The American Apparel & Footwear Association (AAFA) has filed a legal complaint against California’s recycling regulator, CalRecycle, disputing the agency’s selection of a Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO) under the state’s Responsible Textile Recovery Act of 2024 (SB-707). AAFA argues that the chosen PRO does not satisfy requirements written into the statute governing implementation of the California textile EPR law, which is the first extended producer responsibility programme in the US designed specifically for textiles.
In a post on LinkedIn, AAFA president Steve Lamar said the association has been closely involved in the development and rollout of the legislation, describing industry stakeholders as having been “actively engaged or actively watching” the process. He said AAFA worked “tirelessly with stakeholders and legislators” to help shape a framework it viewed as both ambitious and workable for the sector.
With SB-707 now enacted, AAFA said it wanted to move quickly toward building the operational backbone for an effective EPR system—one that could help deliver on broader sustainability and circularity objectives. However, Lamar argued that CalRecycle’s initial PRO choice falls short of statutory criteria that AAFA says were deliberately included to ensure accountability and industry representation.
Lamar claimed the selected organisation “meets none” of four requirements that AAFA sought to embed in the law: that the PRO must be producer-formed; must have a diverse board that reflects the industry’s full scale and scope; must be structured as a 501(c)(3); and must maintain robust financial controls.
He said the statute was designed so that producers would establish the PRO because they are closest to the operational realities of recovering textiles and redesigning products for a more circular system. “AAFA is intimately familiar with how important final EPR logistics will be in directing investment towards reuse, repair, and recycling infrastructure, and bolstering these respective markets, all while incentivising the prioritisation of product stewardship when designing and manufacturing new products.”
Lamar presented the legal filing as a measure taken reluctantly. “This complaint is not an action AAFA takes lightly, and this is not the direction we envisioned or wanted. However, we feel we have no recourse but to pursue it.” He described the complaint as a “narrow challenge” and said AAFA hopes the matter can be resolved quickly to avoid slowing momentum behind the California textile EPR law.
AAFA also stressed that it wants the programme to succeed, calling effective implementation “vital to supporting the industry’s circular transition.” The association said it is seeking a PRO appointment that aligns with the statute and expects the court process to provide clarity. “AAFA is eager to see a PRO selected that meets the criteria mandated by the statute. We look forward to clarity from CalRecycle through our legal challenge.”
CalRecycle declined to comment on the substance of the filing, telling Just Style that, as a matter of policy, it does not provide statements on pending or ongoing litigation.
