State Attorneys General Challenge Recycling Initiatives Over Antitrust and Consumer Protection Concerns

By Abigail L.G. Fears

At the end of October, the attorneys general of five states—Florida, Texas, Iowa, Nebraska and Montana—issued letters to three pro-recycling organizations raising concerns that the groups’ recycling initiatives may violate state and federal antitrust and consumer protection laws. These three organizations—the Consumer Goods Forum, the Green Blue Institute, and the U.S. Plastics Pact—have worked to align major corporations on recyclability guidelines and product designs that support sustainability, including efforts to define what is “recyclable.” The state attorneys general argue that these efforts have resulted in inconsistent packaging standards and increased prices.

The attorneys general expressed “collective concern” that the proposed guidelines may violate the Sherman Act’s prohibitions on anticompetitive business practices by ensuring as many stakeholders as possible, across entire markets, engage in compelled collaboration efforts that would not otherwise occur in a normal, unrestrained market. These practices, according to the attorneys general, artificially change the output and quality of goods and services, contrary to typical market forces. 

The letters also highlight potential negative impacts on state economies, including higher costs for consumers, unreasonable restrictions on trade, and reduced output and quality of goods and services. The letters note that the groups’ good intentions do not excuse violations of antitrust laws. 

The letters request that each organization respond by addressing these concerns, providing the legal basis why each organization contends it is not violating antitrust or consumer protection laws, and submitting supporting documentation. The Consumer Goods Forum has publicly commented that its programs are voluntary, transparent and backed by antitrust compliance measures. The U.S. Plastics Pact has publicly commented it is reviewing the letter and is confident its work complies with the law. The Green Blue Institute has not publicly commented. 

The attorneys general have indicated that their inquiries will focus on whether the organizations’ coordinated efforts either unfairly benefit certain companies or mislead consumers about the costs and impacts of sustainable packaging goals. The investigations and any resulting actions may unfold over many months. The letters signal potential legal challenges for sustainability collaborations that seek to standardize packaging and recyclability guidelines across entire industries. 

Governors Petition EPA to Monitor Microplastics in Drinking Water

By Jennifer E. Hackman

The governors of New Jersey, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Wisconsin and Connecticut have formally petitioned the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to include microplastics in its upcoming Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule 6 (UCMR 6) under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). This change would require nationwide monitoring of microplastics in public water systems—a critical first step toward potential regulation.

In a letter dated November 26, 2025, the seven governors argued that microplastics are widespread in drinking water, pose significant health risks, and often carry chemicals such as PFAS, PCBs, bisphenol A and heavy metals. They emphasized the need for EPA to establish a clear definition of microplastics, develop analytical methods, and collect data to inform future standards.

Microplastics reportedly originate from sources such as industrial discharges, wastewater treatment plants, urban runoff and tire wear. The letter highlighted concern regarding the presence of microplastics in drinking water and their potential effects on public water systems. According to the letter:

“Microplastics are of special concern due to their suspected overall prevalence and their ability to accumulate and persist in the environment. Under current practices, the concentration of microplastics in our waters is predicted to double by 2040 (Lau et al., 2020). We do not know whether our current drinking water and wastewater treatment plants and distribution systems are able to filter out the majority of microplastics.”

Under the SDWA, EPA must add a contaminant to the UCMR list when seven or more governors petition for its inclusion—unless doing so would displace more contaminants of higher public health concern. The petition asserts that microplastics meet the statutory definition and should not displace other priorities. If adopted, monitoring under UCMR 6 would lay the groundwork for future regulatory action and strategies to mitigate microplastic pollution in drinking water.

Risk Based Regulation of PFAS: What Cookware Exemptions Might Mean for Industry Carve Outs and Currently Unavoidable Uses

Federal Rules Break New Ground with MDL-Specific Guidance

By Kate Klaus 

Multidistrict litigation (MDL) has grown dramatically over the past decade, now accounting for more than half of all federal civil cases. Yet, until recently, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure contained no provisions specifically addressing MDL proceedings. 

That gap was filled on December 1, 2025, when Rule 16.1 took effect. The new rule provides courts with a framework for the initial management of MDL cases, aiming to promote efficiency and effectiveness.
 
The rule encourages courts to schedule an initial management conference to develop a plan for orderly pretrial activity. Before the conference, the rule suggests courts should require the parties to meet and submit a report addressing topics such as:

• The appointment of leadership counsel.
• A schedule for case management conferences.
• How to manage the direct filing of new actions.
• How and when the parties will exchange information about the factual bases for their claims and defenses.
• Discovery.
• Likely pre-trial motions.

Rule 16.1’s procedures are not mandatory. Courts retain discretion to tailor the steps in each MDL and may choose not to implement them at all. As the Committee Notes explain, “it is important to maintain flexibility in managing MDL proceedings” given their variability.

