Our industry is navigating one of the toughest markets in years. The International Sleep Products Association’s “2026 Mattress Industry Trends Report” shows unit shipments fell 13.2% last year, even as manufacturers held the line on pricing and product mix to keep total market value from falling as sharply. In a climate like this, every dollar of compliance cost and every hour spent untangling conflicting federal and state rules matter. That is exactly why ISPA’s advocacy work—at statehouses, in Congress, and before regulators—has been in overdrive this summer. I want to walk you through where this work stands and why it matters to your bottom line.
Mattress recycling: Steady progress
ISPA advocated for good policy and defeated bad policy in a host of states this year. Starting with bad policy, ISPA was able to defeat proposed legislation in Washington and Minnesota, while amending New York’s to support, despite running out of time at the end of session in June.
Several good bills were pursued in Maryland, Virginia, Massachusetts, and New Jersey. Virginia’s crossed the finish line but was unfortunately vetoed by the governor. Massachusetts, however, continues to be a state where our model is gaining traction, following the Extended Producer Responsibility Commission’s endorsement earlier this year. Our mattress stewardship program was also included in the Environmental Bond Bill being debated in both houses this summer. New Jersey’s legislation, based on ISPA’s model, is still moving as well.
The Mattress Recycling Council already has a strong track record in California, Connecticut, Oregon, and Rhode Island, and our job is to make sure that any new state program builds on what already works. New programs that do not harmonize with our existing programs will cost manufacturers, retailers, and, ultimately, the consumer more time and more money without commensurate environmental or health benefits.
When bad public policy passes, it is sometimes necessary to litigate, which also costs more money but preserves the industry’s rights in the long run. Given the work during the 2025 and 2026 legislative sessions, including facility site visits in Washington state in July and extensive outreach in New York, Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts, we will be well positioned this fall and in more states in 2027.
A win on recyclability—with a caveat
On July 14, a U.S. District Court judge in the Southern District of California granted a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of California’s SB 343, the so-called “Truth in Recycling” law. I flagged the underlying case for members back in June, when a coalition of 20 trade associations argued before Judge William Hayes that the law’s “chasing arrows” labeling restrictions were unconstitutionally vague and violated the First Amendment. The court agreed on both points, finding that California hadn’t shown the restrictions would improve recycling rates and that companies faced with unclear standards would likely just strip truthful recyclability information off their packaging rather than risk violating the law.
This ruling is good news, as manufacturers do not label products or packaging for one state, which is the intent behind SB 343—you would not be able to label your packaging as recyclable unless it met California’s stringent requirements.
However, I want to be clear about the limits of the ruling. The injunction pauses enforcement while litigation continues; it doesn’t repeal the law. SB 343’s Oct. 4 compliance deadline is now on hold, but we’re watching the merits proceedings closely. I encourage members to keep monitoring labeling decisions with counsel as the matter is far from settled.
State packaging laws face a fight
Separately, California’s broader packaging extended producer responsibility law, SB 54, is also under legal attack. On June 22, a coalition of 17 states led by Nebraska, joined by the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors, filed a federal lawsuit challenging the law’s constitutionality. Notably, this is the first EPR challenge anywhere in the country to name the Circular Action Alliance, the producer responsibility organization implementing the program, as a defendant. That suit followed a narrower challenge filed by environmental groups in June objecting to the law’s treatment of chemical recycling.
Oregon’s packaging law was the first to get tested legally, with NAW again leading the charge. In that case, NAW also obtained a preliminary injunction on Feb. 6 of this year on the grounds that the law violates the Dormant Commerce Clause and Due Process Clause by imposing burdens on interstate distributors and delegating sweeping regulatory authority to a private, third-party organization (the PRO or CAA in this case). Oral arguments were heard in July, and a ruling is expected this fall.
Colorado’s packaging law is also facing legal scrutiny with a NAW lawsuit filed July 30. This suit has some of the same arguments used in the other states as well as several new First Amendment violation claims. As the fees set by CAA are not transparent and the law disallows manufacturers from stating the additional fees necessary on products in order to fund the programs, NAW asserts that it not only restricts their right to free speech, but it also compels manufacturers to fund an organization and perhaps speech that they do not agree with.
