New York Carpet Producer Responsibility Program to Launch January 2026

/in , ,

Carpet manufacturers selling in New York state will soon be required to fund a carpet collection and recycling program under New York’s new carpet extended producer responsibility (EPR) program, which is set to begin July 1, 2026.

New York’s carpet EPR law took effect in December 2024, and requires that carpet producers establish or join a collection program approved by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC).  Producers may comply individually or by participating in a “representative organization”—the equivalent of a producer responsibility organization (PRO) under other EPR frameworks.

Covered Products

The program applies to most carpet types sold in New York, including but not limited to:

  • Broadloom carpet
  • Modular carpet tiles
  • Artificial turf
  • Carpet pads and underlayment

Handmade rugs, area rugs, and mats are excluded from the program’s scope.

Statutory Requirements

The law establishes phased-in requirements for recycled content and recycling performance based on the number of years following NYSDEC’s approval of a producer’s initial program plan.

One year after plan approval:

  • All carpet sold must contain at least 10% post-consumer recycled content.
  • All carpet must be accompanied with the producer’s name and contact information, as well as the material, composition, and construction type.

Five years after plan approval:

  • All carpet sold must contain at least 20% post-consumer recycled content.
  • Producers must achieve a 30% recycling rate, including at least 10% closed-loop recycling.

Ten years after plan approval:

  • All carpet sold must contain at least 30% post-consumer recycled content.
  • Producers must achieve a 50% recycling rate, with at least 20% closed-loop.

Fifteen years after plan approval:

  • Producers must achieve a 75% recycling rate, of which 40% must be closed-loop.

In addition, starting December 31, 2026, no carpet sold in New York may contain or be treated with PFAS for any purpose.

If a producer or representative organization fails to meet its performance targets, starting four years after plan approval, NYSDEC will assess a penalty of $0.25 per pound for the shortfall—the difference between the actual amount recycled and the amount required to meet the goal.

Key Deadlines
  • December 31, 2025: Deadline for producers or representative organizations to submit their collection program plans to NYSDEC. The department must approve or reject plans within 90 days.
  • July 1, 2026: Producers may not sell carpet into the state unless participating in an approved collection program plan.
  • December 31, 2026: Ban on PFAS-containing carpet takes effect.
  • July 1, 2027: Producers or representative organizations must submit their first annual report to NYSDEC on their program’s implementation.

NYSDEC’s website states that it is “in the preliminary stage of developing” regulations to implement the law.  More information is available in a June 2025 NYSDEC webinar slide deck.

EPA Eliminates Backlog of TSCA Substantial Risk Notifications

/in ,

EPA has cleared the backlog of section 8(e) submissions under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) thanks to process improvements, the agency announced on October 10, 2025.

TSCA section 8(e) requires that persons notify EPA when they obtain information that “reasonably supports the conclusion” that a chemical they manufacture, process, or distribute “presents a substantial risk of injury to health or the environment.”

According to the announcement, EPA assembled a team to address the backlog, which reviewed more than 3,000 submissions.  Approximately 920 of those submissions were flagged as “high interest and distributed across the agency.”

To prevent future backlogs, the announcement notes that EPA has established a workgroup to develop process improvements, enhanced its categorization system for incoming submissions, and implemented an automated notification system that alerts staff to relevant submissions.

More on TSCA section 8(e) submissions can be found on EPA’s website.

New Mexico Proposes First-Of-Its-Kind PFAS Labeling Requirements

/in , ,

On October 8, 2025, the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) proposed rules to implement the state’s PFAS Protection Act (HB 212).  In addition to phased-in prohibitions and reporting requirements, the proposal includes novel labeling requirements for all products containing intentionally added PFAS, with a compliance deadline of January 1, 2027.

HB 212 broadly defines PFAS as “a substance in a class of fluorinated organic chemicals containing at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom.”  This definition aligns with those adopted in other states—such as Maine and Minnesota—under their PFAS-in-products laws.

