States Consider Environmental Disclosures for Apparel Industry

A number of states, including Washington,[i] New York,[ii] California,[iii] and Massachusetts[iv] are weighing the adoption of new disclosure and other compliance obligations on apparel and footwear manufacturers. These laws target the manufacturers, importers, retailers, and—in some cases—online marketplaces. These proposals would functionally regulate the global apparel industry, valued in 2023 at over $1.7 trillion.[v] 

The bills, directed at “fashion producers,” are not aimed simply at “fast fashion” brands. Instead, they target apparel more generally, including all footwear and clothing made, imported, or sold in the subject states. If passed, these bills would require brands and retailers to disclose to regulators and the public the chemicals in their clothing, the supply chain involved in production, the climate impacts of making and selling the clothing, the working conditions at factories, and a host of other information about production and sales. State laws like these create a quandary for manufacturers and retailers of covered products because most cannot sell different products in different markets and the changes they must make to accommodate a single state’s fashion products may force global change. Taken together, these bills attempt state regulation of the global operations of apparel brands.

Washington’s HB 1107 

Washington state’s proposed fashion law, House Bill 1107 (HB 1107),[vi] has already had its first hearing in the state house. As currently drafted, it would obligate “fashion producers” of covered products sold or offered for sale in Washington to submit annual disclosures to Washington’s Department of Ecology (“Ecology”) starting January 1, 2027. The “fashion producer” of a covered product (an “article of wearing apparel or footwear”)[vii] is defined by a hierarchy that covers (1) the brand owner of a product, (2) the brand or trademark licensee of a product, (3) the importer of record for the product into the U.S., and (4) the person who “first sells, offers for sale, or distributes”  the product in Washington.[viii] Clothing retailers, distributors, and e-commerce platforms would be subject to the proposed law. 

Disclosures submitted to Ecology would identify any covered products that containing “priority chemicals” such as PFAS, provide substantiation for any green marketing or labeling associated with covered products, detail volumes of excess products and all disposal procedures for such excess, and describe any activities, initiatives, or targets related to reducing the fashion producer’s environmental impacts.[ix] Those disclosure requirements cover fashion producers of any size. Fashion producers with over $100 million in worldwide (not just state) annual gross income must submit further disclosures to Ecology that address the producer’s environmental due diligence policies and real and/or potential adverse environmental impacts associated with operations.[x] Disclosures for large producers would also include specific metrics for recycled content and greenhouse gas emissions, as well as qualitative descriptions of the working conditions of workers employed by the producer and its direct or Tier 1 suppliers.[xi] If HB 1107 is passed, virtually every covered apparel or footwear product sold in Washington would be covered. 

HB 1107 would also require Ecology to develop policy options aimed at reducing the environmental impacts of covered fashion products—including Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) frameworks like the recently adopted SB 707 in California[xii]—by October 15, 2026.[xiii] Ecology would also be charged with enforcing the law’s disclosure requirements for covered producers, and could levy penalties up to $5,000 per each first offense and $10,000 for repeat offenses.[xiv] Penalties collected by Ecology would remit to a special community environmental and public health improvement fund.[xv]

New York Fashion Act (Senate Bill S4558A)

The New York Fashion Act (Senate Bill S4558A) was first introduced in 2021 and has been reintroduced several times since.[xvi] It requires certain “fashion sellers,” defined as any “business entity which sells articles of wearing apparel, footwear, or fashion bags” that satisfies the conditions of “doing business” in New York, to undertake a host of environmental due diligence and reporting measures .[xvii] There are express exemptions for companies that only sell used clothing or are multi-brand retailers without private label sales exceeding $100 million.[xviii] Unlike Washington’s fashion bill, New York’s proposed legislation only targets large fashion manufacturers; fashion products produced and sold by smaller entities are not covered. 

The due diligence measures required by the New York Fashion Act are extensive, and include the mapping and disclosure of a brand’s supply chain from finished goods (Tier 1) through raw material (Tier 4) suppliers,[xix] compliance with the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD’s) Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises,[xx] and OECD’s Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains in the Garment and Footwear Sector.[xxi] To comply with the law, fashion sellers would be required, among other actions, to: (1) structure supplier contracts to include “responsible purchasing practices,” (2) establish binding near term baselines and reduction targets for greenhouse gases, (3) sample and report all wastewater discharges, and (4) “provide for or co-operate in remediation in the event of an adverse impact,” including offering financial compensation and “punitive sanctions” such as firing staff members.[xxii] The bill would also require reporting of these components, potentially exposing supply chains to public and competitor scrutiny. 

