BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Noreen Evans, Chair
2013-2014 Regular Session
AB 890 (Jones)
As Amended June 14, 2013
Hearing Date: June 25, 2013
Fiscal: No
Urgency: No
TH
SUBJECT
False Advertising
DESCRIPTION
Under existing California law, a product may not be sold in
California as "Made in U.S.A." or "Made in America" when the
product, or any article, unit, or part of the product, has been
entirely or substantially made outside of the United States.
This bill would provide that, for purposes of the California law
described above, any merchandise has been substantially made,
manufactured, or produced within the United States if it meets
all of the following requirements:
United States manufacturing costs constitute 90 percent of the
total manufacturing costs for the merchandise;
at least 90 percent of the components, parts, articles, or
units of the merchandise were manufactured in the United
States;
no more than 10 percent of the total manufacturing costs for
the merchandise were either incurred outside of the United
States as a result of the unavailability of raw materials in
the United States, or incurred as the costs of a component,
part, article, or unit of the merchandise imported into the
United States as a result of the unavailability of the same
component, part, article, or unit of the merchandise from a
domestic manufacturer;
no more than 10 percent of the components, parts, articles, or
units of the merchandise were manufactured outside of the
United States as a result of the unavailability of raw
materials in the United States, or the component, part,
article, or unit of the merchandise was imported into the
United States as a result of the unavailability of the
(more)
AB 890 (Jones)
Page 2 of ?
component, part, article, or unit of the merchandise from a
domestic manufacturer; and
the merchandise was last substantially transformed in the
United States.
BACKGROUND
The Legislature has long considered consumer protection to be a
matter of high public importance. State law is replete with
statutes aimed at protecting California consumers from unfair,
dishonest, or harmful market practices. The Consumer Legal
Remedies Act (Civ. Code Sec. 1750 et seq.), for example, was
enacted "to protect the statute's beneficiaries from deceptive
and unfair business practices," and to provide aggrieved
consumers with "strong remedial provisions for violations of the
statute." (Am. Online, Inc. v. Superior Court (2001) 90
Cal.App.4th 1, 11.) Similarly, for over 70 years, California's
Unfair Practices Act (Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 17000 et seq.) has
protected California consumers from "unlawful, unfair or
fraudulent business act[s] or practice[s]." (Bus. & Prof. Code
Sec. 17200.) Consumer protection regarding the labeling of
products is no less a matter of fundamental public policy.
Since 1961, California has expressly required that businesses
meet certain standards in order to be able to claim that their
products are "Made in the U.S.A." Specifically, California law
prohibits a product from being labeled and sold in California as
"Made in U.S.A." or "Made in America" when the product, or any
article, unit, or part of the product, has been entirely or
substantially made outside of the United States. California
courts have construed this statute as requiring that component
parts of a product be entirely or substantially made in the
United States in order for a "Made in the U.S.A." claim to be
permissible. (See, e.g., Colgan v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc.
(2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 663.) California's "Made in the U.S.A."
law protects consumers against false or misleading advertising
while at the same time protecting businesses and ensuring that a
company that engages in false or misleading advertising does not
gain a competitive advantage by doing so.
This bill would provide that, for purposes of California law, a
product sold in California could carry the label "Made in
U.S.A." if it was substantially made, manufactured, or produced
in the United States as measured by the following criteria: at
AB 890 (Jones)
Page 3 of ?
least 90 percent of the components, parts, articles, or units of
the merchandise were manufactured in the United States; United
States manufacturing costs constitute at least 90 percent of the
total manufacturing costs for the merchandise; and the
merchandise was last substantially transformed or assembled in
the United States.
This bill is nearly identical to SB 661 (Hill), which was held
in this Committee on May 7, 2013.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing law protects consumers and competitors against
unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business acts or practices and
unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising. (Unfair
Practices Act, Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 17200 et seq.)
