California Court Tentatively Denies Injunction Against Textile EPR Program

On August 6, 2026, the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, issued a tentative ruling denying a motion for preliminary injunction brought by the American Apparel & Footwear Association (AAFA) against the California Department of Resources Recovery and Recycling (CalRecycle) in American Apparel & Footwear Association, Inc. v. California Department of Resources Recovery and Recycling, Case No. 26WM000091. If the tentative ruling becomes final, Landbell USA, the state-approved producer responsibility organization (PRO) under California’s Responsible Textile Recovery Act, will be permitted to continue operating and carrying out the Act’s mandate. AAFA requested oral argument, which was heard on August 7, 2026. The court took the matter under submission. The decision will become final only after issuance of a final ruling.

The Responsible Textile Recovery Act (SB 707), enacted in 2024, establishes the first statewide extended producer responsibility (EPR) program for textiles in the United States. The program covers apparel and textile articles and emphasizes repair and reuse, while seeking to minimize hazardous waste generation, greenhouse gas emissions, and environmental justice impacts. Under the Act, producers of covered products—broadly defined to include manufacturers, brand owners, licensees, importers, distributors, retailers, and wholesalers—must form and join a PRO to carry out the program’s objectives. CalRecycle approved Landbell USA effective February 27, 2026. AAFA, a 501(c)(6) not-for-profit trade association representing more than 1,100 apparel and footwear brands, challenged the approval, arguing that Landbell USA did not meet the statutory requirements for a PRO.

AAFA’s motion for preliminary injunction rested on several arguments. AAFA contended that Landbell USA does not meet the statutory requirements to serve as the PRO under the Act. AAFA also argued that its members would suffer irreparable financial harm because producer funds paid to Landbell USA might not be recoverable, and that Landbell USA posed a risk of disclosing producers’ confidential business information to third parties. The defendants opposed the motion on the merits and challenged AAFA’s standing to bring the action.

In its tentative ruling, the court found that AAFA had sufficiently established associational standing, concluding that its members are producers within the meaning of the Act, that AAFA’s organizational purpose includes protecting the interests at issue, and that the claims presented do not require individual member participation. However, the court tentatively denied the injunction on the merits. It characterized the requested relief as a mandatory injunction—one that would alter the status quo by halting Landbell USA’s ongoing activities as the PRO—and thus subject to stricter scrutiny, requiring the petitioner to demonstrate an “extreme case where the right thereto is clearly established.” The court found AAFA failed to meet this standard.

Specifically, the court tentatively concluded that AAFA’s claimed financial harms were speculative and compensable, noting the absence of any evidence that reimbursement of producer funds would be impossible due to insolvency or other circumstances. The court also tentatively found no evidence that Landbell USA had disclosed, or would imminently disclose, producers’ confidential information to third parties. The court also determined that granting the injunction would cause irreparable harm to the public interest through disrupting the Act’s statutory deadlines. 

If the tentative ruling becomes final, Landbell USA will continue to operate as the approved PRO, and producers will remain obligated to participate in the program.