Beginning 18 months after the effective date of the law, fashion sellers in New York would also be required to submit an annual report to the New York Department of State on their environmental due diligence efforts.[xxiii] These reports would have to contain critical business information such as volumes of materials produced, a greenhouse gas emissions inventory, and relevant activities and spending related to due diligence.[xxiv] These reports must in turn be posted on the fashion seller’s website.[xxv] 

Violations of the Fashion Act, including failures to complete required environmental due diligence and failures to submit adequate annual reports, could prompt investigation by the New York Attorney General along with monetary penalties as high as $15,000 per violation per day.^[xxvi] Sellers found in violation of the proposed law would also be placed on a publicly available “noncompliant list.”[xxvii] Penalties collected from noncompliant fashion sellers would be deposited into a remediation fund that would support environmental projects in New York. 

California’s AB 405

California’s proposed AB 405, the “Fashion Environmental Accountability Act,” applies to “fashion sellers” whose annual business exceeds $100 million in gross revenue.[xxviii] Multibrand apparel and footwear retailers are exempt unless sales of their own private label brands exceed the $100 million threshold.[xxix] If passed, AB 405 would require fashion sellers doing business in California to undertake environmental due diligence measures similar to the requirements included in New York’s Fashion Act, including supply chain mapping and disclosure of Tier 1 to Tier 4 suppliers, implementation of OECD’s due diligence frameworks for multinational apparel and footwear enterprises, as well as relevant “international recognized methodologies for chemical management and wastewater testing.”[xxx] AB 405 would empower two regulators with enforcement authority: California Air Resources Board and the Department of Toxic Substances Control.[xxxi] 

While much of California’s proposed due diligence program for the fashion industry algins with the bills advanced in New York and Washington, AB 405 uniquely builds off the state’s existing greenhouse gas reporting requirements. Under California’s Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act (CCDAA) passed in 2023, companies doing business in the state with total annual revenues in excess of $1 billion must report direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions to the State Air Resources Board starting in 2026.[xxxii] AB 405 would create specific greenhouse gas reporting requirements for fashion sellers under the CCDAA, as the bill outlines specific procedures for accounting and reducing greenhouse gases that only apply to fashion sellers earning above the $1 billion threshold.[xxxiii] These proposed requirements in AB 405 would create a special greenhouse gas reporting structure applying only to large apparel and footwear brands, as California’s general greenhouse gas reporting program has yet to be defined by regulation. Of note, the CCDAA is currently subject to ongoing legal challenge.[xxxiv] 

As drafted, California’s proposed fashion legislation would create a significant regulatory burden for fashion companies, especially for large brands earning more than $1 billion annually. Fashion sellers that violate the proposed law’s requirements could be subject to a civil penalty as large as 2 percent of the violator’s annual global revenue, which would be deposited into a specially created Fashion Environmental Remediation Fund.[xxxv] 

Massachusetts’ H.D. 4220 

Proposed fashion legislation in Massachusetts features many of the same requirements found in bills advanced in other states. H.D. 4220 targets “fashion sellers” with annual global gross receipts exceeding $100 million, with familiar exceptions for multi-brand retailers without private label sales above the $100 million threshold.[xxxvi] Like proposals in New York and California, the bill would require supply chain mapping and disclosure, as well as compliance with OECD due diligence frameworks.[xxxvii] If enacted, H.D. 4220 would also requires fashion sellers to establish and meet reduction targets for greenhouse gas emissions, monitor and eliminate wastewater pollution at supplier factories, and structure supply contracts to incentivize “improved supplier performance on environmental impact.”[xxxviii] Fashion sellers would also be responsible for remediating any “adverse impacts” caused by their operations, including performing remediation activities and providing compensation to impacted victims.[xxxix]  

As drafted, Massachusetts’ broad environmental due diligence program would be overseen by the state Attorney General. Every fashion seller covered by the proposed law would submit an annual report to the Attorney General’s office on its environmental due diligence efforts.[xl] The Attorney General would also be responsible for promulgating all rules and regulations for the apparel and footwear industries under H.D. 4220 and filing enforcement actions against any violators, making Massachusetts’ top prosecutor the de facto regulator of the global fashion industry.[xli] H.D. 4220 does not currently define the scope of possible civil penalties but would create a Fashion Environmental Accountability Fund for all collected fines.[xlii] 

Conclusions

The fashion bills proposed in Washington, New York, California, Massachusetts join a growing set of burdens facing the global apparel and footwear industries. Given the high costs of these compliance efforts, legal challenges may follow. 

