BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Noreen Evans, Chair
2013-2014 Regular Session
SB 661 (Hill)
As Amended January 6, 2014
Hearing Date: January 14, 2014
Fiscal: No
Urgency: No
TH
SUBJECT
False Advertising: Made in U.S.A.
DESCRIPTION
Under existing California law, a product may not be sold in
California as "Made in U.S.A." or "Made in America" if the
product, or any article, unit, or part of the product, has been
entirely or substantially made, manufactured, or produced
outside of the United States. This bill would provide that
merchandise made, manufactured or produced in the United States
that has an article, unit, or part from outside of the United
States may be sold in California as "Made in U.S.A." or "Made in
America" if the merchandise meets all of the following
requirements:
the manufacturer of the merchandise certifies that it can
neither produce the foreign article, unit, or part within the
United States nor obtain the foreign article, unit, or part
from a domestic source;
the article, unit, or part of the merchandise obtained from
outside the United States constitutes only a negligible part
of the final manufactured product; and
the determination that the article, unit, or part of the
merchandise cannot be produced or obtained within the United
States from a domestic source is not based on the cost of the
article, unit, or part.
BACKGROUND
The Legislature has long considered consumer protection to be a
matter of high public importance. State law is replete with
(more)
SB 661 (Hill)
PageB of?
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, 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]" for over 70 years. (Bus. &
Prof. Code Sec. 17200.) Consumer protection regarding country
of origin labeling is no less a matter of fundamental public
policy. Since 1961, California has expressly required that
businesses meet certain standards before they can claim that
their products are "Made in U.S.A." 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 the law as requiring that the component parts of a
product be entirely or substantially made in the United States
in order for a "Made in 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 U.S.A." law not only protects consumers
against false or misleading advertising, but also protects
domestic businesses and the market value of the "Made in
America" label by ensuring that companies cannot gain a
competitive advantage through false or misleading advertising.
The value of a "Made in America" label in the manufacturing
sector is substantial, as demonstrated by the fact that
California's largest corporation, Apple Inc., recently shifted
production of its Mac Pro personal computer line to the United
States as part of a "$100 million 'made in the USA' push."
(Burrows, Apple Kicks Off "Made in USA" Push with Mac Pro (Dec.
18, 2013) The San Francisco Chronicle
(as of January 4, 2014).)
Announcing the company's shift to domestic production, Chief
Executive Officer Tim Cook said "[w]e don't want to just
assemble the Mac Pro here, we want to make the whole thing here.
This is a big deal." (Ibid.) Apple's decision reflects the
market reality that products advertised or labeled as "Made in
SB 661 (Hill)
PageC of?
U.S.A." have a decisive marketplace advantage over their foreign
counterparts. Indeed, an April 2013 Gallup poll found that 45
percent of Americans surveyed had made a recent special effort
to buy products that were made in the U.S.A., and that 64
percent of those surveyed would pay more to buy an American-made
product than a similar product made in other countries. (Jones,
Patriotism, Jobs Primary Motivations for 'Buying American' (Apr.
30, 2013) Gallup Economy <
http://www.gallup.com/poll/162110/patriotismjobs-primary-motivati
ons-buying-american.aspx> (as of January 5, 2014).)
This bill would provide that merchandise made, manufactured or
produced in the United States that has an article, unit, or part
from outside of the United States may be labeled and sold in
California as "Made in U.S.A." or "Made in America" if the
following requirements are met: (1) the manufacturer of the
merchandise certifies that it can neither produce the article,
unit, or part within the United States nor obtain the article,
unit, or part of the merchandise from a domestic source; (2) the
manufacturer's determination that the article, unit, or part
cannot be produced or obtained within the United States from a
domestic source is not based on the cost of the article, unit,
or part; and (3) the article, unit, or part of the merchandise
obtained from outside the United States constitutes only a
negligible part of the final manufactured product.
This bill is similar to AB 890 (Jones, 2013), which failed
passage in this Committee on a vote of 2-5. This bill is also
similar to AB 858 (Jones, 2012), which failed passage in this
Committee on a vote of 2-3.
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. (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.
SB 661 (Hill)
PageD of?
(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. (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. Sec. 45.)
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. Sec. 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, merchandise made, manufactured or
produced in the United States that has an article, unit, or part
from outside of the United States may be labeled and sold in
California as "Made in U.S.A." or "Made in America" if both of
the following apply:
The manufacturer of the merchandise certifies that it can
neither produce the article, unit, or part within the United
States nor obtain the article, unit, or part of the
merchandise from a domestic source.
