A guide to US fashion regulations: Sustainability and compliance in 2024

Introduction

The regulatory landscape for the fashion industry in the United States is changing. At both the federal and state level, lawmakers are implementing stricter sustainability standards. California, often at the forefront of sustainability initiatives, is leading the way with innovative policies that are setting the standard for the rest of the country.

From banning hazardous substances and curbing misleading green claims to introducing extended producer responsibility (EPR) schemes and sustainability reporting requirements, the evolving regulatory framework demands that brands stay ahead of the curve. These changes underline one critical lesson: knowing your supply chain and maintaining transparency are no longer optional but essential for compliance and building trust with consumers and stakeholders.

In this article, we explore the key regulatory trends shaping the future of fashion in the US.

Protecting US. consumers: Tackling toxic substances and greenwashing in fashion

Consumers are increasingly demanding safer products and truthful sustainability claims, and lawmakers are responding with tough regulations banning harmful chemicals like PFAS and tackling deceptive marketing through updated Green Guides.

This section looks at key legislative measures aimed at protecting consumers while holding brands more accountable.

Tackling toxic substances in the USA: TSCA and PFAS regulations

The fashion industry's reliance on chemical treatments has led to increased scrutiny over the safety of substances used in production.

At the federal level, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), established in 1976, provides a framework for registering and reviewing the use of chemicals to ensure they meet safety standards. Recent updates to TSCA focus on addressing the environmental and health risks associated with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), also known as "forever chemicals".

Under the TSCA, the PFAS Reporting Rule requires manufacturers, including those in the fashion industry to  report data on PFAS use, production volumes, disposal methods, exposures and hazards for the period between January 1 2011 and December 31 2022. While the data submission period has been postponed, it is scheduled to start on July 11, 2025  and close on January 11, 2026. Small companies will have an extended deadline until 11 July 2026. This reporting requirement underscores the importance of monitoring chemical use throughout supply chains.

In addition to the federal Reporting Rule, several US states have introduced regulations to curb the intentional use of PFAS in textiles, signaling a shift toward stricter chemical governance. Here are two significant examples:

• California (AB 1817):
  Effective in 1 January 2025, California will prohibit the sale of new textile products containing intentionally added PFAS exceeding 100 ppm of total organic fluorine. This threshold will be reduced to 50 ppm by January 1 2027, with an exception for "clothing for severe wet conditions," which will be subject to restrictions from 1 January 2028. The regulation covers a wide range of products, including clothing, accessories, handbags, furniture and bedding.

• Colorado (S.B.24-081):
  By 1 January 2025, Colorado will require disclosure for outdoor clothing designed for severe wet conditions and ban PFAS in indoor textile furnishings. By 1 January 2027, the ban will be extended to outdoor textile furnishings, with a complete ban on textile products and commercial outdoor apparel containing PFAS starting January 1 2028.

As more states implement similar regulations, including Connecticut (S.B.292), Maine (LD 1503), Massachusetts (S.2902), Minnesota (HF 359), New Hampshire (H.B.1649), New York (S.6291), Rhode Island (S.B.2152) and Vermont (S.25), the message is clear: fashion brands must prioritize chemical transparency and innovation to address the PFAS issue.

Navigating Green Claims in the USA: The role of the FTC's Green Guides

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has stepped up its efforts to ensure that environmental marketing claims are truthful and transparent and to protect consumers from deceptive claims. The Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims, commonly known as the Green Guides, were first introduced in 1992 and last updated in 2012. They are designed to help marketers avoid making deceptive environmental claims, which would violate Section 5 of the FTC Act.

The Green Guides outline key principles for ensuring that environmental claims are clear and substantiated:

• Clarity and prominence: Disclosures must be conspicuous, understandable and presented in a way that avoids confusion.
• Specificity: Claims should clearly indicate whether they refer to a product, its packaging, a service, or specific components thereof.
• Comparative claims: When making comparisons, marketers must avoid ambiguity and provide evidence to support the comparison.

The Green Guides emphasize that broad, unqualified claims such as "environmentally friendly" or "eco-friendly" are misleading and almost impossible to substantiate. According to FTC studies, consumers often interpret these terms to encompass a wide range of positive attributes that very few, if any, products can genuinely achieve.

