes that “enforcement and compliance assurance actions shall not shut down any stage of energy production (from exploration to distribution) or power generation absent an imminent and substantial threat to human health.”

Enforcement Philosophy: In its statement, EPA added that its current focus is on “efficiently resolving violations and achieving compliance as quickly as possible rather than pushing for broad injunctive relief that goes beyond what the law requires.” The agency also told the Washington Post that it is “focused on statutory obligations and Presidential priorities.”

EPA defends its approach by noting that “civil judicial complaints filed are not the best measure of law enforcement or compliance with environmental laws” and points to administrative and criminal metrics as better indicators of enforcement activity. The agency states: “A focus on quick return to compliance and addressing clear violations will increase efficiency and ensure that the Agency is accountable to the American people for every dollar spent.”

Targeted Regulatory Relief

The administration has pursued an aggressive deregulatory agenda through executive orders and agency actions. Key developments include:

  • Air Quality Standards: EPA recently moved to roll back stricter particulate matter standards implemented under Biden, arguing the previous administration exceeded its authority without sufficient review. The Biden-era standard lowered acceptable soot levels from 12 to 9 micrograms per cubic meter—a change EPA projected would prevent up to 4,500 premature deaths by 2032.
  • Water Protections: EPA released a proposal to dramatically narrow Clean Water Act protections, potentially stripping safeguards from between 38 and 70 million acres of wetlands and countless stream miles. The proposed rule would limit federal jurisdiction only to wetlands with surface water during the wet season that directly connect to continuously flowing water bodies.
  • Industry-Specific Relief: President Trump has issued proclamations granting two-year regulatory exemptions to facilities deemed vital to national security, including coke oven operations, copper smelters, coal plants, and certain chemical manufacturers. These facilities can comply with pre-Biden standards during this relief period.
  • TSCA Delays: EPA delayed the effective date of several Toxic Substances Control Act rules to March 2025, including the TCE risk management rule, providing additional time for regulatory review.
The FIFRA Exception

Notably, EPA enforcement under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) has remained robust—and even intensified. As discussed in a previous post, from February through July 2025, EPA opened 84 FIFRA administrative enforcement cases with civil penalties, compared to 59 during the same period in 2024. Several 2025 FIFRA settlements rank among the largest on record.

This aggressive FIFRA enforcement continues despite broader budget cuts and deregulatory initiatives, suggesting pesticide compliance remains a priority focus area. EPA has also implemented an Expedited Settlement Agreement pilot program for minor FIFRA violations, offering discounted, non-negotiable settlements to streamline enforcement.

Strategic Implications for Compliance

The current enforcement environment presents several considerations for regulated entities:

Civil Judicial Enforcement: With fewer civil lawsuits being filed, companies face reduced likelihood of federal court actions in the near term.

Administrative Enforcement Continues: EPA maintains that administrative enforcement remains active and reportedly exceeds previous levels. These actions should not be underestimated—administrative penalties can reach high six- and low seven-figure amounts. Additional costs include attorneys’ fees, consultant expenses, and implementation of corrective measures. For product-based programs like TSCA, violations can result in loss of market access, stop-sale orders, and significant business disruption.

Alternative Enforcement Mechanisms:

State Enforcement: State agencies have primary enforcement authority for many environmental programs. However, many states have also experienced budget and staffing constraints in recent years, creating variability in state-level enforcement capacity.

Citizen Suits: Environmental statutes authorize private parties to bring enforcement actions. Organizations like the Environmental Integrity Project have filed federal lawsuits against industrial facilities for air and water violations. These citizen suits can result in penalties and requirements to install pollution controls.

Recent citizen suit examples include actions against petroleum coke plants in Louisiana, the Shell plastics plant in Pennsylvania, and food processing facilities for Clean Water Act violations.

Practical Considerations

For TSCA-regulated manufacturers and other chemical industry clients:

Compliance Planning: Environmental statutes and regulations remain in effect. Violations occurring now remain subject to administrative enforcement, citizen suits, and future enforcement actions. For TSCA matters, violations risk market access restrictions.

FIFRA Enforcement: Pesticide and antimicrobial enforcement remains robust, with an uptick in enforcement compared to 2024.

Alternative Enforcement: State agencies and citizen suits continue as enforcement mechanisms. Recent citizen suits have targeted petroleum coke plants, chemical facilities, and food processors.

Regulatory Relief: The administration has provided targeted relief including two-year exemptions for certain industrial facilities and delays of TSCA rule effective dates. Companies should evaluate whether their operations qualify.

Recommended Actions: Monitor regulatory developments, maintain compliance programs, document compliance efforts, assess citizen suit exposure, and consult counsel before operational changes.

This blog post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

California Settles $1.75M Lawsuit Over False Plastic Bag Recycling Claims, Launches Another

/in , , , ,

California’s attorney general has reached a $1.75 million settlement with four plastic bag producers and initiated a lawsuit against three more, alleging that the companies falsely claimed their plastic bags were recyclable to comply with a state ban on single-use plastic bags known as SB 270.

According to the October 17, 2025, announcement, the defendants in both cases labeled their bags with the “chasing arrows” recycling symbol, made recyclability claims, and self-certified their products as recyclable.  However, when the attorney general’s office sent demand letters requiring that the producers substantiate their claims, they were allegedly unable to provide sufficient evidence.

“[D]espite the manufacturers’ claims and widespread consumer belief, these bags do not, in fact, appear to generally be recyclable, let alone ‘recyclable in the state,’ as SB 270 requires,” the announcement states.

California’s recycling authority, CalRecycle, has “released several reports indicating that the vast majority of plastic carryout bags in California are not being recycled in California,” the most recent complaint states.  Even plastic bags deposited in designated collection bins mostly “end up in landfills or incinerators or are shipped to other countries.”

In addition to violating SB 270, all defendants face alleged violations of California’s Environmental Marketing Claims Act, False Advertising Law, and Unfair Competition Law.  Some of the violations stem from alleged noncompliance with the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) Green Guides, which are incorporated into California law.

The settlement is subject to court approval.  A copy of the proposed final judgement can be found here.

Forklift Companies Indicted for False “Made in USA” Claims and Tariff Evasion

/in ,

A federal grand jury in Colorado has returned an indictment against Endless Sales Inc., Octane Forklifts, Inc., and three company executives that sold forklifts to government agencies, charging the defendants with making fraudulent “Made in America” claims and evading tariffs.

According to the August 21, 2025, indictment, the defendants added Made in USA labels to the forklifts, forged certificates of origin, and told federal contracting officers that they were Buy American Act- and Trade Agreements Act-compliant, despite the fact that the forklifts were imported from China.  Employees and third parties were allegedly ordered to “de-Chinese” the forklifts by removing “decals, stickers, and inspections tags” showing their Chinese origin.

The indictment additionally alleges that the defendants misrepresented the value of their imports to US Customs and Border Protection, “thereby depriving the United States of over $1 million in applicable tariffs, duties, and fees.”  The imports allegedly took place from about October 2018 to June 2024.

Specific charges include conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud, making materially false statements, and conspiracy to enter goods into the United States by means of false statements.  Prosecutors seek forfeiture of all monetary gains related to the charges.  If convicted on the wire fraud charges, the company executives face a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison, with lesser sentences possible for the other charges.

More information is available in a Department of Justice press release.