Existing law makes it unlawful for any person, firm, corporation
or association, or any employee thereof, to make or disseminate
before the public in this state, in any newspaper or other
publication or in any other manner or means whatever, any
statement concerning personal property which is untrue or
misleading, and which is known, or which by the exercise of
reasonable care should be known, to be untrue or misleading."
(False Advertising Law, Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 17500 et seq.)
Existing law provides that the following are unfair methods of
competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices: (1)
using deceptive representations or designations of geographic
origin in connection with goods or services; and (2)
misrepresenting the source of goods or services. (Consumer
Legal Remedies Act, Civ. Code Sec. 1770.)
Existing law makes it unlawful for any person, firm, corporation
or association to sell or offer for sale in this State any
merchandise on which merchandise or on its container there
appears the words "Made in U.S.A." "Made in America," "U. S.A.,"
or similar words when the merchandise or any article, unit, or
part thereof, has been entirely or substantially made,
manufactured, or produced outside of the United States. (Bus. &
Prof. Code Sec. 17533.7.)
Existing federal law authorizes the Federal Trade Commission to
regulate claims of U.S. origin pursuant to authority granted to
it under the Federal Trade Commission Act, which prohibits
"unfair or deceptive acts or practices." (15 U.S.C. 45.)
AB 890 (Jones)
Page 4 of ?
Existing federal law requires that a "Made in U.S.A." label be
consistent with orders and decisions of the Federal Trade
Commission. (15 U.S.C. 45a.)
Existing federal policy provides that a product may be labeled
as "Made in U.S.A." if the product is all or virtually all made
in the United States, however a product using such a label may
contain-in a negligible amount-components made outside of the
United States. (Federal Trade Commission, Enforcement Policy
Statement on U.S. Origin Claims, 62 Fed. Reg. 63756, 63765 (Dec.
2, 1997).)
This bill would provide that, for purposes of California's "Made
in the U.S.A." law, any merchandise has been substantially made,
manufactured, or produced within the United States if it meets
all of the following requirements:
United States manufacturing costs constitute at least 90
percent of the total manufacturing costs for the merchandise;
at least 90 percent of the components, parts, articles, or
units of the merchandise were manufactured in the United
States;
no more than 10 percent of the total manufacturing costs for
the merchandise were either incurred outside of the United
States as a result of the unavailability of raw materials in
the United States, or incurred as the costs of a component,
part, article, or unit of the merchandise imported into the
United States as a result of the unavailability of the
component, part, article, or unit of the merchandise from a
domestic manufacturer;
no more than 10 percent of the components, parts, articles, or
units of the merchandise were manufactured outside of the
United States as a result of the unavailability of raw
materials in the United States, or the component, part,
article, or unit of the merchandise was imported into the
United States as a result of the unavailability of the
component, part, article, or unit of the merchandise from a
domestic manufacturer; and
the merchandise was last substantially transformed or
assembled in the United States.
COMMENT
1. Stated need for the bill
The author writes:
AB 890 (Jones)
Page 5 of ?
The inconsistency between federal labeling laws and
California law for "Made in America" products has resulted
in difficulties for manufacturers because products legally
labeled for sale in the other 49 states that find their way
into California can't legally be sold here. This unfairly
handicaps California businesses, places the retailer and
manufacturer at risk, and increases costs to separately
label products for sale in California.
What is the standard for a product to be called Made in
America without qualification? According to the Federal
Trade Commission, for a product to be called Made in USA,
or claimed to be of domestic origin without qualifications
or limits on the claim, the product must be "all or
virtually all" made in the U.S.
What does "all or virtually all" mean? "All or virtually
all" means that all significant parts and processing that
go into the product must be of U.S. origin. That is, the
product should contain no - or negligible - foreign
content.
Why did California establish different criteria? In
response to foreign companies taking liberties with "buy
American" campaigns, legislation was introduced in 1961
that required 100 [percent] of a product's parts be
domestically made. While this was an effective tool in the
last century, this is an impractical and discriminatory
policy in today's global economy.
