Photo of Sheila MillarPhoto of Antonia Stamenova-DanchevaPhoto of Anushka R. Stein

On March 17, 2026, a coalition of 18 food industry groups and trade associations brought suit in California federal court challenging the constitutionality of California’s “Truth in Labeling” law (SB 343). Plaintiffs seek a declaration that SB 343 is unconstitutional and a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of the law while the suit is pending. SB 343 bans the use of any statement or symbol indicating that a product or package manufactured after October 4, 2026 is recyclable unless it meets stringent recycling metrics and other criteria set out in the law, necessitating costly changes to packaging (including retooling of plastic molds that include the plastic Resin Identification Code (RIC) with the “triangle of arrows” design). The lawsuit challenges this prohibition as unconstitutional under standards for both content and commercial speech restrictions in violation of the First Amendment, a possibility we raised when SB 343 was first enacted in 2021.

Read more here.

Photo of Sheila MillarPhoto of Antonia Stamenova-Dancheva

On March 13, 2026, President Trump signed an Executive Order (EO), “Ensuring Truthful Advertising of Products Claiming to be Made in America,” directing the Federal Trade Commission (FTC or Agency) to prioritize enforcement of fraudulent “Made in U.S.A.” (MUSA) claims “wherever appropriate.” The EO’s express targets are “foreign manufacturers and sellers,” who “target patriotic consumers” with false American-origin advertising, as well as “digital marketplaces” where such products are sold. Conversely, “American businesses building, growing, and manufacturing all, or virtually all, aspects of their products onshore” appear to be the intended beneficiaries as they are, according to the EO, “entitled to the undiluted branding benefits that come with supporting the American economy, and American citizens attempting to buy American products should have certainty as to what American-origin claims mean.” Its apparent objectives notwithstanding, the EO may in fact add to already mounting uncertainty around MUSA advertising, including for well-meaning U.S. companies who seek to make impactful, as well as truthful, claims about their products.

Click here to read more.

Photo of Sheila MillarPhoto of Antonia Stamenova-Dancheva

On February 27, 2026, the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) approved Landbell USA as the producer responsibility organization (PRO) for managing textile producer obligations under the nation’s first extended producer responsibility (EPR) program for textiles, the Responsible Textile Recovery Act, SB 707 (RTRA or SB 707). As we wrote previously, RTRA was enacted to “establish a statewide EPR program for apparel and textiles that emphasizes repair and reuse, and minimizes generation of hazardous waste, generation of greenhouse gases, environmental impacts, environmental justice impacts, and public health impacts.” The law imposes detailed obligations on the PRO, including preparation of a statewide needs assessment to determine the necessary steps and investment needed for covered products, plus a complete plan for the collection, transportation, repair, sorting, recycling, and the safe and proper management of covered products. Producers of covered apparel and textile articles must join Landbell USA by July 1, 2026.

Click here to read more.

Photo of Sheila MillarPhoto of Tracy Marshall

On February 23, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Division launched a joint public inquiry, inviting comments on whether new antitrust guidance for business collaborations is needed and what content such guidance should cover for “a range of collaborations utilized to drive innovation and promote competition in the modern economy.” The Antitrust Guidelines for Collaborations Among Competitors issued in 2000 laid out an analytical framework that the FTC and DOJ would apply when assessing antitrust issues raised by collaborations among competitors, and thus has been a valuable resource for the business community when considering a range of collaborative actions. However, the agencies withdrew that long-standing guidance in 2024 due to changes in jurisprudence and technologies. Now the agencies follow a case-by-case approach and apply general antitrust principles, so businesses must chart their own analytical framework.

Read more here.

Photo of Sheila MillarPhoto of Tracy MarshallPhoto of Anushka R. Stein

On February 25, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) released an important children’s privacy enforcement discretion statement: COPPA – Enforcement Policy Statement Promoting the Adoption of Age-Verification Technology. Age verification of minors is an increasingly hot topic in children’s privacy law, as several states recently adopted laws requiring companies to conduct age verification before allowing access to certain apps and online services. With the proliferation of these laws, the regulated community has raised questions about how to comply with the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule (COPPA Rule) when implementing age-verification mechanisms, and this was one of the topics discussed during a recent full-day workshop at the FTC. The FTC’s policy statement makes clear that the Commission will not bring enforcement actions under the COPPA Rule against operators of general audience sites and services and mixed audience sites and services that collect, use, or disclose personal information without verifiable parental consent for the sole purpose of determining a user’s age. Notably, the policy statement does not alter the Commission’s longstanding position that sites primarily directed to children under 13 should not collect age information; rather, they should assume audiences are under 13 and align data collection practices with COPPA.  

