As 2026 begins, this edition of Greenberg Traurig’s Consumer Compass highlights the pivotal shifts and emerging trends impacting the consumer products industry. Inside, we provide timely legal updates, strategic insights, and essential developments—curated to help empower business decisions and keep stakeholders informed in a rapidly changing market.
WHAT WE’RE COVERING:
Featured Insights
- 2025 California Proposition 65 Trends
- 2025 Court Decisions That May Impact the Cosmetics and Personal Care Industries
– Update on Implied Preemption Following Davidson v. Sprout Foods, Inc.
– Prop 65 TiO2 Warning Permanently Enjoined on First Amendment Grounds
– Greenwashing Claims
– Alleged Health Risk Litigation
- Greenwashing Suits Expand While PFAS Product Cases Hit Standing Hurdles
- California Enacts New Consumer Products Laws: 2025 Legislative Highlights
– AB 1264 (Gabriel)
– AB 60 (Papan)
– SB 39 (Weber Pierson)
– SB 646 (Weber Pierson) and SB 754 (Durazo)
– SB 682 (Allen)
- How Mexico’s Trade Practices May Influence Industries in 2026
– Broad Tariff Increases Across Multiple Industries
– Clothing and Textiles
– Footwear
– Food and Beverage
– Electronics
- Navigating New PFAS and Chemical Rules in 2026
– PFAS Restrictions
– Other Chemical Regulation Updates
– EPR Packaging Update
– California Climate Disclosure Laws
– California Covered Battery-Embedded Products Law
- Gender Pay Gap and Pay Transparency Requirements in Italy
GT Podcasts and Alerts
FEATURED INSIGHTS
2025 California Proposition 65 Trends
Will Wagner | Alexandra “Ally” Lizano | Patrick B. Fortelka
The proliferation of Prop 65 enforcement continues. Private enforcers issued over 5,000 notices of violation in 2025, with food, personal care, and apparel companies remaining the primary target of such enforcement.
The long-running titanium dioxide coordinated cases came to a conclusion this year with the California Eastern District Court holding that titanium dioxide cancer warnings in cosmetics violate First Amendment free speech rights. But private enforcers have continued to target cosmetics, filing over 100 lawsuits alleging exposures to diethanolamine (DEA) this year, which has resulted in another coordinated proceeding.
Claims relating to heavy metals in foods, beverages, and supplements – particularly lead and cadmium – remain widespread. And the plaintiff bar has also started to focus again on Bisphenol A (BPA) in foods, as well as trace levels of Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) in beverages.
Hexavalent chromium and BPA claims continue against textile and apparel companies, with industry settlements on both chemicals in place. But a subset of the BPA cases appear headed for a 2026 trial.
Bisphenol S (BPS), which only became penalty eligible under Prop 65 at the end of 2024, constituted nearly one-fifth of the total notices issued in 2025. These notices allege BPS in thermal products such as receipt paper and thermal stickers/labels. Two enforcers have sued hundreds of companies on this topic. California regulators are also considering listing a class of bisphenols, p,p’-Bisphenols, in addition to the already listed BPS and BPA.
Between the significant enforcement activity concerning BPS and consideration of expanding the bisphenols listed, phenol regulation may be an important issue to track under Prop 65 in 2026.
Beyond the potential bisphenol listing, vinyl acetate was listed early this year, with enforcement potentially beginning in 2026. And future chemical listings may include isoeugenol and talc, because the International Agency on Cancer Research (IARC) has recently designated these chemicals as potential carcinogens. These new and possible chemical listings may have a wide range of impacts on the various regulated industries.