Please contact members of Marten’s Consumer Products Practice, including James Pollack and Zachary Zahner if you have questions regarding state or federal laws on environmental disclosures. 
 

[i] H.B. 1107, 2025-2026 Leg. Sess. (Wash. 2025).

[ii] S.B. S4558A2025-2026 Leg., Reg. Sess. (N.Y. 2025).).

[iii] A.B. 405, 2025-2026 Leg. Sess. (Cal. 2025).

[iv] H.D. 4220. 2025-2026 Leg. Sess. (Mass. 2025). 

[v] McKinsey & Company, “What is Fast Fashion?,” (January 23, 2025), https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/mckinsey-explainers/what-is-fast-fashion. 

[vi] H.B. 1107, 2025-2026 Leg. Sess. (Wash. 2025).

[vii] H.B. 1107 § 2(2), 2025-2026 Leg. Sess. (Wash. 2025). 

[viii] Id. at § 2(4)(e). This definition of “fashion producer” is reminiscent of definition of “producer” under state extended producer responsibility (EPR) regimes, as the fashion product itself generates legal duties as opposed to the operations of the business producing it.

[ix] Id. at § 3(1).

[x] Id. at § 3(2).

[xi] Id. 

[xii] Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§ 42984-42984.27.

[xiii] H.B. 1107 § 3(2), 2025-2026 Leg. Sess. (Wash. 2025). 

[xiv] Id. at § 5(2). 

[xv] Id. at § 8(5)(h)(i).

[xvi] S.B. 4746B, 2023 Leg., Reg. Sess. (as recommitted to N.Y. S. Comm. on Consumer Prot., June 03, 2024).

[xvii] Alongside its substantial due diligence and reporting requirements, the Fashion Act is vague as to what “doing business” in New York means. The bill’s current definition of “doing business in this state” applies to companies “actively engaging in any transaction for the purpose of financial or pecuniary gain or profit.” It is an open question as to whether an e-commerce corporation that is incorporated in another state would qualify as “doing business” in New York by virtue of maintaining a website from which customers in New York can place orders. Courts have not yet fully addressed this issue, and New York’s qualification statute offers little guidance. However, the broad definition suggests that online transactions would presumably be covered.

[xviii] Id. at § 1(c).

[xix] Id. at § 2(a)(i).

[xx] OECD, OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct (June 8, 2023),https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/81f92357-en.pdf

[xxi] OECD, Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains in the Garment and Footwear Sector (Mar. 07, 2018), https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/9789264290587-en.pdf.

[xxii] S.B. S4558A § 2(a)(ii)(1-6), 2025-26 Leg., Reg. Sess. (N.Y. 2025)

[xxiii] Id. at § 3.

[xxiv] Id. at § 3(a-b).

[xxv] Id. 

[xxvi] Id. at § 6(e).

[xxvii] Id. at § 3(c).

[xxviii] A.B. 405, 2025-2026 Leg. Sess., § 3(1)(g), (Cal. 2025).

[xxix] Id. 

[xxx] Id.. at § 3(2).

[xxxi] Id. 

[xxxii] Cal. Health & Saf. Code § 38532 (2024)

[xxxiii] A.B. 405, 2025-2026 Leg. Sess., § 2, (Cal. 2025).

[xxxiv] Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America et al v. California Air Resources Board et al, No. 2:2024cv00801, (C.D. Cal. 2025). 

[xxxv] Id. at § 3(3).

[xxxvi] H.D. 4220. 2025-2026 Leg. Sess., § 2 (Mass. 2025).

[xxxvii] Id. at § 2(b).

[xxxviii] Id. at § 2(c).

[xxxix]Id. at § 2(e).

[xl] Id. at § 2(g).

[xli] Id. 

[xlii]Id. at § 2(h)(5).