PACK Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Weber, Randy K. Sr. [R-TX-14]
- Committees
- Energy and Commerce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 16, 2026
Bottom line
The PACK Act aims to standardize and regulate environmental claims on consumer product packaging through FTC guidance and mandatory third-party certification, while preempting divergent state and local regulations.
What it actually does
This bill, known as the PACK Act, amends the Federal Trade Commission Act to establish new federal requirements for claims that consumer product packaging is recyclable, compostable, or reusable. It prohibits deceptive claims, mandates specific qualifications for certain claims based on availability and scientific evidence, requires third-party certification for all such claims, and preempts state and local laws that are not identical to these federal standards.
Proponents argue
Supporters would argue that the bill provides much-needed clarity and consistency in environmental marketing claims, preventing 'greenwashing' and helping consumers make informed choices. It establishes a national standard, which could simplify compliance for manufacturers operating across state lines and foster a more reliable recycling and composting infrastructure.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that the bill's preemption clause stifles innovation and prevents states from implementing more stringent or tailored environmental regulations. Concerns could also be raised about the burden and cost of mandatory third-party certification, especially for smaller businesses, and the potential for the FTC guidance to be too slow or insufficient.
The bill is relatively short and clearly structured, making it accessible for a quick but thorough read to understand its core provisions.
Section 27(a)(1)
Prohibiting Deceptive and Requiring Qualified Recyclable Claims
This provision prohibits companies from claiming packaging is recyclable if it isn't. It also requires companies to qualify recyclable claims by stating the percentage of consumers with access to recycling programs where the product is sold, or by using varying strength qualifications based on availability. An exemption exists if a substantial majority (60% or more) of consumers have access and the entire package is recyclable. It also defines circumstances where packaging is not considered recyclable, such as when a component significantly limits recycling or the shape/size prevents acceptance in programs.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision combats 'greenwashing' by ensuring recyclable claims are accurate and transparent, helping consumers make environmentally responsible choices and improving the effectiveness of recycling programs.
Critics contend
Some manufacturers might argue that the qualification requirements are overly burdensome and complex to implement across diverse markets, potentially leading to increased costs passed on to consumers or discouraging recyclable packaging innovation due to strict rules.
Tradeoffs
Balances the desire for clear consumer information with the practical challenges and costs for manufacturers to accurately assess and label recycling availability across various regions.
Section 27(a)(2)
Regulating Compostable Claims with Evidence and Qualifications
This section prohibits false compostable claims and requires competent and reliable scientific evidence to back up any such claim. It also mandates clear qualifications if the packaging cannot be composted safely or timely at home, if the claim misleads about landfill benefits, or if municipal/institutional composting facilities are not available to a substantial majority of consumers where the product is sold.
Section 27(a)(3)
Requirements for Reusable Packaging Claims
This provision prohibits deceptive reusable claims. It further stipulates that an unqualified reusable claim can only be made if the person provides a system for collecting and reusing the packaging, or offers a product that consumers can purchase to reuse the original packaging.
Section 27(a)(4)
Regulation of Resin Identification Codes (RICs)
This provision states that consumer product packaging not eligible for compostable, recyclable, or reusable claims cannot bear a resin identification code (RIC) surrounded by three chasing, triangulated arrows. However, it may bear a RIC surrounded by an equilateral triangle, consistent with ASTM International Standard D7611/D7611M-19.
Section 27(a)(5)
Mandatory Third-Party Certification for Environmental Claims
This provision mandates that any claim of compostability, recyclability, or reusability for consumer product packaging must be certified by an accredited third-party certification body.
Section 27(c)(3)
Federal Preemption of State and Local Environmental Labeling Laws
This provision states that no State or political subdivision of a State may establish, enforce, or continue in effect any law or legal requirement that is not identical to the requirements under this section. This means federal law would supersede any differing state or local regulations on recyclable, compostable, or reusable claims.
This subsection explicitly prohibits the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) from issuing any binding rule or regulation under this section, despite its general authority under section 6(g) of the FTC Act. The FTC is only authorized to issue 'guidance.'
Section 27(b)(2)
Why it matters:This could be a deliberate legislative choice to limit the FTC's power to create legally binding rules, preferring a less prescriptive 'guidance' approach, potentially to reduce regulatory burden or maintain flexibility.
Case for: Supporters would argue that limiting the FTC to guidance rather than binding rules provides flexibility for industry, allows for quicker adaptation to new technologies, and reduces the potential for overly burdensome regulations.
Case against: Critics might argue that guidance lacks the enforcement teeth of formal rules, potentially leading to inconsistent compliance or making it harder for the FTC to effectively combat deceptive claims.
Estimated impact: Limits the FTC's regulatory power significantly, potentially affecting the enforceability and effectiveness of the bill's provisions.
Defines 'substantial majority' as 60 percent or more. This threshold is crucial for the exemption from qualified recyclable claims (27(a)(1)(C)(i)) and for qualifying compostable claims (27(a)(2)(C)(iii)).
Section 27(d)(13)
Why it matters:Standard legislative practice to define terms at the end. However, the specific percentage chosen has significant policy implications.
Case for: Proponents would argue that setting a clear numerical threshold provides certainty for manufacturers and ensures that 'unqualified' claims are only made when recycling/composting access is genuinely widespread, preventing ambiguity.
Case against: Critics might argue that 60% is too low a threshold for an 'unqualified' claim, potentially still misleading a significant portion of consumers who lack access. Others might argue it's too high, making it difficult for manufacturers to achieve.
Estimated impact: Directly impacts how widely unqualified recyclable and compostable claims can be made, affecting consumer perception and manufacturer compliance.