How does AB 890 compare to the federal standard? AB 890
actually creates a more robust standard than the federal
government, yet will provide needed flexibility for most
modern companies that make products with many components,
some of which are not available in the U.S. Some companies
have been permitted to label their products as "Made in
America" with just 75 [percent] produced domestically, yet
AB 890 has a 90 [percent] criterion.
2. Ensuring consumers get the benefit of their bargain and
assuring consumer confidence
California law prohibits products from being sold as "Made in
AB 890 (Jones)
Page 6 of ?
U.S.A." or "Made in America" when the product, or any article,
unit, or part of the product, has been entirely or substantially
made outside of the United States. This bill seeks to expand
the use of the "Made in U.S.A." label by specifically allowing
the label to be used when, in fact, only 90 percent of the
product is made in the U.S.A.
The proposed standard is nearly identical to SB 661 (Hill),
which was held in this Committee less than two months ago due to
concerns about weakening California's strong consumer protection
laws. Those strong statutes on false advertising and
misrepresentation are intended to protect consumers and
competitors. The statutes promote fair competition and help to
ensure that consumers have the information that they need to
make informed purchasing decisions. Many consumers support
American jobs and industry and are willing to pay more for a
product if they know that it is made in the United States.
The key in ensuring that consumers get the benefit of their
bargain-i.e., they get what they pay for-is to make sure that a
label stating "Made in U.S.A." is accurate and truthful.
Consumers have indicated that this is important to them. For
example, in 1997, when the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
considered revising its "Proposed Guides for the Use of U.S.
Origin Claims" in a way that would have weakened the standard,
numerous commenters indicated that labels matter. One commenter
noted:
If a product is only partially made in our Country, I want to
know. I do not wish to purchase items made in other countries
and falsely labeled "Made in America." I want the entire
truth on the label. I don't want to be tricked into buying an
item I think is made here when in fact it is not.
Another commenter wrote, "The concept of 'Made in the U.S.A.'
has been specific and definite for the last 50 years. Please
leave it as it is. If manufacturers want to say an item is
'Made in the U.S.A.' then make sure it is exactly that. 'Made
in the U.S.A.' should mean that an item is 100 [percent]
manufactured in the United States of America and not in another
country."
In January 2011, the California Supreme Court further described
the importance of truthful and accurate claims of origin,
stating:
AB 890 (Jones)
Page 7 of ?
In particular, to some consumers, the "Made in U.S.A." label
matters. A range of motivations may fuel this preference,
from the desire to support domestic jobs, to beliefs about
quality, to concerns about overseas environmental or labor
conditions, to simple patriotism. The Legislature has
recognized the materiality of this representation by
specifically outlawing deceptive and fraudulent "Made in
America" representations. . . . The object of section
17533.7 "is to protect consumers from being misled when they
purchase products in the belief that they are advancing the
interests of the United States and its industries and
workers." (Sen. Holmdahl, sponsor ? letter to Governor Brown,
May 23, 1961) ['There are many Americans who feel that
American-made articles are of higher quality, and who rely on
the "Made in U.S.A." label'].) . . ." The Legislature
evidently recognized some companies were using or might be
tempted to use inaccurate "Made in America" labeling, that
some consumers might be deceived by and rely on it, and that
consumers and competitors who honestly made their wares in the
United States and marketed them as such were being or would be
harmed. (Kwikset Corp. v. Benson (2011) 51 Cal.4th 310, 329;
citations omitted.)
The policy question, thus, raised by this bill is whether, by
adopting a weaker standard that could result in less truthful
and less accurate "Made in U.S.A." labels, the bill would impair
a consumer's ability to rely on labels and to make fully
informed decisions. In opposition, the Consumer Federation of
California (CFC) writes:
As amended on June 14, AB 890 deleted the requirement of
California law that any product or product unit advertised for
sale in California bearing a "Made in USA" or similar label
must be substantially manufactured in the United States. It
replaces this truth in advertising standard with a new
standard allowing a product to be lawfully offered for sale in
our state bearing a "Made in USA" or "Made in America" label
if 90 [percent] of the cost of the product's content is
domestic and if the final transformation of the product
occurred in the USA. This would represent a substantial
weakening of California's "Made in the USA" law, which
requires products offered for sale in our state as "Made in
America" or "Made in the USA" to meet stringent domestic
content requirements. California's law has protected
consumers from bogus claims that products are made in the USA
when, in fact they are partially made in the USA and include
AB 890 (Jones)
Page 8 of ?
non-domestic content.
