BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1656
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 1656 (Ma and Lieu)
As Amended March 23, 2010
Majority vote
JUDICIARY 9-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Feuer, Tran, Brownley, | | |
| |Skinner, Hagman, Jones, | | |
| |Knight, Lieu, Monning | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Requires all clothing apparel for sale in this state
that contains genuine animal fur, regardless of price or value
of the fur, to carry an attached tag or label stating the animal
from which the fur was acquired and the country of origin of any
imported fur. Specifically, this bill :
1)Prohibits any person from selling or displaying for sale any
clothing apparel containing any amount of animal fur,
regardless of the overall price or value of the fur, without
an attached and conspicuously displayed tag or label that
states the animal from which the fur was acquired and the
country of origin of any imported furs used.
2)Defines "fur" to mean any animal skin or part thereof with
hair, fleece, or fur fibers attached thereto, either in its
raw or processed state.
3)Defines "clothing apparel" to mean any articles of clothing or
covering for any part of the body.
4)Provides that labeling of clothing apparel pursuant to this
bill may be accomplished by adding the required disclosures to
the permanent tag attached to the clothing, to the temporary
tag used by the merchant to identify the merchandise, or by
affixing to the article of clothing, in a conspicuous place, a
sticker listing the required disclosures.
5)Exempts sellers of used articles of clothing made wholly or
partly of animal fur from these labeling requirements.
AB 1656
Page 2
6)Provides that each article of clothing not labeled pursuant to
these requirements constitutes a separate violation of this
act, subject to a civil penalty of not more than $500 for the
first violation, and not more than $1,000 for each subsequent
violation.
7)Provides that a retail merchant is not liable for a violation
if a manufacturer or supplier for the merchant certifies to
that merchant, in the invoice or other written document, that
any tag or label attached by the manufacturer or supplier
conforms to these labeling requirements, unless the retail
merchant knew, or reasonably should have known, that the
certification is false.
8)Provides that nothing in this bill shall be construed to
preempt any federal law, or any other statute that prohibits
or restricts the sale of fur products. Further provides that
if any provision of this bill is held to be preempted by
federal law, the preemption shall not affect other provisions
of this bill that can be given effect.
9) If enacted, becomes operative on September 1, 2011.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Pursuant to the federal Fur Products Labeling Act (15 U.S.C.
69), prohibits the manufacture for sale, sale, advertising,
transportation, or distribution of any fur product which has
been shipped and received in commerce, and which is misbranded
or falsely or deceptively advertised or invoiced, as defined.
These and other related acts are deemed unlawful and
constitute unfair methods of competition, and unfair and
deceptive practices in commerce under the Federal Trade
Commission Act.
2)Pursuant to Section 301.39 of Title 16 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, provides that if the cost of any fur trim or
other manufactured fur or furs contained in a fur product does
not exceed $150 to the manufacturer of the finished fur
product, or if a manufacturer's selling price of a fur product
does not exceed $150, then the fur product shall be exempt
from the requirements of the Fur Products Labeling Act.
FISCAL EFFECT : None
AB 1656
Page 3
COMMENTS : This bill, sponsored by the Humane Society of the
United States, seeks to require all clothing apparel for sale in
this state that contains genuine animal fur, regardless of
price, to carry an attached tag or label stating the animal from
which the fur was acquired and the country of origin of any
imported fur. According to the sponsor, this bill is intended
to "close a loophole" in federal law that exempts fur-trimmed
garments valued at less than $150 from the requirement to
display information about the animal fur on the label of the
garment. Federal law specifically exempts fur products from
labeling requirements if the cost of the fur contained in the
fur product does not exceed $150 to the manufacturer of the
finished fur product, or if the manufacturer's selling price of
a fur product does not exceed $150.
In addition to extending labeling requirements to every fur
garment for sale in the state, regardless of price or value of
the fur, this bill specifies two pieces of information appear on
the label itself: 1) the animal from which the fur was acquired;
and 2) the country of origin of any imported furs used in the
item. Federal law already requires both of these items to
appear on the label of every fur product subject to the
regulations, in addition to the name of the manufacturer and
other disclosures about fur composition, if applicable.
Consistent with its stated purpose to simply close the $150
federal "loophole" in California, this bill does not require
more information to appear on the label than is already required
under federal law, nor does it attempt to restrict the
manufacture or sale of fur garments.
Ultimately, this bill will eliminate the abundance of unlabeled
fur garments for sale that pose particular problems for
consumers with allergies and ethical objections to items
containing real animal fur. Many garments contain animal fur
that has been dyed in non-natural colors, such as pink, red, or
blue, with the result that the fur appears fake and can easily
be mistaken for faux fur unless accurately labeled. This bill
will particularly benefit consumers who are allergic to any or
all types of real animal fur by enabling them to identify and
purchase garments made of faux fur or real fur that does not
trigger an allergic reaction. Similarly, this bill will benefit
consumers who have ethical objections to real fur or fur farming
practices in other countries by facilitating an informed
AB 1656
Page 4
purchasing decision with peace of mind.
This bill prohibits the sale or display for sale of "any coat,
jacket, garment, or other clothing apparel made wholly or
partially of fur" unless specified labeling requirements are
met. The definition of the term "clothing apparel" makes it
clear this bill is not intended to apply fur labeling
requirements to handbags or purses, but only to articles of
clothing or covering for any part of the body.
Although the Federal Fur Labeling Act does not specifically
authorize states to adopt more restrictive labeling requirements
for fur products, the Judiciary Committee's research has not
identified any successful challenges to state fur labeling laws
on federal preemption grounds. In two of the five states
(Delaware and New Jersey) that have passed state fur labeling
laws, those laws do not become effective until later this year.
In 2006, New York became the first state to specifically pass a
law to close the federal loophole, and no preemption challenge
to that law has been identified at this time. In any case, this
bill specifically provides that none of its provisions shall be
construed to preempt any federal law, or any other statute that
prohibits or restricts the sale of fur products. If any
provision is held to be preempted by federal law, it is
severable from other provisions that can be given effect.
This bill relieves a retail merchant from liability for any
violation of these provisions if the manufacturer or supplier
for that merchant certifies in writing that any tag or label
attached by the manufacturer or supplier conforms to these
labeling requirements. The immunity does not apply if the
retail merchant knew, or reasonably should have known, that the
certification is false. This non-liability provision, which
mirrors those contained in the recent New Jersey law, allows
retailers to rely on written certification from their
manufacturers or suppliers of fur apparel that any attached tags
or labels, if provided, comply with labeling requirements. This
is reasonable because manufacturers and suppliers are in a
better position than retailers to know what type of animal fur
was used in the garment (if in fact real animal fur was used)
and from what country the fur came from, if imported. Although
there is no requirement that the manufacturer or supplier attach
the required tags or labels, retailers have some business
leverage to encourage this practice because they could
AB 1656
Page 5
presumably choose to engage less with any manufacturer or
supplier who does not label or certify their fur products.
In order to afford manufacturers and retailers in California
more time to adopt practices to comply with these labeling
requirements, the author has amended the bill to become
operative on September 1, 2011, if enacted, rather than the
original date of January 1, 2011.
Analysis Prepared by : Anthony Lew / JUD. / (916) 319-2334
FN: 0003781