Labeling Requirements

Under the proposed rules, labels must:

  • Inform customers in both English and Spanish that the product contains intentionally added PFAS.
  • Use words and symbols approved by the department.
  • Be “likely to be seen, read and understood by an ordinary individual under customary conditions of purchase or use.”
  • Be “sufficiently durable to remain legible for the useful life of the product.”
  • Use a font size “no smaller than the largest font used for other consumer information on the product.”

For online or catalogue transactions, manufacturers or retailers must clearly disclose PFAS content to customers before purchase on sales literature, webpages, product specification sheets, and marketing materials, as applicable.  If product packaging obscures a label on the product itself, the packaging must be labeled in a compliant manner.

Example Labels

In a September 25, 2025, webinar, NMED shared preliminary label designs that would meet the proposed requirements, shown below.  The department emphasized that the graphics and language are not final.

Example labels for products and labels for product packaging

Exemptions and Special Cases

Used products are exempt from the proposed labeling requirements.  Manufacturers may also request a waiver for products in categories exempt from prohibition and reporting under HB 212—such as medical devices—if they can demonstrate that no PFAS will come into direct contact with consumers during intended use.

Complex durable goods and their components would be subject to alternative labeling requirements but would still need to inform customers of PFAS content.

If other states adopt PFAS labeling requirements, NMED’s proposal would allow manufacturers to comply by meeting comparable labeling rules in another state.

Opportunities for Engagement
  • Public comment period: Open through March 31, 2026.  Submit comments here.
  • Virtual public meeting: October 22, 2025, at 1pm MT (3pm ET).  Register here.
  • Public hearing: Expected around February 18, 2026, per NMED’s public involvement plan.
  • Final rule adoption: Expected by June 30, 2026.

For background on HB 212 and its broader PFAS restrictions, see our previous post.

Court Dismisses PFAS False Advertising Suit Against Coca-Cola – What Lessons Should Be Learned?

/in ,

On September 29, 2025, the Southern District of New York dismissed a PFAS false advertising suit against Coca-Cola over its Simply juice products, holding that the plaintiff lacked standing and failed to show a link between third-party PFAS testing and his actual purchases.  The court found no plausible economic or benefit-of-bargain injury.  The plaintiff alleged that Simply juices were falsely marketed as “All Natural” despite the presence of PFAS.

The court ruled that the plaintiff failed to allege the tested samples were from his purchases or that PFAS presence rendered the products less valuable.  Relying on precedents such as TransUnion v. Ramirez and Axon v. Florida’s Natural Growers, the court dismissed the complaint with prejudice for lack of standing.

The ruling reinforces that PFAS consumer mislabeling cases must connect laboratory testing to specific purchases and articulate a concrete injury to survive dismissal.  So, what lessons should be learned?

1. Laboratory Testing Link

Courts are dismissing PFAS mislabeling cases when the plaintiff fails to connect the specific product they purchased to the lab-tested sample.  Merely alleging that “testing of similar products” revealed PFAS, without tying that testing to the actual unit or batch purchased, is often viewed as too speculative.

2. Concrete Injury Requirement

Under TransUnion v. Ramirez and Spokeo v. Robins, plaintiffs must show a concrete, particularized injury, not just an abstract statutory violation or moral objection.  In PFAS suits, courts have required plaintiffs to allege:

  • That they overpaid for a product falsely marketed as “PFAS-free” or “non-toxic,” and
  • That the product they actually bought contained PFAS in measurable amounts.

Where plaintiffs only claim “fear of exposure,” “diminished value,” or cite general environmental harms, dismissal for lack of Article III standing is common.

3. Evidentiary and Pleading Implications

To survive Rule 12(b)(6):

  • Plaintiffs must plead chain-of-custody facts linking test results to the purchased item (e.g., same UPC, batch code, or manufacturing lot).
  • They should specify PFAS analytes and concentrations, not just allege “detectable PFAS” or presence of total organic fluorine.
  • Plaintiffs often rely on third-party advocacy testing (e.g., Mamavation, Environmental Working Group), but courts treat those as insufficient when plaintiffs fail to link the test results to the specific products they purchased.
4. Practical Takeaway for Defendants and Counsel

For companies facing PFAS labeling suits, early motions to dismiss can succeed by emphasizing:

  • Lack of product-specific testing linkage;
  • Lack of concrete injury or economic harm;
  • Compliance with trace-level detection limits (e.g., parts-per-trillion levels with no safety threshold exceeded).