2025 Court Decisions That May Impact the Cosmetics and Personal Care Industries
Nilda M. Isidro| Jennifer M. Gomez
1. Update on Implied Preemption Following Davidson v. Sprout Foods, Inc.
In 2025, we shared information in the Mid-Year 2025 Consumer Compass on Davidson v. Sprout Foods, Inc., 106 F.4th 842 (9th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 1922, 221 L. Ed. 2d 663 (2025), where the Ninth Circuit held that state law food-labeling claims seeking to privately enforce the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law (Sherman Law) — California’s analogue to the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) — were not impliedly preempted. The Ninth Circuit has since limited Davidson’s applicability, holding in Bubak v. Golo, LLC, No. 24-492, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 26524 (9th Cir. Oct. 9, 2025), that claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) are preempted because they require litigating the alleged underlying FDCA violation.
The Bubak court did not overrule Davidson. Instead, it distinguished Davidson by stating that the alleged Sherman Law violations there were “plain,” while the alleged violations at issue in Bubak required “litigating questions that are reserved for the [U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)].” Id. at *4-*5.
Judge Consuelo Callahan, in her concurring opinion, took issue with this position. In an opinion twice as long as the majority’s, Judge Callahan detailed all the similarities between the two cases and shared her belief that Davidson should be overruled. She reasoned that even if Davidson displayed a “plain” Sherman law violation, the FDCA “does not carve out a ‘plain violation’ exception to its bar on private enforcement.” Id. at *7-*8. She further disagreed with the conclusion that some FDCA violations involve litigating questions reserved for the FDA, while others do not. Id. at *8. She opined that both cases required the court to decide whether defendants had violated federal regulations. Id. at *8-*9. The two cases could be distinguished on the basis that some of the Sherman Law claims in Davidson predated and existed independently from the FDCA, while in Bubak, all the alleged violations “exist[ed] solely by virtue of the FDCA.” Id. at *11. In short, in Judge Callahan’s view, the FDCA prohibits private enforcement of any state law that incorporates the FDCA.” Id. at *16.
Davidson conflicts with the holdings of several other circuits. See, e.g., DiCroce v. McNeil Nutritionals, LLC, 82 F.4th 35, 41 (1st Cir. 2023), cert. denied, 144 S. Ct. 1382, 218 L. Ed. 2d 443 (2024) (affirming dismissal and holding federal law preempts state law claims based on Massachusetts state law that specifically incorporated FDCA food labeling regulations). Outside the Ninth Circuit, no cases apply Davidson to consumer claims.
2. Prop 65 TiO2 Warning Permanently Enjoined on First Amendment Grounds
On Aug. 11, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California issued a permanent injunction against California’s Proposition 65 (Prop 65) warning requirement for titanium dioxide in cosmetics and personal care products. Personal Care Prods. Council v. Bonta, 799 F. Supp. 3d 1075 (E.D. Cal. 2025). The court held that the required warnings violated the First Amendment because they were neither “purely factual” nor “uncontroversial.” Specifically, the required warning signaled to consumers that titanium dioxide in cosmetics and personal care products increases cancer risk. The court found this to be misleading, as no scientific consensus supports that conclusion. Similarly, the lack of scientific consensus renders that conclusion controversial. Accordingly, the court ruled that Prop 65’s required warning qualified as compelled speech and violated the First Amendment.
The Eastern District of California held similarly earlier this year, when it ruled that the Prop 65 warning for acrylamide in foods violated the First Amendment.
3. Greenwashing Claims
Consumer challenges to “natural” and “naturally derived” product claims continue to test the limits of consumer protection laws. Two recent decisions— McWhorter v. P&G, No. 24-cv-00806, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59479 (N.D. Cal Mar. 28, 2025 and Kent v. Conopco, Inc., No. 25-cv-03660, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 232973 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2025— illustrate how courts have decided to interpret these claims, particularly when plaintiffs allege misleading or incomplete ingredient disclosures.
In McWhorter, plaintiffs challenged “natural source ingredient” claims on shampoo and conditioner products. The court held the claims — which were accompanied by an asterisk — were ambiguous such that a reasonable consumer must review the back label for additional information about their meaning. Moreover, the asterisk signals to a reasonable consumer that they must look to other parts of the product label to understand the full explanation of the label’s statements. Because the back label sufficiently explained what the company meant by “naturally derived ingredients,” plaintiffs failed to establish that the product labels were false or misleading. The court denied leave to amend.