Read more here.

Photo of Sheila MillarPhoto of Tracy MarshallPhoto of Anushka R. Stein

As we discussed in Part 1 of this series, while the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) remains the primary federal law protecting children’s online privacy, there is a growing patchwork of state laws aimed at protecting both children and teens online. These laws identify a variety of potential harms, but many of them expand the universe of businesses subject to “children’s privacy” obligations and greatly complicate their compliance challenges. It is no secret to anyone who follows the state privacy law landscape that these laws create constitutional and other legal concerns.

In this second part of our two-part series, we briefly review the state landscape and provide some predictions for 2026. Read more here.

Photo of Sheila MillarPhoto of Tracy MarshallPhoto of Anushka R. Stein

As we look back at key privacy developments during 2025, one thing is clear: it was all about kids and teens. That trend seems likely to continue in 2026. The problem is, while there are very real concerns about the impact of online content and social media engagements on young people, legislative solutions – well-intentioned as they may be – continue to run afoul of the First Amendment, and judicial challenges are mounting. With the updated Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) Rule compliance date coming up, businesses are working on revising compliance initiatives. Yet rulings narrowing the scope of COPPA preemption over the past few years have contributed to a growing patchwork of state laws that greatly complicates the ability of businesses – especially small businesses – to operationalize privacy and security initiatives.

In Part 1 of a two-part series, we review federal legal developments in the kids and teens privacy space over the past year and make predictions for 2026. Spoiler alert: Much of the action is occurring in the states and the courts.

Read the full article here.

Photo of Sheila MillarPhoto of Tracy Marshall

In the midst of the busiest shopping season of the year, Federal Trade Commission (FTC or Commission) staff reminded companies of their obligations under the Rule on the Use of Consumer Reviews and Testimonials (Consumer Review Rule). On December 22, 2025, the FTC announced that staff had sent letters to ten companies warning that they may be in violation of the Consumer Review Rule, which is intended to rein in the practice of using fake reviews and testimonials to boost sales of products or services. The FTC’s Endorsement Guides, last updated in July 2023, offer guidance on reviews and testimonials in advertising (including in social media), but the Consumer Review Rule addresses a specific issue of fake reviews and testimonials. The Rule empowers the FTC to file federal lawsuits or take other legal action and obtain civil penalties of up to $53,088 per violation.

Read the full article here.

Photo of Sheila MillarPhoto of Anushka R. Stein

Starting January 1, 2026, retailers of covered battery-embedded (CBE) products in California must charge consumers a CBE Waste Recycling Fee at point of purchase or cover the costs of the fee themselves. Per regulations finalized last week, the fee will be 1.5% (capped at $15) of the retail sales price of a CBE product. Proposed regulations that would clarify related requirements are still pending as of this writing.

The CBE Waste Recycling Fee is required under SB 1215, which we previously wrote about here. To review, CBE products are those that contain batteries that are “not designed to be easily removed from the product by the user of the product with no more than commonly used household tools.” These do not include products that incorporate video display devices measuring greater than four inches diagonally (such products are separately subject to California’s Covered Electronic Waste (CEW) Recycling Fees) or standalone batteries (which will be covered by future requirements under AB 2440, as we wrote about here). However, the scope of CBE products remains unclear since the proposed regulations add new definitions, including one for “commonly used household tools.” If finalized in their current form, these definitions could affect how broadly the fee applies.

Read the full article here.

Photo of Sheila Millar

The long-awaited updates to the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act Rule (Final Rule) took effect on June 23, 2025, with a compliance deadline of April 22, 2026. With this fast-approaching compliance deadline, businesses should be actively working to update backend systems to meet the new requirements.

Read the full article here.