. . .
It would be false advertising to offer a product for sale with
a "kosher" label if 10 [percent] of the product is pork, or as
"vegan" if 10 [percent] of the product is meat or cheese, or
as a particular year and vintage of wine if 10 [percent] of
the content were grapes of another year and another region.
We believe that it is equally false advertising to label a
product as "Made in the USA" if 10 [percent] of the product's
content or value is not American. The Kwikset Court pointed
out that an economic loss to a consumer occurs if the consumer
relied on the truthfulness of the label in deciding to
purchase a product that he or she would not have purchased had
it borne an accurate content label.
Accordingly, the practical effect of this bill is to allow a
company to claim that a product is "Made in the U.S.A." when
that statement is not entirely true.
SHOULD CALIFORNIA'S CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS BE WEAKENED?
3. Bill would adopt weaker standard for "Made in U.S.A." claims
Existing federal law requires that a "Made in U.S.A." label be
consistent with orders and decisions of the Federal Trade
Commission (FTC), which provides that a product may be labeled
as "Made in U.S.A." if the product is all or virtually all made
in the United States. The FTC, in its Enforcement Policy
Statement on U.S. Origin Claims, rejected adopting a percentage
benchmark approach to determining whether a product is all or
virtually all made in the United States, and declined to craft
any specific "bright-line" standard for evaluating U.S. origin
claims, stating instead that "[g]iven the complex and varied
factual scenarios that present themselves in this area, and the
wide range of product for which U.S. origin claims may be made,
there are necessarily issues that will continue to be more
appropriately resolved on a case-by-case basis." (Federal Trade
Commission, Enforcement Policy Statement on U.S. Origin Claims,
62 Fed. Reg. 63756, 63765 (Dec. 2, 1997).)
This bill would provide that, for purposes of California law, a
product sold in California could carry the label "Made in
U.S.A." if it was substantially made, manufactured, or produced
in the United States, and meets all of the following
requirements:
United States manufacturing costs constitute at least 90
AB 890 (Jones)
Page 9 of ?
percent of the total manufacturing costs for the merchandise;
at least 90 percent of the components, parts, articles, or
units of the merchandise were manufactured in the United
States;
no more than 10 percent of the total manufacturing costs for
the merchandise were either incurred outside of the United
States as a result of the unavailability of raw materials in
the United States, or incurred as the costs of a component,
part, article, or unit of the merchandise imported into the
United States as a result of the unavailability of the
component, part, article, or unit of the merchandise from a
domestic manufacturer;
no more than 10 percent of the components, parts, articles, or
units of the merchandise were manufactured outside of the
United States as a result of the unavailability of raw
materials in the United States, or the component, part,
article, or unit of the merchandise was imported into the
United States as a result of the unavailability of the
component, part, article, or unit of the merchandise from a
domestic manufacturer; and
the merchandise was last substantially transformed or
assembled in the United States.
The California Retailers Association, in support, writes:
California's statutory 100 percent standard disadvantages
California-based companies who are making every effort to
meet the state's stricter labeling standard but circumstances
such as the unavailability of the component parts has
prohibited them from doing so. AB 890 contemplates some of
the challenges in the law and proposes a reasonable change to
our standard that will level the playing field for
California-based companies.
The "Made in USA" label can serve as a valuable marketing
tool for consumers who want to support domestically based
companies and jobs. All states, except for California,
require an "all or virtually all" standard, allowing "Made in
USA" labels to be used if the product's total [foreign]
manufacturing costs are negligible and are insignificant
parts of the final product. California has a unique standard
that exceeds that of all 49 other states. An unintended
consequence of California's strict standard is that it has
robbed California-based companies of the opportunity to
utilize these labels and compete with out-of-state companies.
