Textile Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is no longer an abstract policy discussion sitting on the horizon. Across the United States, rising concern over textile waste is pushing lawmakers to act, and momentum is building quickly. States are beginning to explore legislation that would fundamentally change how fashion brands, retailers, and textile producers manage products from creation through end of life.
Under textile EPR, responsibility shifts squarely to producers and importers, requiring them to help finance and operate systems for collection, reuse, repair, and recycling. While this approach is already well established in parts of Europe—most notably in France and the Netherlands—it is now becoming an operational reality in the U.S. For American fashion brands, passive observation is no longer an option.
The 2026 outlook: policy pressure is accelerating
These developments were a central focus of a recent webinar hosted by American Circular Textiles (AMCIRC), an industry coalition advocating for national textile policies that strengthen domestic manufacturing, supply chain resilience, and circular growth. During the session, AMCIRC and a panel of policy, legal, and industry experts explored what the next two years could look like for textile EPR at the state level.
With California passing the nation’s first textile EPR law in September 2024—the Responsible Textile Recovery Act (SB 707)—and states like Washington and New York actively drafting similar legislation, brands are facing growing regulatory alignment across key markets. With mandatory EPR implementation expected by 2028 in some states, the timeline for preparation is tightening.
Rachel Kibbe, founder and CEO of American Circular Textiles, summed up the moment clearly: “Companies don’t just need supportive policies. They need support navigating policy and a collective seat at the table.” For U.S. fashion brands, the core question is no longer if textile EPR will expand nationwide, but how fast, how fragmented, and how ready companies will be when it does.
Why textile EPR is gaining traction now
The push for textile EPR is grounded in stark waste realities. Globally, around 92 million tons of textile waste are generated each year. In the United States alone, approximately 17 million tons are discarded annually, with about 85 percent ending up in landfills or incinerators. Less than one percent is recycled back into new textiles.
Textiles are now one of the fastest-growing waste streams in the country, placing an increasing financial burden on municipalities and taxpayers. Policymakers are turning to EPR as a way to reassign those costs to producers while creating economic incentives for reuse, repair, and recycling infrastructure. As Kibbe explained, the goal is to move responsibility away from taxpayers and toward the companies placing products on the market—while funding circular solutions at scale.
California sets the precedent
California’s Responsible Textile Recovery Act marks a turning point for the U.S. fashion industry. As the first comprehensive textile EPR law in the country, it requires apparel and textile producers selling into the state to join a single, state-approved Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO). This PRO will be responsible for designing, funding, and managing a statewide system for collection, reuse, repair, and recycling.
The law prioritizes reuse and repair alongside recycling and introduces eco-modulated fees that reward better design choices and durability. Importantly, producers will not pay fees until a formal EPR plan is approved and a PRO is selected. CalRecycle is expected to approve a PRO as early as March 2026, with producer registration beginning by July 2026.
For most apparel companies, California will be their first hands-on experience with textile EPR compliance. As Sheila Millar, partner at Keller & Heckman LLP, noted during the webinar, California’s market size ensures its influence. Nearly every national brand will be affected, making the state a testing ground for how future legislation may unfold elsewhere.
Washington and New York: building, not copying
While California may be first, it will not be alone for long. Lawmakers in Washington and New York are actively shaping their own textile EPR proposals, drawing lessons from California rather than simply duplicating it.
Washington State Representative Christine Reeves, a sponsor of the state’s proposed textile EPR bill, emphasized the importance of balancing ambition with real-world feasibility. While speed matters, she acknowledged that poorly designed legislation can create more harm than good. Industry feedback has played a key role in refining the bill, particularly around concerns about overly complex or fragmented compliance requirements.
A recurring issue raised by brands is the risk of a patchwork system, where each state defines covered products and compliance obligations differently. Reeves echoed this concern, noting that excessive variation could make compliance unmanageable. Importantly, she stressed that industry opposition is not about avoiding responsibility—but about ensuring the system works.
The business reality: cost, complexity, and uncertainty
Although EPR is often framed as a “polluter pays” approach, its financial implications are far from simple. Implementing textile EPR will increase costs somewhere in the system, and businesses need clarity to plan effectively. According to Millar, uncertainty and inconsistency are the biggest threats to compliance—not the fees themselves.
Differences in how states define “covered products” and “producers” can create significant challenges for national brands. Even subtle wording changes—such as whether a definition is exhaustive or open-ended—can alter compliance obligations. Inconsistent legislative language may ultimately be more disruptive than the cost of participation.
Repair, reuse, and recycling: promise meets reality
Repair and reuse are consistently highlighted as preferred outcomes under textile EPR, but infrastructure gaps remain a major barrier. Repair services are fragmented, skilled labor is limited, and large-scale textile recycling—especially for blended materials—is still developing.
Chemical recycling continues to spark debate, yet some panelists acknowledged it may be necessary for certain materials. At the same time, social perceptions around second-hand clothing remain uneven. As Reeves pointed out, reuse is often stigmatized in some communities while celebrated as “vintage” or sustainable in others—an imbalance that must be addressed as EPR policies evolve.
International models offer valuable insights. France’s textile EPR program, in place since 2008, uses producer fees to fund consumer repair incentives, reimbursing part of the cost for mending or alterations. These programs aim not only to extend garment life, but to normalize repair as a routine consumer behavior.
Andriana Kontovrakis, Director of EPR Solutions at Reverse Logistics Group, highlighted how such incentives demonstrate EPR’s broader potential. When durability and repair are financially rewarded, value shifts back toward products designed to last—not those meant for rapid replacement.
Five steps brands should take now
Despite lingering uncertainties, the direction of U.S. textile EPR is unmistakable. Producers will be responsible not only for funding end-of-life systems, but for aligning operations with circular outcomes. Waiting for final regulations increases risk, costs, and disruption.
Kontovrakis outlined five actions brands can begin taking immediately:
-
Map obligations and markets
Identify where products are sold, which items may be covered, and where EPR legislation is emerging. -
Assign clear internal ownership
Designate a textile EPR lead with authority across legal, sustainability, supply chain, and design teams. -
Strengthen data systems
Sales and material data underpin compliance. Companies must know what data exists, who owns it, and how it is maintained. -
Embed EPR into design and sourcing
Eco-modulation turns design decisions into financial ones, making early integration critical. -
Operationalize compliance
Textile EPR is ongoing, not a one-time task. Reporting cycles, regulatory tracking, and budget forecasting must become routine.
From voluntary action to mandated accountability
For years, the fashion industry has relied on voluntary sustainability initiatives. Textile EPR represents a decisive shift toward legally enforced accountability. Over the next few years, brands will be tested not just on compliance, but on strategic foresight.
As Kontovrakis concluded, textile EPR is more than a regulatory requirement—it compels companies to build the foundation for resilient, circular business models. Policymakers may aim for collaboration, but one message is clear: preparation cannot wait.