Additionally, marketers are advised not to overstate the significance of any specific environmental benefit. For instance, a claim about recyclability should consider the product's overall lifecycle to avoid implying that a negligible benefit is meaningful.

The Green Guides also offprovide detailed guidance on how to make specific environmental claims, such as those relating to:

• Carbon offseting
• Certifications and labels
• Compostability, degradability and non-toxicity
• Recyclability and recycled content

These guidelines are backed up by enforcement actions: the FTC can prosecute companies that fail to meet the standards outlined in the Green Guides.

For detailed guidance and real-world examples, marketers can read the full Green Guides document and explore cases on the FTC’s Green Guides webpage.

In the meantime, anti-greenwashing regulations are also emerging in the European Union.

Improving fashion waste management: Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) for products and packaging in the US

The growing global waste crisis has put a spotlight on the fashion industry, where overproduction and disposable culture contribute significantly to the problem. In response, Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes are emerging as a key policy tool, holding brands accountable for the lifecycle of their products and packaging.

In this section, we examine how EPR is reshaping the US. fashion industry, with a focus on packaging and textiles.

Packaging EPR and recycled content requirement laws across US. states

Packaging waste is a significant contributor to the environmental impact of consumer goods, and the fashion industry is no exception.

To address this challenge, seven US. states have introduced Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) programs to manage packaging waste or recycled content requirements, with varying timelines: California (SB 54 Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act), Colorado (Producer Responsibility Program for Statewide Recycling Act), Maine (An Act to Support and Improve Municipal Recycling Programs), Maryland (Statewide Recycling Needs Assessment and Producer Responsibility for Packaging Materials Act), Minnesota (Packaging Waste and Cost Reduction Act), Oregon (Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act), and New Jersey (Recycled Content Law).

In California, Colorado, and Oregon, producers are already required to register with the Circular Action Alliance (CAA), the approved Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO), that will provide them with guidance and compliance resources. Key fee obligations include:

• Oregon: The program begins on July 1, 2025, with fee obligations for producers.
• Colorado: Fee obligations will start in January 2026.
• California: Fees are due starting January 2027.
• Maine: Producers must join the approved PRO (not yet appointed) by May 2026 and pay fees within six months of its approval.
• Minnesota: A non-profit PRO must be appointed by January 1, 2025, with mandatory producer participation by July 1, 2025, and program rollout in early 2029.

In New Jersey, the Recycled Content Law sets a minimum percentage of recycled content for specific packaging materials, including glass, rigid plastics, and carryout bags. Thresholds are still being finalized.

Extended Producer Responsibility for textiles in the US: Closing the loop

The implementation of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) for textiles marks a shift in sustainability efforts by holding brands accountable for the lifecycle of their products, and is complementary to the EPR for packagings.

California is leading the way in the US. with the Responsible Textile Recovery Act, which targets marketers of apparel, footwear, and textile products with annual global revenues exceeding $1 million.

The law applies to a wide range of textile goods, including:

• Apparel: Everyday clothing items like shirts, dresses, athletic wear, uniforms, and outerwear, as well as footwear and accessories such as handbags and backpacks.
• Textiles: Household and decorative items like blankets, curtains, bedding, towels, and fabric window coverings.

The implementation timeline of the Responsible Textile Recovery Act is the following:

• Before January 1, 2026: Organizations seeking to become the official Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO) must submit applications to CalRecycle, the state’s regulatory body overseeing recycling and waste management. A selection will be made by March 2026.
• July 1, 2028: Marketers must join a PRO and submit a detailed plan covering the collection, transportation, repair, sorting, and recycling of textile products.
• July 1, 2030: Non-compliance with the plan could result in fines of up to $50,000 per day.

New York is also considering its own Extended Producer Responsibility Program for Textiles (Senate Bill S6654). While still under review, the proposed legislation is expected to mirror similar requirements, focusing on producer accountability and waste reduction strategies.

These regulations are an opportunity for brands operating in the US. to lead the charge in circular practices, from minimizing waste to ensuring textile materials are effectively recycled and reused.