This has created a perverse incentive for companies to
relocate to other states which rather than supporting
AB 890 (Jones)
Page 10 of ?
locally-based jobs, would have the opposite effect of driving
that activity to another state.
Staff notes that the practical effect of this bill is to permit
products sold in California to be labeled as "Made in the
U.S.A.," when, in fact, that statement is not 100 percent true.
It should also be noted that the proposed standard may not even
satisfy the federal standard, which, as stated above, does not
include a specific percentage of U.S. and foreign-made parts as
a measurement benchmark. In fact, when the FTC reviewed the
merits of providing a domestic content safe harbor in 1997, it
rejected the idea and decided at that time to retain the "all or
virtually all" standard, observing that "[t]he vast majority of
those commenting, including, significantly, a large number of
individual consumers as well as a number of U.S. manufacturers,
opposed the proposed standard, perceiving it, contrary to the
Commission's intent, as significantly weakening the standard for
"Made in USA" claims." (Federal Trade Commission, Enforcement
Policy Statement on U.S. Origin Claims, 62 Fed. Reg. 63756,
63764 (Dec. 2, 1997).)
The policy question raised by this bill is whether it is
appropriate to provide a lesser standard under California law
for products labeled "Made in U.S.A." than that used in federal
law. In general, the legislative preference has been to ensure
that California laws are strong and sufficiently protect
consumers, in this case, against unfair and deceptive business
practices, including false or misleading advertising. The
effect of the new standard created by this bill would be to
essentially define California law in a way that may be less
protective of consumers than federal law.
4. Bill could have the effect of increasing the percentage of
foreign labor or foreign materials in goods and products that
have the "Made in U.S.A." label
As noted in Comment 3, supporters of this bill state that
existing law disincentivizes companies from making their
products in the United States, and California in particular,
because the standard is so strict. However, staff notes that
because the "Made in U.S.A." label can have such marketing
significance, existing law arguably incentivizes companies to
make their products here in the United States, thus creating
domestic jobs. As the California Supreme Court noted in the
Kwikset case, "[s]imply stated: labels matter:"
AB 890 (Jones)
Page 11 of ?
The marketing industry is based on the premise that labels
matter, that consumers will choose one product over another
similar product based on its label and various tangible and
intangible qualities they may come to associate with a
particular source. An entire body of law, trademark law
(see, e.g., 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq. [Lanham Act]), exists
to protect commercial and consumer interests in accurate
label representations as to source, because consumers rely
on the accuracy of those representations in making their
buying decisions. (Kwikset Corp. v. Benson (2011) 51
Cal.4th 310, 328; citations omitted.)
Given that this bill would allow companies to use up to 10
percent foreign-made components and still derive the benefits of
a "Made in U.S.A." label, this bill would reduce the current
incentive for manufacturers to find a way to source 100 percent
of their components in the United States, thus increasing the
percentage of foreign labor or foreign materials in these goods
and products.
A key policy question, therefore, is whether California should
use its truth in advertising laws to incentivize businesses to
manufacture products domestically, or whether it should relax
labeling standards and officially embrace a certain threshold of
foreign-sourced components in "Made in U.S.A." products.
Creating percentage exemptions of the sort envisioned in this
bill might undercut existing market incentives that drive
domestic production and keep businesses from surrendering to
cheap foreign labor costs or lax regulatory environments, and,
for those products that are not or have not historically been
produced in the United States, might defeat market pressure to
innovate and start such production domestically.
5. Existing unfair competition laws protect businesses as well
California's laws against false and deceptive advertising also
protect businesses by ensuring that unfair and deceptive
business practices do not take hold in the marketplace. As a
result, the laws incentivize businesses to engage in truthful
and accurate advertising, which is critical to ensure that
businesses play on a level playing field. This bill would
potentially upend that playing field so that a business that
found a way to make 100 percent of their product in the United
States would be at a competitive disadvantage with a competitor
who decided to outsource ten percent of their product's
components.
