Last week, New York lawmakers announced a bill aimed at imposing sustainability reporting requirements on the fashion industry. If passed, the Fashion Sustainability and Social Accountability Act would generally require major fashion retailers to map their supply chains, make various disclosures on their websites, and commit to reducing their environmental impact.

The law would broadly

Last week, Jessica Rich wrote about the FTC’s rulemaking plans for 2022. Make sure you read that post for a detailed analysis of what the Commission is planning. As we looked at which of those topics have generated the most interest on Ad Law Access recently, we wanted to point you to where you

Last week, California’s Governor signed a law that will likely impose significant limitations on companies’ abilities to make recyclability claims or use the popular “chasing arrows” symbol in California.

The law states that using a “chasing arrows symbol, a chasing arrows symbol surrounding a resin identification code, orRecycling Symbol any other symbol or statement” on a

Last week, we posted about an NAD case involving green claims that Georgia-Pacific made for its Quilted Northern Ultra Soft & Strong Bathroom Tissue. In that post, we examined issues related to how a company substantiates claims about its present achievements and future goals. Today, we’ll look at the same case, but focus on issues

As more companies develop Environmental, Social, and Governance (“ESG”) goals and advertise their progress towards those goals, we’re starting to see more challenges to those ads. Most of the challenges come from plaintiffs’ attorneys or competitors, but today’s post is about an inquiry that NAD initiated itself into claims that Georgia-Pacific made for its Quilted

This summer, a plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit against Allbirds, alleging (among other things) that the company’s environmental claims – including claims about its “sustainable” practices, the “low carbon footprint” of its shoes, and its other “environmentally friendly” initiatives – are false and misleading.

The complaint – which is based largely on a PETA

The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) yesterday released its explanation for withdrawing proposed “clarifications” to the Proposition 65 regulations governing internet sales.  Last January, OEHHA proposed what it considered to be modest clarifications to the safe harbor warning regulations, including provisions that would:

•  Specify that “internet sales” include purchases through mobile