Recycled Materials Attribution Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Sen. Curtis, John R. [R-UT]
- Committees
- Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 30, 2026
Bottom line
This bill aims to standardize and clarify how companies can make 'recycled content' claims, particularly by validating mass balance accounting under specific third-party certification, while prohibiting misleading claims and establishing federal preemption over state regulations.
What it actually does
This bill prohibits misleading recycled content claims in product advertising and sales, and explicitly clarifies that mass balance accounting is an acceptable method for substantiating such claims, provided it complies with a third-party certification system. It mandates the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to update its Green Guides and issue new guidance consistent with these provisions, while also preempting state and local laws related to these claims.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the bill provides much-needed clarity and a consistent federal standard for recycled content claims, enabling manufacturers to accurately represent their use of recycled materials and preventing consumer confusion. They contend that recognizing mass balance accounting, when verified by third-party certification, is crucial for promoting the use of recycled feedstocks in complex supply chains and fostering a circular economy by providing regulatory certainty.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that allowing mass balance accounting, even with third-party certification, could still lead to consumer confusion if the actual physical recycled content in a specific product is minimal or non-existent, potentially enabling 'greenwashing.' Some may also oppose the federal preemption of state laws, arguing it could undermine more stringent state-level consumer protection or environmental standards.
The bill is short and relatively easy to read, allowing a quick understanding of its core provisions.
Sec. 4(a)
Prohibition on Misleading Recycled Content Claims
This provision makes it illegal for any person to advertise, market, sell, or offer for sale a product to a consumer using a recycled content claim that is misleading. It also specifically prohibits marketing fuels as 'recycled content,' ensuring that environmental claims for products are accurate and do not deceive consumers.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision ensures truth in advertising, protects consumers from 'greenwashing,' and creates a level playing field for businesses that genuinely incorporate recycled content.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against the concept of prohibiting misleading claims, though disagreements may arise over the definition of 'misleading' in specific contexts.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the need for robust consumer protection against the potential for overly broad or ambiguous definitions of 'misleading' that could stifle legitimate environmental marketing.
Sec. 2, Sec. 3(3), Sec. 4(b)(2)(A)
Recognition of Mass Balance Accounting for Recycled Content Claims
The bill clarifies that mass balance accounting is an acceptable method for substantiating recycled content claims, provided it adheres to the requirements of a third-party certification system. Mass balance accounting is a method where alternative feedstocks (like recycled materials) can be mixed with conventional ones in manufacturing, and the mass of the alternative feedstocks is then allocated to final products based on documented inputs and outputs, rather than requiring physical segregation.
Sec. 4(b)(1) and Sec. 4(b)(2)
Federal Trade Commission Guidance on Recycled Content Claims
This section directs the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to update its existing 'Green Guides' within one year to reflect the new definitions and standards established by this Act. Additionally, the FTC must issue new guidance that specifically establishes mass balance accounting as an acceptable method for substantiating recycled content claims, provided it meets third-party certification requirements and is based on competent and reliable scientific evidence. The guidance must also provide a clear framework for accurate recycled content claims.
Sec. 5
FTC Enforcement Authority
This section designates the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) as the primary enforcement agency for violations of the Act's prohibition on misleading recycled content claims. It specifies that such violations will be treated as unfair or deceptive acts under the Federal Trade Commission Act, granting the FTC its full range of enforcement powers, including investigations, cease-and-desist orders, and civil penalties. The bill also requires the FTC to promulgate rules necessary to carry out the Act.
Sec. 6
Preemption of State and Local Laws
This section explicitly states that no State or political subdivision of a State may maintain, enforce, prescribe, or continue in effect any law, rule, regulation, requirement, standard, or other provision that relates to the prohibition and enforcement provisions of this Act. This means the federal standards established by this bill will supersede any conflicting or related state or local laws.
This subsection specifies that any guidance issued by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) under this Act will not confer any rights or bind the Commission or any person. Crucially, it states that the FTC cannot base an enforcement action or a consent order solely on practices alleged to be inconsistent with this guidance; instead, enforcement must allege a specific violation of a provision of the Act itself.
Sec. 4(b)(3)
Why it matters:This limitation on the enforceability of guidance is a common legislative technique to ensure that regulatory actions are grounded in statutory text rather than non-binding administrative interpretations. It could be seen as a safeguard against potential regulatory overreach, or as a way to limit the practical impact of the FTC's interpretive role.
Case for: Supporters argue that this provides essential clarity and certainty to businesses, ensuring they will only be penalized for violating explicit statutory law, not for failing to adhere to non-binding guidance. It prevents the FTC from using guidance as a de facto rule.
Case against: Critics might argue that this provision weakens the FTC's ability to effectively enforce the spirit of the law, as guidance often serves to clarify ambiguous statutory language and provide practical examples of compliance. It could make enforcement more difficult by requiring direct statutory violations, potentially allowing some deceptive practices to continue if they fall into a grey area not explicitly covered by the Act's text.
Estimated impact: This provision potentially reduces the scope and flexibility of FTC enforcement actions related to recycled content claims, shifting the burden to prove direct statutory violation and potentially limiting the preventative effect of guidance.