In Kent, plaintiffs challenged claims that shampoos, conditioners, and other bath products were “X% naturally derived.” The court held that describing products as “X% naturally derived,” acts as a specific representation as to the percentage of each product that is non-synthetic and is unambiguous. As such, the court held a consumer need not review the information on the back label. The court further found that the alleged falsity of the statement was sufficiently alleged to survive dismissal on the pleadings.
A motion to stay Kent pending the Ninth Circuit’s resolution of McWhorter (currently on appeal) is pending.
4. Alleged Health Risk Litigation
Talc litigation remains substantial, despite FDA tests showing no asbestos in cosmetics, with several multi-million-dollar jury verdicts in state courts in 2025. Several of these verdicts may be appealed. In the meantime, the litigation shows no signs of slowing down, with new cases being filed regularly in state courts across the country, and an uptick in multidistrict litigation (MDL) filings in 2025, with over 400 new cases filed. The FDA, for its part, withdrew its proposed rule relating to testing cosmetic products containing talc for asbestos.
Hair relaxer-focused litigation has also continued to grow, with the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas having launched a new mass tort program for hair relaxer lawsuits in June of 2025, and new cases filed in the existing mass torts pending in Georgia, Illinois, and New York, as well as in the MDL. Plaintiffs in many of the newer cases include cosmetologists and stylists who allege work-related exposure, rather than consumers alleging direct personal use. In Burroughs v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., 2024 Ga. State LEXIS 858 (Apr. 17, 2024), the Georgia Supreme Court ruled that the state’s statute of repose — which states actions cannot be brought after 10 years from date of first sale or consumption — resets with each new purchase but noted that the plaintiffs have the ultimate burden of proving the products sold within the 10-year window caused their injury.
In 2026, the hair relaxer MDL will delve deeper into expert testimony: there was a science day on January 8, 2026, and expert discovery is scheduled to be completed before the end of the year. With respect to the coordinated proceedings in state courts, the Illinois proceeding appears poised to be the first one reaching trial.
Greenwashing Suits Expand While PFAS Product Cases Hit Standing Hurdles
Laura Hammargren | Will Wagner | Sean A. Newland
Greenwashing claims continue to expand, with an active plaintiff bar issuing demand letters and filing suits on subjects such as biodegradability, PFAS, heavy metals, and recycling.
Legal claims on biodegradability and recycling are generally premised on the FTC Green Guides or California laws. While the Green Guides have not been updated in more than a decade, California law arguably prohibits any claim of biodegradability and regulates when composting claims may be made. Regarding recyclability claims, California’s SB 343, the Truth in Recycling Act, takes effect in 2026 and regulates which products can contain such a claim (including the innocuous “chasing arrows symbol”) based on the collection and actual recycling rates of material types in California. CalRecycle has issued a material characterization study that does not provide clear guidance on whether most material types qualify for recycling claims in California, which may also be contributing to confusion felt by industry.
For PFAS and heavy metals claims, plaintiffs have argued that trace amounts of certain compounds are inconsistent with marketing claims or that a duty to disclose exists. While substantial litigation was filed on these topics in the last year, particularly for foods and personal care products, defendants have prevailed on motions to dismiss these types of trace amount PFAS cases, often on the grounds of standing and plausibility.
In the Southern District of New York, a number of courts have granted motions to dismiss on standing where the plaintiffs relied on third-party PFAS testing not tied to actual purchases, lacked temporal proximity, or did not provide the detail to allege plausible widespread contamination. A recent Minnesota federal district court decision held similarly in a putative nationwide consumer class action targeting PFAS-treated carpets, as there was no allegations the plaintiffs’ carpets themselves were so treated. And in the Northern District of California, courts have held that organic fluorine testing fails to plausibly show PFAS in products. Those PFAS cases that have reached later litigation stages still relate more directly to PFAS manufacturing or alleged drinking water contamination. For example, in late fall 2025, we saw partial certification of a ratepayer damages class related to certain drinking water districts in Georgia.
