Fashion’s waste problem is epic, with 1 garbage truck of textiles landfilled every second. This drives the need to mitigate textile waste and address garments’ end of life, particularly within a system that prioritizes global export for resale or downcycling, instead of reuse, repair and remanufacturing.
California led the charge in 2024 with its Responsible Textile Recovery Act (SB 707)—the country’s first Textile Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) law—and that market’s size has large producer ripple effects. In the absence of federal mandates, states are watching California closely, with some making their own textile EPR moves.
To discuss bringing concepts to policy reality, American Circular Textiles (AMCIRC) brought together policymakers, legal experts and EPR practitioners in a webinar exploring state-level textile EPR legislation.
Textile EPR is not new, at least overseas. France and other European countries have their own programs, and the revised EU Waste Framework Directive mandates textile EPR across the European Union by 2028. Such programs shift responsibility for post-consumer textile waste from municipalities and taxpayers to producers, with the goal of funding collection, sorting, reuse, repair and recycling systems.
The U.S. has applied EPR to packaging and other products such as mattresses and batteries, but fashion’s landfill footprint—textiles account for roughly 7% of municipal solid waste—has made the problem too big to ignore. Policymakers also view EPR as a way to boost a circular economy.
Washington State Follows California Template
California’s SB 707 requires producers of covered apparel and textile products sold into the state to fund and participate in a statewide recovery program through a single, CalRecycle-approved Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO), designated by March 1, 2026.
The PRO then completes a statewide needs assessment by March 2027 and submits a full EPR plan outlining collection systems, funding mechanisms, education efforts and performance goals. Producer fees into the PRO will be “eco-modulated” based on sales volume and the environmental characteristics of products, including durability, repairability and recyclability. Fee payments will begin closer to 2030, but since producers selling into California must register with the PRO by July 2026, preparations should begin now.
Washington State is following the template. House Bill 1420, sponsored by Representative Kristine Reeves, signals strong legislative interest in a textile EPR framework tailored to local economic considerations.
She noted the considerable challenges to the 400 million pounds of textile waste her state landfills annually, with data gaps across commercial, institutional, import and export tonnage.
“[Washington has] over 100 to 110 apparel manufacturing establishments, some of them you know as name-brand companies representing about 1,200 workers, and yet, Washington does not necessarily have a comprehensive workforce development plan. We don’t have a comprehensive infrastructure mapping or market analysis of our apparel industry, which is a barrier to moving comprehensive and thoughtful policy forward.”
She stressed the importance of getting the policy right, as businesses expressed concern to her about how fragmented, overly complex EPR laws could crush compliance. “Under a state-by-state solution, compliance is going to become so burdensome, because every state is going to have a different idea about how to comply with EPR,” she said.
New York has proposed its own textile EPR legislation, while other states are rolling out education and data-gathering initiatives. Rhode Island, for example, has launched a statewide textile recycling education program to better understand diversion behavior before mandating producer responsibility.
Realities of Cost, Consistency and Compliance
From a legal and operational standpoint, panelists emphasized that uncertainty and inconsistency pose the greatest risks for businesses, whether related to definitions or responsibility.
EPR is often framed as “polluter pays,” but in practice, costs must be absorbed somewhere along the value chain. Experiences from packaging EPR programs show that producer fees can be substantial and difficult to predict in early years.
“I have a client who sells into Oregon, which has a packaging EPR bill. They got an invoice for a million dollars,” said Sheila Millar, partner at Keller & Heckman LLP. “And Oregon is a small state. So when we think about EPR in general, the concepts are shared broadly. There’s support for the concept, but operational details and actually figuring out how much it costs can be a challenge.”
Another major issue is the lack of consistent definitions. Variations in how states define “textiles,” “apparel” and “covered products” can significantly affect compliance obligations, especially for brands operating nationally or globally. Detailed language—such as whether an item “includes” or “has” a certain element—can also vary from state to state.
This means that depending on how the legislation is written, it could apply to product categories that are debatably outside apparel (i.e., the lining in luggage). “In Washington, the definition is ‘includes,’ but in New York, the definition really tracks closely to California for the most part, with ‘includes but is not limited to,’” said Millar. “Those crucial legislative languages mean that you do not have a specific list that you can consult with, but that additional types of products could be covered.”
Infrastructure is another major challenge. Recycling—particularly chemical recycling capable of handling blended fibers and chemical contaminants such as PFAS—remains limited in the U.S. Policymakers and industry leaders alike acknowledge that ambitious targets must be sequenced with investment in collection, repair and recycling capacity to avoid system failures.
“As overconsumption continues to perpetrate the market, we’ve got to be looking upstream at reduction needs, at increased recycling infrastructure and building out the circular economy that we’re trying to accomplish,” said Reeves.
Preparing for 2026 and Beyond
Despite remaining uncertainties, the message to industry is clear: preparation must begin now. Companies should assess whether their products fall within current or proposed EPR scopes, identify internal ownership for compliance, and start mapping data required for future reporting. Design and sourcing teams must also understand how material choices and product construction could affect eco-modulated fees, and create collections accordingly.
Governance and ownership are critical to accountability. “You figured out your company is obligated and you have a timeline to work backwards from, but who’s going to do the work to ensure your company gets it all done in time and is compliant?” said Andriana Kontovrakis, director of EPR solutions at Reverse Logistics Group. “You’ll need to appoint a dedicated EPR lead and then give them agency to make decisions and access teams to support them.”
Panelists agreed, textile EPR has the potential to reshape product design, expand repair and reuse economies, and shift consumer behavior—if implemented thoughtfully. For companies that engage early, EPR may become less a compliance burden and more a strategic lever in an increasingly circular global apparel
