Lawyers say federal deregulation makes compliance more challenging as states step in

Over the past year, the Trump administration has scaled back or eliminated thousands of federal regulations. But while the move has been welcomed by many businesses, two experts on U.S. regulatory compliance who spoke at NRF’s Retail Law Summit this month said it hasn’t necessarily made their jobs easier. Instead, in many cases, their task is becoming more complicated. 

“Federal deregulation doesn’t equal less work,” said Jennifer Steindler Darling, vice president of legal affairs and general counsel for North America at the global fashion brand Hugo Boss. “I have the states regulating to make up for everything that’s missing at the federal level. … State regulation is actually far more complex than simply federal regulation.” 

Darling joined Rachel Saltzman, a partner in the environmental group at the Hunton Andrews Kurth law firm, as co-presenters in a session on managing compliance, accountability and sustainability across the retail supply chain. 

PFAS regulations 

2025 may have been “the most deregulatory year ever,” with the White House citing nearly 6,500 deregulatory actions and only five new regulatory actions, Saltzman said. 

One example is PFAS “forever chemicals,” which are used in a wide variety of products retailers sell from cosmetics to clothing to cookware. Both manufacturers and importers of products containing PFAS faced extensive reporting requirements under a 2023 Environmental Protection Agency regulation. 

The EPA has moved to roll back those requirements, but states have responded by introducing more than 300 bills to regulate PFAS and 18 measures have been enacted so far, Saltzman said. Unlike a uniform national standard, those laws “vary dramatically in their definitions and their thresholds and their timelines, which really creates a complex compliance patchwork for companies to deal with,” she said. 

Darling said while she welcomed the change in EPA policy given that compliance with the 2023 measure was unclear and had a 12-year lookback, compliance with multiple state laws could be even more challenging; she said, given the patchwork of regulation, generally she “dreams about federal preemption.” Saltzman said the Department of Justice is looking at ways to preempt the state laws to end the “push-pull between federal and state regulation.” 

PFAS laws are part of the many ESG laws Darling referred to as a “regulatory tsunami” not only at the state and federal levels but internationally. With many of her company’s products made in Europe, her company is required to ensure that those sold here comply with European regulations in addition to U.S. laws, she said. 

Sustainability standards 

In another area, Saltzman said several states have passed laws regulating labels or marketing claims such as “recyclable,” “sustainable” or “natural,” and that these claims have become an increasing focus of litigation, often framed as “greenwashing” when their substantiation is challenged. 

In particular, claims that a product can be recycled have become “fraught and difficult,” she said. A California state law prohibits the use of the “chasing arrows” recycling symbol unless the product meets certain collection and recycling metrics. At the same time, other states require use of the symbol. 

In one case, she said, a major beverage company has been sued by an environmental group that claims it hasn’t taken steps necessary to meet the company’s published targets for recyclable packaging and collection of empty cans and bottles. 

Extended producer responsibility 

New state-level extended producer responsibility laws further complicate the landscape. These programs require manufacturers and retailers to form producer responsibility organizations and help fund costly recycling infrastructure. While most focus on packaging and disposable plastics, some would cover textiles, meaning larger implications for clothing retailers. 

EPR laws in the United States are more complex than elsewhere in the world, Darling said. Spain, for example, has a single nationwide law; in the U.S. seven states have passed such measures, each with its own variations, and EPR laws are under consideration in other states. Reporting is also more complex; she compared the California reporting, which currently requires 95 categories, with 32 in Spain. 

Last month, a judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking Oregon’s EPR law in a legal challenge to the measure, and Saltzman said the case could call similar laws in other states into question. But businesses affected by such laws still face the burden of compliance planning while waiting for the litigation to be resolved, she said. 

States have also passed laws requiring companies to report on climate change impact or greenhouse gas emissions related to the products they sell, she said. 

Ethical sourcing claims challenged 

Regulatory claims go beyond health and environmental issues. 

The federal Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act prohibits importing goods manufactured in China’s Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region because of a presumption that they are produced with forced labor unless the importer can prove otherwise. 

Separately, a coffee company that promotes “100% ethical” sourcing is being sued over claims that some of its beans come from farms using forced labor or child labor. “While failing to address supply chain risks proactively can create legal and reputational risk, setting overly aggressive public goals or saying too much about what you’re doing can also be problematic,” Saltzman said. 

The message was clear: States are making up for federal deregulation at a dizzying pace, creating a tsunami of legal compliance issues which will have in-house legal departments dreaming about the elusive federal preemption for years to come.