Motions to dismiss have not been regularly granted in heavy metal cases, with some now having proceeded to summary judgment. In March 2024, for example, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted summary judgment in In re Plum Baby Food Litigation, finding that plaintiffs did not establish that the levels of heavy metals posed an unreasonable safety hazard since they occur naturally in many agricultural products, exceeded any regulatory or other safety standards, rendered the products unsafe, or caused any actual harm.
In 2026, we may see more of the same, with plaintiffs expanding the list of compound targets to include phenols, phthalates, and more.
California Enacts New Consumer Products Laws: 2025 Legislative Highlights
California Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed a series of new consumer products laws that may impact manufacturing, distribution, and sales in the state in the coming years. These measures reflect the state’s ongoing focus on product regulation, transparency, and environmental policy, and will require careful attention from companies operating in these sectors.
AB 1264 (Gabriel) will eventually restrict the sale of “particularly harmful ultra-processed foods” (UPFs) in public schools, with definitions to be developed by the state’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. The phased approach, culminating in 2035, is intended to update school food offerings, but the precise impact on vendors and product lines will depend on forthcoming regulatory definitions and standards.
AB 60 (Papan) will prohibit, as of 2027, the use of specified nitro musk fragrance chemicals in cosmetics and personal care products. The bill aligns California with certain international standards. Affected companies may need to review formulations and supply chains to ensure ongoing market access.
SB 39 (Weber Pierson) introduces labeling requirements for boric acid vaginal suppositories (BAS) beginning in 2027. The law also prohibits the sale of BAS in 2035, unless regulated as drugs by the FDA. The law reflects ongoing discussions about ingredient transparency and consumer choice in the personal care sector.
SB 646 (Weber Pierson)and SB 754 (Durazo) establish new disclosure and testing requirements for prenatal vitamins and menstrual products, respectively. Manufacturers will be required to test for and report on the presence of certain metals and chemicals, with specific implementation timelines. These measures may impact quality assurance, labeling, and public communications.
SB 682 (Allen) would have prohibited sales of a range of products containing intentionally added PFAS beginning in 2028 (and cookware in 2030), but Gov. Newsom vetoed the bill. The governor cited concerns about the bill’s broad reach and potential effects on product availability and affordability, encouraging further stakeholder dialogue to address PFAS while maintaining consumer choice.
As these laws take effect, businesses should consider monitoring regulatory developments, engaging with rulemaking processes, and preparing for new compliance obligations—while continuing to inform policymakers about the practical realities of product innovation and supply chain management.
How Mexico’s Trade Practices May Influence Industries in 2026
Guillermo Sánchez Chao | Eduardo Grajales
Mexico has entered 2026 with a more protectionist trade posture, marked by broad tariff increases, tighter customs enforcement, and targeted, sector-specific regulatory actions. Together, these developments may reshape market access conditions and supply chain planning for companies operating in or trading with Mexico. This new environment has also impacted cross-border e-commerce. Some platforms and sellers have reassessed their fulfillment models, pricing strategies, and last-mile logistics in Mexico because of higher duties on consumer goods combined with increased customs scrutiny of low-value shipments and simplified import schemes.
1. Broad Tariff Increases Across Multiple Industries
On December 2025, Mexico’s Congress approved a tariff package increasing import duties to 50% on goods in more than 1,400 product categories. The measures apply primarily to imports from countries without a trade agreement with Mexico, including China, South Korea, India, Indonesia, Turkey, Taiwan, and Brazil, that entered into force on Jan. 1, 2026.