The case is Lurenz v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 7:22-cv-10941 (S.D.N.Y.), filed 12/28/2022.  More details are available in a previous post.

EPA Adds PFAS to TRI List for 2026 Reporting

/in , ,

On October 7, 2025, EPA announced the addition of a new PFAS to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI): PFHxS-Na (CASRN 82382-12-5).  PFHxS-Na is a salt associated with the PFAS PFHxS (CASRN 335-46-4).

The addition takes effect January 1, 2026.  EPA will likely publish the formal amendment to the list of TRI-reportable chemicals in the Federal Register shortly.

Why Was This PFAS Added?

PFHxS-Na was automatically added to the TRI list after EPA finalized a toxicity value for PFHxS and its salts in a 2025 Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) report.  Under the FY 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), PFAS must be added to the TRI list when certain criteria—such as a finalized toxicity value—are met.

According to the announcement, the other PFAS identified in that IRIS assessment are already on the TRI list.

Implications for Reporting Entities

Supplier notifications for PFHxS-Na will be first required as of January 1, 2026, and reporting companies will be required to include PFHxS-Na in their Reporting Year 2026 reports, according to an EPA webpage.

With this update, EPA says that a total of 206 PFAS are now subject to TRI reporting.  The agency previously added nine PFAS to the TRI list in January 2025 for Reporting Year 2025 reports, which are due July 1, 2026.

In addition, EPA has proposed a rule to add 16 individual PFAS and 15 PFAS categories to the TRI list, while also formalizing the criteria for automatic PFAS additions.  The Trump administration’s Spring 2025 Unified Agenda indicates that EPA will finalize the rule in February 2026.

More on that rulemaking and EPA’s other TRI PFAS actions can be found in our TRI archive.

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.

Judge Approves Seven-Figure Settlement in Rust-Oleum Greenwashing Case

/in , ,

Rust-Oleum will pay $1.5 million to resolve a class action challenging green marketing claims on its “Krud Kutter” cleaning products, under a settlement approved by the Northern District of California on October 2, 2025.

As part of the agreement, Rust-Oleum must permanently remove “Non-Toxic” claims from product labels.  In addition, the company must qualify its “Earth Friendly” claims with an asterisk that directs consumers to clarifying language on the back label, such as “Contains no inorganic phosphates, hazardous solvents, or environmentally harmful surfactants.”

The plaintiff argued these claims were deceptive because Krud Kutter products contain hazardous ingredients.  “The Products’ [safety data sheets (SDSs)] make clear that the Products are certainly not” non-toxic or earth-friendly, the first amended complaint stated.

The complaint also claimed the label language violated Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) regulations under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA), which prohibit language that “negates or disclaims” required caution statements.

After attorney fees, litigation costs, and settlement administration expenses, approximately $550,000 will be distributed among more than 23,000 class members.  Any remaining funds will go to Earthjustice and Mamavation, a consumer watchdog group.

The case is Bush v. Rust-Oleum Corp., No. 3:20-cv-03268 (N.D. Cal.), filed 5/13/2020.  More details are available in a previous post.

Judge Tosses PFAS Carpet Class Action for Lack of Standing

/in

A proposed class action against 3M and Chemours for concealing the risks of PFAS carpet treatments failed to establish standing, a Minnesota federal judge ruled on September 30, 2025.

As discussed in a previous post, the suit alleged violations of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), conspiracy to commit various state-law torts, and over one hundred other state-law claims.  Plaintiffs claimed 3M and Chemours conspired to hide PFAS hazards from carpet manufacturers and consumers, deceiving purchasers and causing property damage from PFAS contamination.

These allegations never made it off the starting block.  In its order, the Minnesota District Court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish that they suffered an injury in fact or that the injury was fairly traceable to the defendants’ conduct—two requirements for Article III standing.