AB 890 (Jones)
Page 12 of ?
Furthermore, this bill is potentially more confusing and
deceptive for businesses relying on the new California standard
because their products may be held in violation of the federal
standard. Although the author argues that this bill is intended
to provide uniformity for companies selling products in all 50
states, this bill would create a standard different from that of
the FTC, on which other states may be relying.
Finally, this bill would not give California businesses a
competitive advantage based on labeling costs any more so than
existing law. As the Consumer Federation of California, in
opposition, states:
California's labeling law creates a level playing field for
all domestic manufacturers, and creates no disadvantage to
manufacturers located in our state. The law applies to
every product "offered for sale" in our state, regardless
of the location where the product was manufactured. A
business manufacturing products in Nevada, Mississippi or
another state that does not have a comparable labeling law
gains no labeling advantage over a California-based
manufacturer, should that out-of-state manufacturer offer
its products for sale in California. Similarly, a
California manufacturer has no labeling disadvantage if it
is manufacturing products that will be offered for sale
only outside our state.
6. Existing law already permits businesses to label their
products with a qualified claim
The author asserts that the need for this bill arises because a
business may manufacture nearly all of its product in the United
States but if one component of that product is made outside of
the United States, California law would prohibit the "Made in
U.S.A." label. The author writes:
The inconsistency between federal labeling laws and California
law for "Made in America" products has resulted in
difficulties for manufacturers because products legally
labeled for sale in the other 49 states that find their way
into California can't legally be sold here. This unfairly
handicaps California businesses, places the retailer and
manufacturer at risk, and increases costs to separately label
products for sale in California.
Although the author correctly asserts that a product not meeting
AB 890 (Jones)
Page 13 of ?
California's high standard for labeling it "Made in the U.S.A."
could be required to adopt separate labeling for products sold
in the state, it is important to note that there is nothing in
existing law which would preclude these businesses from
employing a truthful qualified claim for its products which
contain some foreign parts. As the Consumer Attorneys of
California, in opposition, state:
Claims that truthfully say "90 percent Made in the U.S.A.,"
"Assembled in the U.S.A.," "Assembled by California
workers" are all fine. Existing California law only
prevents the dilution of the pure "Made in U.S.A." brand .
. . A plethora of alternative labels can be used such as
"Assembled in America," "Proudly Made in USA from Domestic
and Globally Sourced Component Parts," "Built in America,"
etc.
Qualified claims made under existing law accurately inform
consumers that, although the product was mostly made in the
United States, parts of the product were made outside the
country. A manufacturer that labels their product with a
qualified claim is able to gain the advantage of advertising the
degree to which their product was truly "Made in the U.S.A."
without deceiving the consumer. Further, a qualified claim
would arguably satisfy both California and federal law, allowing
a manufacturer to uniformly label a product offered for sale in
all 50 states.
7. Ambiguity in proposed amendments to California's "Made in the
U.S.A." law
Through this bill, the author intends to set out certain
"bright-line" standards in California law establishing with
reasonable certainty when a product can or cannot lawfully bear
a "Made in the U.S.A." label. According to the author:
AB 890 asserts that a product can qualify as "Made in
America" if 90 [percent] of the components of the
merchandise were made in the United States, and if the
manufacturing costs constitute 90 [percent] of the total
manufacturing costs. The bill stipulates that no more than
10 [percent] of the components of the merchandise can be
manufactured outside the U.S. and this must result from the
unavailability of domestic raw materials. Also, parts of
the merchandise imported into the United States must result
from the unavailability of said parts. The bill makes an
AB 890 (Jones)
Page 14 of ?
important specification that would prohibit a manufacturer
from potentially achieving the 90 [percent] benchmark, but
then securing 10 [percent] of the components from outside
the U.S, even if domestically available.