Even without mandatory obligations, Rule 16.1 is an important step toward efficient MDL management. Parties can cite the Rule as support for tools that promote early claim evaluation. For example, the Committee Notes endorse the use of fact sheets to survey claims and acknowledge that courts may use expedited methods to resolve unsupported claims.

These early vetting tools are particularly significant in emerging contaminant cases, where scientific evidence of medical causation is often untested. In a 2016 opinion, Judge Clay Land of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia warned of “unintended consequences” of MDLs, including incentives to file cases “that otherwise would not be filed if they had to stand on their own merit as a stand-alone action.” Judge Land further observed that many MDL cases are filed with “so little pre-filing preparation that counsel apparently has no idea whether or how she will prove causation.” 

Courts have already used Rule 16.1’s strategies effectively. For example, in the Aqueous Film-Forming Foam MDL, plaintiffs initially alleged more than 200 types of injuries. The U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina issued a case management order requiring plaintiffs to produce peer-reviewed articles supporting causation for any injuries they intended to pursue. Following that order, plaintiffs narrowed the list to just six injuries—a reduction that, according to the court, led to the dismissal of over 19,000 cases.

Under Rule 16.1, outcomes like these may become more common. By formally recognizing best practices for the initial management of MDL cases and encouraging early claim vetting, the Rule offers courts a framework to address many of the challenges long associated with MDLs. Its ultimate impact will depend on how courts apply these discretionary measures, but the Rule represents a positive step toward greater efficiency and reducing unfounded claims.

CARB Proposes New Rules To Cut GHG Emissions Following Rescission Of Biden-Era Waivers

By Christopher M. Sorenson

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is exploring regulatory measures aimed at reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and criteria pollutants from medium- and heavy-duty trucks. These efforts are part of CARB’s response to the recent congressional rescission of Biden-era preemption waivers, which previously allowed California to implement stricter vehicle emission standards than those prescribed federally. Lacking these waivers, CARB is now seeking alternative mechanisms to maintain state-level environmental standards for its commercial trucking sector.

Options under consideration include manufacturer standards that likely would mandate lower fleet-wide emissions performance for new medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. CARB is also considering stricter trailer standards—aimed at enhancing aerodynamics and fuel efficiency—as a means to curb CO₂ outputs. In addition, CARB is contemplating regulations focused on non-exhaust emissions, which include particulate matter released through brake wear, tire wear, and road dust. Together, these proposals represent a multi-pronged strategy targeting both engine systems and vehicle design to reduce both exhaust and non-exhaust emissions across the transportation lifecycle.  

These proposals reflect California’s adaptive regulatory strategy: despite losing the federal waiver authority, CARB intends to pursue integrated, state-level interventions to keep its transportation emissions trending downward. The outcome will depend on forthcoming rulemaking processes, stakeholder engagement and legal viability.

CARB’s proposed truck emission measures are currently at the pre-rulemaking stage. The next steps toward enforceable regulations include:

1. Working Papers and Public Workshops: CARB staff will produce detailed staff working papers outlining the technical and policy rationale behind each proposed standard (e.g., engine, trailer, non exhaust emissions). These papers will be released for public workshops, offering stakeholders opportunities to ask questions, provide feedback and suggest alternatives.
2. Release of Proposed Regulations and Formal Comment Period: After workshops and revisions, CARB will publish a formal notice of proposed rulemaking along with the draft regulatory text, a regulatory impact analysis, and supporting documentation. This notice triggers a minimum 45-day public comment period, during which CARB must accept written comments and may hold additional hearings to deliberate stakeholder feedback and technical adjustments.
3. Board Hearing and Final Adoption: CARB staff will synthesize input and issue responses in a final statement of reasons. If the board approves the measures, CARB will adopt them as binding regulations.
4. Implementation, Compliance Timeframes and Enforcement: After adoption, CARB will set an effective date and provide timelines for compliance. Typical provisions include compliance deadlines phased over several model years, tools for compliance demonstration, and schedules for reporting and enforcement. CARB’s enforcement may include penalties for non-compliance and follow-up rule refinements.

While no formal timeline has been publicly released, stakeholders can expect each phase to span several months to over a year—meaning regulatory adoption and phased implementation could unfold over the next 12–24 months.

Michigan to Enforce Stricter CAFO Permit Standards After Extended Legal Battle

By Caitlin C. Robb

The Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) is poised to begin enforcing tougher permit standards for concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), aiming to curb nutrient pollution in state waters. CAFOs can generate significant nutrient waste, which can impact water quality if not properly managed. 

The move to enforcement follows a lengthy legal battle over EGLE’s authority to impose stricter conditions under the federal Clean Water Act. EGLE first revised its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general permit for CAFOs in 2020. Farm groups challenged the changes, but in July 2024, the Michigan Supreme Court upheld EGLE’s authority, ruling the conditions are valid permit terms rather than administrative rules. An administrative law judge later adopted this decision, clearing the way for enforcement beginning this year.