Navigating growing due diligence laws in the US: What fashion brands need to know

As sustainability becomes a key concern for governments and consumers alike, due diligence laws in the US. demand increased accountability from brands, ensuring their supply chains meet ethical, environmental, and social standards. From California’s landmark legislation to federal mandates like the UFLPA, and state-level proposals inspired by the New York Fashion Act, the regulatory landscape is evolving rapidly.

Fashion brands must now comply with existing rules and stay ahead of new proposals that are redefining industry norms. This section explores how these laws impact businesses and what they mean for the future of sustainable fashion.

California’s landmark due diligence laws

California has long been at the forefront of regulatory efforts to address labor rights and ethical practices in supply chains. Two key laws, the Transparency in Supply Chains Act and the Garment Worker Protection Act, demonstrate the state’s commitment to ensuring fair treatment of workers and accountability from brands operating within its borders.

Effective since 2010, the Transparency in Supply Chains Act (SB 657) applies to retail sellers or manufacturers operating in California with annual global gross receipts exceeding $100 million. Its goal is to fight human trafficking and forced labor in global supply chains by mandating transparency.

Companies subject to the act must disclose on their website their efforts in the five following areas:

1. Verification: Assessing risks of human trafficking and slavery within their supply chains, specifying whether third-party verifications are used.
2. Audits: Conducting supplier audits to ensure compliance with company standards, noting if these are independent and unannounced.
3. Certification: Requiring direct suppliers to certify that their materials comply with laws against slavery and trafficking in the countries where they operate.
4. Internal Accountability: Establishing and enforcing standards for employees and contractors who fail to meet anti-slavery and anti-trafficking benchmarks.
5. Training: Providing targeted training for employees and management responsible for supply chain oversight to help mitigate trafficking risks.

This act empowers consumers to make informed choices about the brands they support.

In addition, the Garment Worker Protection Act prohibits since 2022 garment manufacturers from paying workers below minimum wage and makes ordering brands accountable, to prevent exploitation within their supply chains.

Together, these laws reflect California’s leadership in advocating for labor rights and supply chain transparency, setting a benchmark for other regions to follow.

Understanding the Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA): Key obligations for importers

Enacted in 2022, the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) represents a significant step in the United States’ efforts to combat forced labor and uphold human rights within global supply chains. The law applies to all importers of high-risk products, such as ready-to-wear garments, cotton, tomatoes, and polysilicon.

Under the UFLPA, importers must ensure that no part of their goods originates from forced labor within the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) or entities listed on the UFLPA Entity List. If goods are linked to the XUAR or an Entity List member, they must provide evidence that they were not produced with forced labor.

Failure to meet these criteria will result in the goods being barred from entering US. commerce, with financial and reputational repercussions.

To mitigate risks and ensure compliance, businesses must implement comprehensive due diligence systems, which should include:

• Supply chain mapping: Trace the supply chain from raw materials to finished goods to identify exposure to forced labor.
• Supplier engagement and code of conduct: Work with suppliers to assess and address forced labor risks. That includes establishing written commitments addressing risks associated with forced labor schemes.
• Training programs: Educate employees and agents involved in supplier selection and management about forced labor risks.
• Monitoring and remediation: Regularly monitor supplier compliance, address any forced labor conditions identified, or terminate relationships with non-compliant suppliers.
• Independent verification and transparency: Conduct third-party evaluations to ensure the due diligence system’s effectiveness and publicly report on due diligence performance and stakeholder engagement.

Importers are encouraged to use available resources, such as CBP’s FAQs or Operational Guidance for Importers, and Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force’s UFLPA Strategy.

The UFLPA underscores the critical importance for brands to have in-depth knowledge and robust control over every stage of their supply chain.

Proposed state-level acts addressing supply chain transparency and sustainability in the US

As sustainability regulations evolve, several US. states are drafting groundbreaking legislation focusing on supply chain mapping and accountability, emphasizing both environmental and human rights diligence in the fashion industry.

The proposed New York Fashion Act targets apparel and footwear retailers with annual revenues exceeding $100 million. Businesses conducting operations in New York will need to:

• Implement and monitor due diligence efforts for both environmental and human rights issues.
• Map their supply chains, ensuring transparency from production to raw material sourcing.
• Set and adhere to climate impact reduction targets in line with the Paris Agreement.