The affected products span a wide range of products, including automotive components, textiles and apparel, footwear, plastics, household appliances, and consumer goods. For businesses, the changes may require a reassessment of sourcing strategies, landed costs, pricing models, and long-term supply chain design.
2. Clothing and Textiles
The new tariff environment has impacted the textile and apparel sector. Combined with earlier tariff actions and increased scrutiny over import programs, Mexico’s recent trade measures have reinforced its push to curb import practices perceived as undermining domestic producers. Although products qualifying for preferential treatment under existing trade agreements generally remain protected, companies have started to review origin planning and supplier diversification to mitigate cost exposure.
3. Footwear
Authorities have restricted the use of temporary import programs for finished footwear, effectively requiring some finished shoes to enter Mexico under definitive import regimes. At the same time, Mexico imposed anti-dumping duties on certain footwear originating in China, using a reference-price mechanism.
4. Food and Beverage
In the food sector, Mexico continues to advance regulatory initiatives tied to public policy objectives. A 2025 decree reinforced restrictions on genetically modified corn, reflecting the government’s focus on food sovereignty. Separately, authorities extended the timeline for the second phase of front-of-pack nutrition warning labels, granting companies additional time to adjust packaging. Full implementation of the next phase is now scheduled for 2027.
5. Electronics
Despite a more restrictive trade environment, nearshoring momentum remains strong. Manufacturing investment continues to grow in regions such as the Bajío corridor, driven by companies relocating production to Mexico to serve North American markets more efficiently. The automotive, electronics, and pharmaceutical industries are leading this shift, seeking proximity to U.S. markets and tariff advantages.
These sector-specific regulatory shifts underscore the need for companies to remain agile, informed, and proactive in the evolving Mexican market.
Navigating New PFAS and Chemical Rules in 2026
Will Wagner | Madeline Orlando
PFAS Restrictions
Chemical regulation in the consumer products space continues to increase, including developments focused on regulating per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in various categories of consumer products. There are dozens of laws across states that already regulate or prohibit PFAS in various product categories, with three states—Maine, Minnesota, and New Mexico—now banning intentionally added PFAS in all products in 2032.
In Minnesota, initial reports disclosing the use of PFAS are due by July 1, 2026. Among other things, the rules require manufacturers to submit information to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, both about the products and about the purpose/function PFAS play in the products.
Maine and New Mexico also require reporting, but on a more limited basis. Maine limits its reporting requirements to those products for which a Currently Unavoidable Use (CUU) determination has been approved (see below for more). New Mexico has started developing its reporting scheme and is currently proposing that fluoropolymers are exempt from the reporting requirements, which may limit the burden on the consumer products industry.
Maine went through its CUU determinations for the initial sales prohibitions taking effect on Jan. 1, 2026. Maine’s Department of Environmental Protection only approved two CUU designations, both for cleaning products. The agency rejected nine other proposals, stating that other commonly known, readily available alternatives to PFAS existed for those products. As the first state to go through the CUU designation process, Maine may set the tone for a more rigorous review of these proposals in the different states.
In Maine, companies and other stakeholders can begin submitting CUU proposals for products subject to the 2032 total sales ban starting Jan. 1, 2027. In New Mexico, CUU proposals for the initial Jan. 1, 2027, prohibitions will be due by Oct. 31, 2026. Minnesota does not yet have a timeline for when CUU proposals are due.
Similarly, beginning on July 1, 2026, Connecticut will require labeling for certain products with intentionally added PFAS. The products subject to the labeling requirement include apparel, cleaning products, cookware, and cosmetic products. In addition to the labeling requirements, beginning July 1, 2026, manufacturers must also notify the state’s Department of Energy and Environmental Protection of the presence of PFAS in the products.
In Washington, the state’s Department of Ecology adopted amendments to its Safer Products rule to restrict the use of intentionally added PFAS in apparel and accessories and to require manufacturers to report the use of intentionally added PFAS in other categories of products, including footwear, gear for recreation and travel, and cookware and kitchen supplies. The sales restrictions take effect on Jan. 1, 2027, and relevant stakeholders must submit their initial reports by Jan. 31, 2027.