Despite this assertion, it does not appear that this bill
establishes clear standards for assessing when these
"bright-line" standards have been met. As the Del Mar Law Group
states in opposition, "the term 'manufacturing costs' is not
defined . . . [f]or example, a company could include its general
overhead, CEO salary, etc. as a per unit calculation of
manufacturing costs," thereby allowing more foreign
manufacturing costs to be calculated into the 10 percent
benchmark. Staff similarly notes that the provision stating
that 90 percent of components must be made in the United States
in order to label a product "Made in America" is also ambiguous.
It fails to specify both whether this measurement is taken by
weight, volume, or total number of components in the final
product, as well as how far this benchmark extends back in the
manufacturing process, leaving unclear whether the standard
would require 90 percent of raw materials to be domestically
produced, or some lesser standard based on intermediate
domestically sourced materials.
The ambiguity that comes with adopting "bright-line" standards
for evaluating "Made in America" claims is precisely what
prompted the FTC to shy away from articulating such standards
and opt instead for a "case-by-case" approach in its Enforcement
Policy Statement on U.S. Origin Claims, "[g]iven the complex and
varied factual scenarios that present themselves in this area,
and the wide range of product for which U.S. origin claims may
be made." (See Federal Trade Commission, Enforcement Policy
Statement on U.S. Origin Claims, 62 Fed. Reg. 63756, 63765 (Dec.
2, 1997).)
8. Pending litigation
In the past, this Committee has raised concerns about bills that
interfere with pending litigation. Any such interference could
result in a direct financial windfall to a private party,
prevent a court from deciding an action based upon the laws in
place at the time the cause of action accrued, or create a
situation where the Legislative branch is used to circumvent the
AB 890 (Jones)
Page 15 of ?
discretion and independence of the Judicial branch. The
Committee has received notice of at least five pending
litigation matters against various out-of-state defendants that
allegedly falsely labeled products for sale in California as
"Made in the U.S.A." in violation of existing state law. This
bill does not specify how it would impact pending litigation.
Support : Bulldog LED Lighting; California Retailers
Association; Lifetime Products, Inc.; National Federation of
Independent Business
Opposition : California Conference of Machinists; California
Labor Federation; California Teamsters Public Affairs Council;
Consumer Attorneys of California; Consumer Federation of
California; Del Mar Law Group; United Food and Commercial
Workers Union, Western States Council
HISTORY
Source : Author
Related Pending Legislation : SB 661 (Hill) would amend
California's "Made in the U.S.A." law to make it lawful to
advertise a product as made or manufactured in the United States
if United States manufacturing costs constitute 90 percent of
the total manufacturing costs for the merchandise, and if the
merchandise was last substantially transformed or assembled in
the United States. This bill would also create a rebuttable
presumption that merchandise was made or manufactured in the
United States if it were so certified by an independent
third-party verification organization. This bill was held in
the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Prior Legislation :
AB 858 (Jones, 2012) would have amended California's "Made in
the U.S.A." law to specify that merchandise has been entirely or
substantially made, manufactured, or produced within the United
States if the merchandise is a product that is made all or
virtually all in the United States, within the meaning of the
Enforcement Policy Statement on U.S. Origin Claims issued by the
Federal Trade Commission (62 Fed.Reg. 63756 (Dec. 2, 1997)).
This bill failed passage out of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
ABX6 8 (Beall, 2010) which was identical to AB 858, was
AB 890 (Jones)
Page 16 of ?
introduced in the Sixth Extraordinary Session but was never
referred to committee.
SB 1004 (Holmdahl, Ch. 676, Stats. 1961) codified California's
"Made in the U.S.A." law, making it unlawful for any person,
firm, corporation, or association to sell or offer for sale any
merchandise that advertises itself as being made or manufactured
in the United States when any article, unit, or part of the
merchandise has been entirely or substantially made,
manufactured, or produced outside of the United States.
Prior Vote :
Assembly Committee on Business, Professions and Consumer
Protection (Ayes 7, Noes 1)
Assembly Floor (Ayes 50, Noes 18)
**************