“Plaintiffs never allege that the carpet they purchased actually has been treated with PFAS products,” the order states.  Moreover, “none of the allegations in the Complaint trace any potential injury to Defendants’ products, as opposed to the products developed by…nonparties.”

According to the court, the complaint relied on a report produced by California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) to argue that “most residential and commercial carpets are treated” with PFAS.  But since “most” could mean “a mere majority,” it “cannot support a reasonable inference that Plaintiffs’ carpets were treated with PFAS,” the order states.

Although these deficiencies alone warranted dismissal, the court went a step further, expressing concerns with the plaintiffs’ RICO charges and elements of their Minnesota common law claims.  For example, the court observed that “many courts” require that plaintiffs purchase products directly from the alleged antitrust violator to establish standing under RICO, while the plaintiffs in this case purchased their carpets from a third-party retailer.

The case is Peterson v. 3M Co., No. 24-CV-03497 (D. Minn.), filed 8/30/2024.

EPA Not Required to Regulate PFAS in Sewage Sludge, Court Rules

/in ,

EPA is not required to identify and regulate PFAS in sewage sludge under the Clean Water Act (CWA), a federal judge ruled on September 29, 2025, in Farmer v. EPA, No. 24-cv-1654.

The CWA defines sewage sludge as “solid, semi-solid, or liquid residue generated during the treatment of domestic sewage in a treatment works.”  Every two years, the law mandates that EPA review its sewage sludge regulations and release a report “for the purpose of identifying additional toxic pollutants [in sewage sludge] and promulgating regulations for such pollutants.”

The case was brought by a group of farmers, a nonprofit that promotes organic agriculture, and an organization representing Potomac River watershed residents.  The plaintiffs argued that the widespread use of sewage sludge as fertilizer introduces PFAS into the food chain and contaminates water and property.  “EPA’s failure to identify and regulate PFAS in sewage sludge exposes Plaintiffs to continuing harm from future applications of sewage sludge on nearby properties,” their June 2024 complaint states.

They sought a court order requiring EPA to identify 18 specific PFAS in its next biennial report and to regulate 11 PFAS that the agency had already identified in previous reports—including PFOA and PFOS.

In its opinion, the D.C. District court concluded that the plaintiffs’ request exceeds the CWA’s requirements because the statute does not impose date-certain deadlines on the agency.  “Although the plain language of the CWA imposes a non-discretionary duty on EPA to review its regulations on a biennial basis, it does not mandate that EPA also identify and regulate sewage-sludge pollutants within the same time frame,” the opinion states.

The court further held that neither the biennial report nor EPA’s failure to list pollutants in that report constitutes a final agency action subject to Administrative Procedure Act (APA) review.  However, the court noted that the plaintiffs could challenge EPA’s inaction through a CWA petition, the denial of which “could constitute a final agency action” under the APA.

Company Sues EPA to Block Disclosure of Chemical Identities Under TSCA

/in , ,

A silicates manufacturer is suing EPA to prevent the disclosure of its confidential business information (CBI) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), in what at least one source claims may be a case of first impression under the law.

At issue are the chemical identities of two substances that Burgess Pigment Co. initially failed to substantiate as CBI following the 2016 Lautenberg Amendments to TSCA, which introduced new requirements for companies that seek trade secret protection in their submissions to EPA.

Burgess claims it submitted adequate substantiation once it discovered its oversight, maintained its CBI claim in subsequent filings, and has stayed in “constant contact” with EPA.  According to the complaint, if EPA discloses the chemical identities anyway, it would violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

“EPA’s unreasonable adherence to form over function caused it to fail to adhere to its regulations requiring nondisclosure of properly substantiated CBI and is otherwise arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law,” the complaint states.

According to the complaint, Burgess was one of many companies that failed to respond to the 2017 rule implementing the new CBI requirements.  In 2021, EPA released a rule to reopen the reporting period, but it was never published in the Federal Register.

The case is Burgess Pigment Co. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 5:25-cv-00309 (M.D. Ga.), filed 7/18/25.