On the federal side, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed changes to the PFAS reporting rule under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 8(a)(7) that might reduce the burden on some consumer products companies. The EPA has proposed six exemptions to the reporting rule, including imported articles and de minimis concentrations of PFAS below 0.1%. These proposed amendments would limit the products and businesses subject to the requirement that would otherwise have to report finished articles that might contain PFAS that were imported from 2011 to 2022. The EPA has also proposed shortening the reporting start date to 60 days from publication of the final rule and limiting the reporting window to three months. The current reporting window is scheduled to open on April 13, 2026, and close on Oct. 13, 2026, for most regulated entities.
Other Chemical Regulation Updates
Washington has continued to proliferate its flurry of activity in the chemical regulatory space, adopting new rules to restrict the manufacture and sale of cosmetics products that contain intentionally added formaldehyde releasors. This new rule applies in addition to the pre-existing restrictions on formaldehyde in cosmetics products. A list of 25 formaldehyde releasers will now be restricted when intentionally added to cosmetic products. The restrictions take effect on Jan. 1, 2027, with a sell-through provision until Dec. 31, 2027.
Washington is also engaged in a rulemaking process to potentially update its restrictions on lead in cosmetics under its Toxic Free Cosmetics Act (TFCA). The TFCA sets a limit of 1 part per million for lead in cosmetics. Recognizing the compliance challenges with meeting this restriction, the Department of Ecology started a rulemaking process meant to “identify a feasible approach to regulating lead in cosmetic products, including potentially adopting a different limit on lead impurities than the statutory limit of 1 part per million.” The Department of Ecology may issue a preliminary draft rule in early 2026.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced that it will withdraw its 2024 proposed rule setting testing methods for asbestos in talc-containing cosmetics products. The FDA’s announcement stated that the agency decided to withdraw the rule for many reasons, including “the complexity of asbestos testing” and “the highly scientific and technical issues” raised in the public comments to the proposed rule. According to the announcement, the agency will be issuing a proposed rule to meet its statutory obligations under the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 (MoCRA).
EPR Packaging Update
Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) laws continue to expand across the United States, posing operational challenges for consumer-packaged goods companies by shifting the cost of waste management from municipalities to producers of single-use packaging. Seven states now have full EPR packaging programs in place (California, Colorado, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Oregon, and Washington).
The initial reporting deadlines kicked off earlier this year in Oregon and Colorado, and most recently, California had its initial reporting deadline on Nov. 15, 2025.
California producers submitted their reports to Circular Action Alliance (CAA). The state required producers to submit not only the standard packaging information, but also additional plastic-specific information, which CalRecycle will use for its 2023 baseline study for its source reduction efforts under SB 54. CalRecycle remains in the process of finalizing its regulations implementing its program under SB 54, which may be final in early 2026.
In 2026, producers may see an uptick in reporting and fee requirements. We expect CAA, which administers EPR programs in several states, to become the producer responsibility (PRO) appointed in Washington and the stewardship organization appointed in Maine. CAA projects producers having reporting requirements in all seven states in 2026, with some having a May 31, 2026, reporting deadline. Further, Colorado and Oregon will issue invoices for their first full year of fees to producers, with installment payments in January and July. California may issue its early fee in August 2026.
Oregon’s EPR program faces a pending legal challenge, with a preliminary injunction on file. But for the time being, companies may expect EPR programs to persist.
California Climate Disclosure Laws
California continues to lead the nation in sustainability and regulatory initiatives, most notably with its climate disclosure package, SB 261 and SB 253. Both laws were set to have reporting requirements in 2026, commencing with the Jan. 1, 2026, deadline under SB 261 for companies to publish and submit a climate-related financial risk report to the California Air Resources Board (CARB).
