CaliforniaCompanies would have kept proof for recycled-content product claims
The vetoed bill would have required companies making voluntary recycled-content claims on product labels to keep proof and, for other products, provide it to the Attorney General if requested.
What it does
Companies making voluntary recycled-content claims on product labels would have had to keep written proof. The claimed amount could not exceed certified material entering that product line, with limited exceptions.
For products other than plastic food containers, the Attorney General could have requested records when suspecting a violation. Companies could have used an independent audit, while plastic food-container records would have remained available to the public on request.
Business secrets shared during investigations of other products would have been protected from public disclosure to the fullest extent allowed by law.
Argument forShoppers could have seen more reliable recycled-content claims because companies would have had to support them with supply records and specified methods.
Argument againstCompanies might have faced extra work to track certified materials and support claims with records using specified accounting methods.
More detail
Companies making voluntary recycled-content claims on product labels would have had to keep written records supporting those claims. The rules would have covered voluntary claims on physical labels and digital labels for products sold online. Claims would have had to follow the Federal Trade Commission guides as they read on January 1, 2026. The amount claimed could not exceed certified recycled content introduced into the supply stream for that product line. Individual products could vary, and audited records could be used where third-party certification was not feasible. Existing reporting required under Public Resources Code Section 14549.3 would have counted toward the supply amount and accounting-method requirements. The proposed rules would have taken effect on January 1, 2030.
Companies would have had to provide supporting records under different request rules for plastic food containers and other products. Records for plastic food containers would have identified the accounting method used over a fiscal quarter or year. For plastic food containers, records would have remained available to any member of the public on request or through a website link. For other products, the Attorney General could have requested records when suspecting a violation. Companies could have used a qualified independent auditor, but would still have had to provide the audit materials to the Attorney General upon request. The proposed request and audit rules would have taken effect on January 1, 2030.
Confidential business information provided or obtained through the Attorney General or audit process would have been protected from public disclosure to the fullest extent allowed by law. The protection would have covered confidential, proprietary, or trade secret information for products other than plastic food containers. The protection would have applied to information provided or obtained through the Attorney General request or audit process. The proposed protection would have taken effect on January 1, 2030.
Where do you stand?
Choose your position
Tell your reps
Take a position to see your representatives and ways to contact them.
Where it stands
- Introduced
- Passed Assembly
- Passed Senate
- To Governor
- Became Law
Looking ahead
No hearings or votes scheduled.
History
- 2026
- Sep 27Vetoed by Governor Gavin Newsom.Latest
- Sep 10Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 3 p.m.To Governor
- Aug 31
- Vote recorded AB 2253 Boerner Concurrence in Senate Amendments. Result: pass.Lower
- Aug 30Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 42. Noes 20. Page 6892.).Major
- Aug 28In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending.
- Vote recorded 3rd Reading AB2253 Boerner By Reyes. Result: pass.Upper
- Aug 28Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 27. Noes 10.).Passed Senate
- Aug 24Read second time. Ordered to third reading.Minor
- Aug 21Read third time and amended. Ordered to second reading.Major
- Aug 17Read second time. Ordered to third reading.Minor
- Aug 13Read second time and amended. Ordered returned to second reading.Major
- Vote recorded Do pass as amended. Result: pass.Upper
- Aug 13From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 5. Noes 2.) (August 13).Major
- Aug 3In committee: Referred to APPR. suspense file.Minor
- Vote recorded Placed on suspense file. Result: pass.Upper
- Jul 2Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.Major
- Jul 2From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 4. Noes 2.) (July 1).Major
- Jul 1
- Vote recorded Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to the Committee on [Appropriations]. Result: pass.Upper
- Jun 25From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on E.Q.Major
- Jun 10Referred to Com. on E.Q.Minor
- May 28In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.Minor
- Vote recorded AB 2253 Boerner Assembly Third Reading. Result: pass.Lower
- May 27Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 42. Noes 19. Page 5495.)Passed Assembly
- May 18Read second time. Ordered to third reading.Minor
- May 14From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 10. Noes 4.) (May 14).Minor
- Vote recorded Do pass. Result: pass.Lower
- Apr 22In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.Minor
- Apr 9Re-referred to Com. on APPR.Minor
- Apr 8Read second time and amended.Major
- Apr 7From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 10. Noes 4.) (April 6).Major
- Apr 6
- Vote recorded Do pass as amended and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]. Result: pass.Lower
- Mar 9Referred to Com. on NAT. RES.Minor
- Feb 20From printer. May be heard in committee March 22.
- Feb 19Read first time. To print.Introduced
Environment & EnergyConsumer ProtectionTrade