None of this litigation currently suspends compliance obligations. CAA submitted its draft California program plan on June 15, and the public comment period ran through mid-August. Oregon’s program is only suspended for NAW, and the other lawsuits and requests for preliminary injunctions are pending.
I urge members with packaging obligations in any of the states to keep working through registration and reporting requirements while all of the lawsuits play out in the courts. Even once the suits are decided, the chances of entire EPR for packaging laws being thrown out are not likely. Instead, parts of the laws and/or regulations may be suspended or sent back to the legislature or regulators to repropose. There may also be appeals.
This underscores why ISPA spends so much time and resources advocating for legislation that mirrors the MRC program the industry already has—and just how important this work is. The MRC program has a decade of success. Harmonization means efficiency, which means cost savings. We must also monitor and act on other producer responsibility programs, not only to assist with the compliance obligations of our manufacturers, but to evaluate if and how these developments may affect MRC and its operations.
Progress at the federal level on packaging claims
A positive byproduct of states passing flawed public policy is federal engagement. I was pleased to see the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade hold a hearing on July 22 examining the Packaging and Claims Knowledge Act, along with the companion Recycled Materials Attribution Act.
ISPA has long supported a consistent federal framework for recyclable, compostable, and reusable claims through our membership in AMERIPEN, and the PACK Act would provide just that—replacing the growing patchwork of state-by-state labeling definitions with one national standard administered by the Federal Trade Commission. The PACK Act now has 17 co-sponsors, and the hearing reflected bipartisan interest in bringing clarity to an area where our members have had to navigate conflicting rules for years. This act is in direct response to California’s SB 343, which, as already stated, is currently on hold due to litigation. We’ll keep pressing for movement because a single federal standard would meaningfully reduce compliance costs and deter other states from passing recyclability laws that restrict interstate commerce.
Climate relief
There has been some practical regulatory relief on climate reporting. On June 24, the California Air Resources Board pushed back the first-year deadline for Scope 1 and Scope 2 greenhouse gas emissions reporting under SB 253 from Aug. 10 to Nov. 10, giving covered companies breathing room while CARB finalizes clarifying amendments.
At the federal level, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has proposed rescinding its 2024 climate disclosure rules entirely, arguing they exceeded the agency’s statutory authority. Together, these developments suggest some easing of the compliance burden, though members operating nationally should remember that state-level climate rules can move independently of what happens in Washington, D.C.
Federal safety rules and a path to a working CPSC
Also on the federal front, ISPA has been hard at work advocating for enhanced enforcement for noncompliant imported mattresses when it comes to fire safety regulations. ISPA has met with the Senate members of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation—specifically handled by its Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Technology, and Data—and the House members of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade, which is part of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. ISPA submitted a letter of support for the fire safety issue and for labeling for recycling as a consumer protection issue. As the hearing was titled “Legislative Proposals to Strengthen Consumer Protection in a Changing Marketplace,” ISPA felt it important to raise the fire safety issue in addition to the labeling claims. ISPA also had site visits at mattress manufacturing facilities during the August recess to continue these conversations.
ISPA also continues its work with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission on noncompliant product issues as well as the update to the CFR 1632/33 regulations. We supported Senate confirmation hearings this summer for two CPSC nominees, Brien Lorenze and Karen Sessions. The CPSC has operated with a single commissioner since last August, and restoring a quorum matters enormously to our industry. It means faster, more predictable agency action on the rules that govern how we manufacture and sell mattresses, as well as actions to combat unlawful products.
Why this work matters now
I know legislative and regulatory updates can feel abstract next to the daily pressures of running a business in a down market. But every one of these fights—recyclability labels, packaging programs, emissions reporting, mattress recycling programs, flammability standards, CPSC leadership, and more—determines how much it costs you to bring a product to market and how much uncertainty and competition you face while doing it. As both ISPA’s president and head of MRC, I see firsthand how a well-designed, harmonized policy can lower costs and build consumer trust, while a fragmented, adversarial one drains resources our members can’t spare right now.
ISPA’s advocacy team will keep tackling these fights on your behalf in the courts, in state capitols, and on Capitol Hill. If you have questions about any of these issues or want to get more involved, please reach out to our Government Affairs team. Your engagement is what makes this work possible.
Alison Keane • President