The laws have drawn political and industry pressure. CARB missed its July 1, 2025, deadline to issue regulations implementing the law as it struggled to decide how to approach regulating such a large program. In 2025, it held webinars discussing its ideas for draft regulations, many of which changed throughout the year. Only recently has CARB issued an initial draft of regulations, which it expects to finalize sometime in 2026. In these draft regulations, CARB set an initial reporting deadline for SB 253 reports for Aug. 10, 2026, and an initial fee deadline for Sept. 10, 2026. It also defined key concepts, including what it means to “do business in California.”
Overlaying the agency’s activities has been the federal court case the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the California Chamber of Commerce, and other industry groups have brought challenging the laws as unconstitutional. Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction, but the district court denied the motion, which plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
On Nov. 18, 2025, the Ninth Circuit issued an order partially granting the motion for preliminary injunction pending the appeal for SB 261, but denying any stay of SB 253. The injunction order did not clarify whether this applied to all potentially subject parties or only the named plaintiffs. However, CARB later clarified in guidance that it would not enforce the Jan. 1, 2026, deadline for the SB 261 reports, pending the court’s decision. Following a Jan. 9, 2026, hearing in the Ninth Circuit, CARB may release further guidance on how the agency will move forward with its enforcement of SB 261.
SB 261 hangs in the balance based on the court’s decision, and CARB has not yet required any reports. Still, CARB is moving ahead with its implementation of SB 253 ahead of the proposed August 2026 deadline.
California Covered Battery-Embedded Products Law
Manufacturers and retailers will see more compliance requirements in California in 2026 with the state’s new covered battery-embedded products e-waste program going into effect. SB 1215, passed in 2022, expands a previous e-waste program to cover battery-embedded products, establishing a point-of-sale fee along with reporting and notification requirements. The point-of-sale fee to consumers took effect Jan. 1, 2026, which means that retailers will either need to be prepared to charge the fee to consumers on subject products or pay the fee themselves. Manufacturers must annually notify retailers of their products that are subject to the laws, as well as report information to CalRecycle starting in 2027.
Gender Pay Gap and Pay Transparency Requirements in Italy
Gender pay gap and pay transparency are issues that companies in Italy are facing, and the Italian legislature has implemented specific legal provisions in recent years to reduce workplace disparity.
According to the Italian Code on Equal Opportunities, any direct or indirect discrimination between men and women assigned to “duties of the same value” is forbidden. Based on claims the Italian Gender Equality Body filed, Italian case law has confirmed that an indirect discrimination based on gender may occur if a significant difference in average salary between men and women occurs.
In order to reduce gender gaps in accessing the employment market and building career paths, including better jobs and higher remuneration levels, companies employing more than 50 workers must file a biennial report with the Ministry of Labour on their occupational levels subdivided by gender, detailing the different job positions in each department of their organization, and specifying the overall remuneration paid to males and females.
Courts may order companies to adopt plans to remove gender pay disparity, and employees are entitled to bring actions for damages aimed at addressing alleged pay gaps. As of Jan. 1, 2022, employers can obtain a gender equality certification if they demonstrate that they have taken concrete measures to reduce gender gaps in career paths and compensation. Gender certification offers tax relief for companies and may reduce exposure to individual and collective disputes due to gender wage gaps.
Recent EU Pay Transparency Directive No. 2023/970, aimed at strengthening the application of the principle of equal pay between men and women for work of equal value through pay transparency, fits into this regulatory framework. Under the directive, which Member States must transpose by June 7, 2026, companies will be required to implement pay systems based on transparent, objective, and gender-neutral criteria and to periodically inform work councils. If the pay data shows a gender pay gap of 5% or more that cannot be justified based on gender-neutral criteria, companies will have to consult the work councils and adopt corrective measures.
To enhance readiness for implementation of Italian and EU gender pay gap rules, companies should consider reviewing their salary structures and identifying objective criteria that may justify pay gaps of 5% or more.