Key provisions of Michigan’s updated CAFO permit prohibit manure application from January through mid-March to prevent runoff and require buffer zones, stricter phosphorus limits, enhanced reporting, and improved waste storage standards. Noncompliance may result in permit violations, enforcement actions, and potential litigation under the Clean Water Act.

EPA Seeks Public Comment on Updated Formaldehyde Risk Assessment Under TSCA

By Joseph Zaleski

On December 3, 2025, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released for public comment an Updated Draft Risk Calculation Memorandum that will be used to inform a Revised Draft Risk Evaluation for Formaldehyde under the federal Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Comments are due by February 2, 2026.

EPA designated formaldehyde as a high-priority substance for TSCA risk evaluation in December 2019, and work to evaluate the risks posed by formaldehyde has been ongoing since 2020. EPA’s Updated Draft Risk Calculation Memorandum is a revision to the agency’s final risk evaluation for formaldehyde just released in January 2025 by the previous administration. 

EPA’s updated assessment maintains the current determination that formaldehyde poses an unreasonable risk of injury to human health but proposes changes to certain technical elements. Specifically, EPA is considering a revised acute inhalation point of departure and potential impacts to the related margin of exposure and risk determination for formaldehyde. EPA is also proposing a revised draft occupational exposure value for the chemical.

One of the key changes EPA proposed in the Updated Draft Risk Calculation Memorandum is to drop consideration of the recently finalized chronic non-cancer reference concentration (RfC) and cancer inhalation unit risk (IUR) developed by the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). As support for this decision, EPA cites two federal advisory committees—the Human Studies Review Board and the Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals—as raising concerns that the IRIS values failed to meet TSCA’s requirements of applying “best available science” and a “weight of scientific evidence” approach. EPA is now proposing to use sensory irritation as the basis for the acute inhalation point of departure.

EPA also cited President Donald Trump’s May 2025 Executive Order 14303, titled “Restoring Gold Standard Science,” as providing a basis for reevaluation. EPA is separately proposing a number of TSCA regulatory updates (90 Fed. Reg. 45690 (Sept. 23, 2025)), including incorporating the “Restoring Gold Standard Science” definition of “weight of scientific evidence” directly into TSCA’s regulations. TSCA’s statutory language (at 15 U.S.C. § 2625(i)) requires use of a “weight of scientific evidence” approach but does not provide a definition.

EPA’s approach to reevaluating the draft risk calculation for formaldehyde—applying the principles of “Restoring Gold Standard Science” and references to various federal advisory committees—provides a key glimpse into how the current administration will conduct TSCA evaluations and other human health risk assessments moving forward.

California Climate Disclosure Laws Face Mixed Progress

By Nisha L. Albert

In 2023, California enacted two major climate-related disclosure laws aimed at increasing corporate transparency on environmental impact and financial risk. Senate Bill 253 (SB 253) requires large companies doing business in the state to publicly report their greenhouse gas emissions, while Senate Bill 261 (SB 261) mandates disclosure of climate-related financial risks. SB 253 applies to entities with annual revenues of $1 billion or more, and SB 261 applies to those with $500 million or more. These measures are part of California’s broader effort to address climate change through corporate accountability.

Despite their passage, implementation has been uneven. SB 261 is currently stalled due to a Ninth Circuit injunction issued on November 18, but the California Air Resources Board (CARB) is moving forward with rulemaking in anticipation of future enforcement. On December 9, CARB released draft regulations for both SB 253 and SB 261, along with a staff report explaining its rationale and a notice of public hearing. The 45-day public comment period will run from December 26, 2025, through February 9, 2026, with a hearing scheduled for February 26, 2026.

CARB’s proposed regulation establishes:

1. Definitions for terms such “Doing business in California,” “Revenue,” “Parent,” “Subsidiary,” and “Covered entity”
2. Exemptions for nonprofit organizations, government entities, insurance companies, and businesses whose sole activity in California is limited to payroll or employee compensation
3. A formula for calculating fees for both SB 253 and SB 261 programs and a first annual fee deadline of September 10, 2026
4. An initial reporting deadline of August 10, 2026, for Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions under SB 253
5. Penalties may be assessed for violations, and CARB has the ability to consult with outside entities, including the Board of Equalization or the California Franchise Tax Board, to obtain data needed to audit fee remittances

Importantly, while CARB continues its rulemaking, CARB does acknowledge the Ninth Circuit’s November 18 injunction. On December 1, CARB issued an Enforcement Advisory stating that it will not enforce SB 261. 

For businesses, the takeaway is clear: prepare now. Even with SB 261 on hold, CARB’s regulatory framework is moving forward, and compliance obligations could resume quickly after court review. Companies should monitor developments and leverage CARB’s published FAQs and checklists to avoid compressed timelines.