This ambitious framework was on the 2024 legislative agenda, but has been postponed to 2025 due to a lack of time. It has also inspired similar draft laws in other US. states.

The Massachusetts Draft Proposal for a Fashion Sustainability and Social Accountability Act will apply to companies in the fashion sector with annual gross receipts over $100 million.

While still in review, it is likely to set these key requirements:

• Comprehensive supply chain mapping, encompassing all production tiers, from manufacturers to raw material suppliers.
• Submission of a detailed due diligence report, which outlines sustainability and human rights compliance efforts.

Washington's Draft Proposal for a Fashion Sustainability Accountability Act shares similarities with the two previously mentioned state initiatives. Applicable to fashion businesses with global revenues over $100 million, the act would mandate:

• Supply chain mapping covering at least 50% of suppliers across all stages of production.
• Public disclosure of environmental due diligence policies and outcomes.

While each proposal includes unique elements, all share a central emphasis on supply chain transparency. Mapping supply chains and making key data publicly accessible are becoming non-negotiable components of sustainability compliance in the US. fashion sector.

Businesses will need to adapt swiftly to meet these emerging traceability requirements and demonstrate accountability across their operations.

Sustainability reporting in the US: New laws shaping the fashion industry

In addition to the measures regarding due diligence, the regulatory landscape surrounding sustainability reporting is evolving rapidly in the US., with several new proposals pushing for greater transparency, such as California's  Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act (SB 253). These developments mirror the growing push for sustainability and stakeholder transparency in other regions such as the U.K. and the European Union.

As the US. regulatory framework continues to evolve, fashion companies are facing rising pressure to align with these new reporting requirements to stay compliant and competitive.

California's legislation on climate-related reporting

California is leading the way in climate-related reporting in the US. with two significant pieces of legislation set to impact businesses in the state: the California Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act (SB 253) and the California Climate-Related Financial Risk Act (SB 261).

SB 253 mandates that, starting in 2026, companies with revenues over $1 billion doing business in California must report their greenhouse gas emissions annually. This includes emissions from all three scopes: direct emissions (Scope 1), emissions from electricity use (Scope 2), and, beginning in 2027, emissions from supply chains and other indirect activities (Scope 3).

In addition, from January 2026, SB 261 will require companies with revenues of more than $500 million to report twice a year on their climate-related financial risks. This includes assessing the potential threats posed by climate change and detailing the strategies companies are using to mitigate and adapt to these risks.

Together, these two laws are forcing companies operating in California to be more transparent with investors and to undertake detailed analysis of their supply chains to meet compliance requirements.

SEC climate-related disclosure rules

In March 2024, the US. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) introduced a significant rule requiring publicly listed companies to disclose detailed climate-related information.

This rule mandates disclosures on four key areas:

1. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions
2. Climate-related risks
3. Climate-related governance
4. Information supporting climate-related goals

The SEC's goal is to provide investors with consistent, comparable, and reliable data to assess companies' exposure to climate risks and their efforts to address them.

However, several stakeholders have raised concerns, leading to ongoing litigation that has resulted in the suspension of the rule for the time being. A key point of contention is how the SEC's rule will align with similar regulations in other jurisdictions, for instance, the European Union's Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and California's state-level climate laws, including the California Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act (SB 253).

In any case, companies must prepare for increasingly stringent requirements concerning transparency and understanding of the risks and impacts across their supply chains.

Conclusion: Embracing transparency and supply chain accountability as the new standard

In a rapidly evolving regulatory landscape, transparency and a deep understanding of the supply chain have become non-negotiable for businesses. Pioneering laws in California, federal initiatives like the UFLPA, and legislative proposals in other states signal a growing demand for accountability - not only from regulators but also from shareholders and consumers.

This trend is not confined to the United States; similar regulations, if not even more ambitious, emerge in other world regions such as the European Union and the UK. These increasing requirements for sustainability and due diligence practices are becoming a worldwide standard.

This new standard requires proactive anticipation. Managing every link in the supply chain while communicating impacts and commitments clearly and accurately has become critical. Companies that meet these challenges will not only achieve compliance in the US and globally, but will also strengthen their reputation and resilience in the face of future demands.