GT PODCASTS AND ALERTS
Top 2026 Trends & Legal Insights for Food, Beverage, and Agribusiness
In this special roundtable edition of Greenberg Traurig Legal Food Talk, host Justin Prochnow is joined by eight GT attorneys from across the country to break down the most pressing regulatory, litigation, and compliance developments facing industry companies this year. Listen.
New German Product Liability Regime: Broader Scope, Potentially Higher Exposure
Carsten Kociok | Ricarda Seifert | Jurij Müller
The German Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection (BMJV) has proposed a draft bill revising the German Product Liability Act (ProdHaftG-E), which has been adopted by the Federal Cabinet on December 17 and is currently undergoing the parliamentary legislative process. The draft bill implements the European Product Liability Directive (EU) 2024/2853 and would represent the first major reform of German product liability law since 1989. It is intended to modernize Germany’s product liability framework for the digital age, the circular economy, and global supply chains. The bill also aims to facilitate private individuals’ enforcement of damage claims. Read more.
FTC Warns 10 Companies About Possible Violations of New Consumer Review Rule
Tonya M. Esposito | Shirin Afsous
In a move aimed at upholding consumer rights in the digital age, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) warned 10 companies that their business practices may violate the agency’s recently implemented “Consumer Review Fairness Rule.” This rule seeks to protect consumers’ rights to share honest feedback and specifically targets businesses that attempt to suppress or penalize negative reviews. The letters remind the recipients of their obligations under the rule and warn them that violations may result in the filing of a federal lawsuit or other legal action, and civil penalties of up to $53,088 per violation. Read more.
California Court Upholds Santa Barbara Video Users’ Tax as Applied to Streaming Services
DeAndré R. Morrow | Bradley R. Marsh
A California Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Six) has issued a published decision affirming the city of Santa Barbara’s application of its Telecommunications and Video Users’ Tax to internet video streaming services (Disney Platform Distribution, Inc. et al. v. City of Santa Barbara, Case No. B342211). Read more.
New California Climate Disclosure Law Deadlines Are Rapidly Approaching: Compliance Considerations for Companies
Thomas R. Brill | Alice L. Kessler | Michael P. Canavan | Madeline Orlando
Some companies that do business in California are facing rapidly approaching compliance deadlines under California’s climate disclosure laws, SB 253 and SB 261, the first of which will occur on Jan. 1, 2026. On Nov. 10, a number of plaintiffs, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, filed an Emergency Application for Injunction Pending Appeal at the U.S. Supreme Court after failing to obtain similar relief from either the District Court or Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (which set oral argument for Jan. 9, over a week after the SB 261 compliance deadline). However, the outcome of this litigation remains unclear and covered entities may wish to continue preparing under the assumption that implementation will not be enjoined. Read more.
Action Required for Providers of Connected Devices: Challenges Under the EU Data Act
The EU Data Act (Regulation (EU) 2023/2854), applicable as of Sept. 12, 2025, introduces a user‑centric access and sharing regime for both personal and non-personal data generated by IoT (Internet of Things) products, with a profound impact on how “data holders” design products, structure contracts, and monetize data. The Data Act shifts control of the data to the user, including the right to use and to commercialize non‑personal data. This is a paradigm change in EU data law with significant implications across business sectors. Read more.
EU Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation: New Compliance Requirements for E-Commerce
Carsten Kociok | Johann-Frederik Schuldt | Ricarda Seifert
In December 2024, the European Union adopted the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (EU) 2025/40 (PPWR), which replaces the former Packaging Directive (94/62/EC). The PPWR is a directly applicable EU regulation that establishes a harmonized legal framework for all packaging placed on the EU market. It aims to reduce packaging waste and promote reuse, recyclability, and supply chain transparency. In particular, the PPWR introduces obligations affecting e-commerce businesses, direct-to-consumer (D2C) brands, online marketplaces, and companies involved in manufacturing, importing, or distributing packaged goods in the European Union. Read more.