The article, unit, or part of the merchandise obtained from
outside the United States constitutes only a negligible part
SB 661 (Hill)
PageE of?
of the final manufactured product.
This bill would also specify that a manufacturer's determination
that an article, unit, or part of the merchandise cannot be
made, manufactured, produced, or obtained within the United
States from a domestic source shall not be based on the cost of
the article, unit, or part.
COMMENT
1. Stated need for the bill
The author writes:
California is the only state in the country that establishes a
100 percent threshold [for employing a "Made in U.S.A."
label]. All 49 other states and the federal government use
the more flexible "all or virtually all" standard for
determining when a product is eligible to be labeled as "Made
in USA."
SB 661 updates California's 50-year-old "Made in USA" labeling
standard by clarifying that a manufacturer may label a product
as "Made in the USA" if a part, which constitutes only a
negligible part of the final manufactured product, is
physically not available domestically. The determination that
the negligible part cannot be obtained [within] the U.S.
cannot be based solely on the cost of the part.
. . .
The term "negligible" is intended to provide flexibility to
manufacturers who cannot obtain minor parts domestically. The
FTC also uses the term "negligible" for their standard. Their
Enforcement Policy Statement does not set a particular point
of reference for the term "negligible." Instead, a
case-by-case analysis is used that includes the review of a
number of factors, including the percentage of US vs. foreign
costs and how far back in the manufacturing chain the foreign
content is.
2. Bill would adopt a weaker standard for "Made in U.S.A."
claims
Since 1961, California law has prohibited products from being
sold as "Made in U.S.A." or "Made in America" when the product,
SB 661 (Hill)
PageF of?
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 manufacturers whose merchandise is made,
manufactured or produced in the United States but has an
article, unit, or part from outside of the United States to
nonetheless label and sell their merchandise in California as
"Made in U.S.A." or "Made in America" if, among other things,
the article, unit, or part of the merchandise obtained from
outside the United States constitutes only a "negligible" part
of the final manufactured product. The bill, however, does not
define the word "negligible," which has led to some confusion
among stakeholders as to when a product with foreign content may
lawfully be labeled "Made in America."<1> "Negligible,"
according to Merriam Webster's Dictionary, means "so small or
unimportant or of so little consequence as to warrant little or
no attention; trifling." The author, in contrast, suggests that
the definition of "negligible" could be clarified "by adding the
phrase 'of up to no more than 10 [percent] of the final
manufactured product,' or a variation thereof." The substantial
difference between these two understandings of the word
"negligible" - a trifling amount versus up to 10 percent of the
final product - reflects the difficulty inherent in defining a
relative term that is susceptible of many interpretations. Just
as with the relative term "valuable," the quantity of foreign
content "which is considered [negligible] by one court or jury
might not be considered so by another." (U.S. v. Fabro, Inc.,
206 F.Supp. 523, 526 (M.D. Ga. 1962).) The same can be said for
manufacturers and consumers, who might also differ over what
they consider to be "negligible" foreign content in a particular
product.
Additionally, the bill does not clearly indicate whether the
"negligible" foreign content restriction applies only to
articles, units, or parts measured on an individual component
basis, or whether it also applies to the aggregate sum of
foreign content present in a final manufactured product. One
can imagine that a product may contain several components each
with "negligible" foreign content when viewed individually as
part of a larger whole, but whose aggregate foreign content
taken together crosses the threshold of "negligibility." Could
---------------------------
<1> Staff notes that the bill would also create a potentially
ambiguous "certification" standard for determining when a
component of a manufactured product cannot be produced or
obtained domestically.
SB 661 (Hill)
PageG of?
such a product lawfully bear a "Made in America" label under
this bill?
Without further delineating and restricting the permissible
threshold of "negligible" foreign content, the practical effect
of this bill may be to permit products to be labeled as "Made in
America" even though they contain appreciable foreign content.
Put another way, this bill would permit products sold in
California to be labeled as "Made in America" when, in fact,
that statement is not true.
The policy question raised by this bill is whether it is
appropriate to lower California's standard for labeling products
as "Made in U.S.A." to permit manufacturers whose products
contain foreign content to enjoy the economic benefits of the
label, but which could result in less truthful and less accurate
product labels. 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 weaken California law in a way that allows consumers
to be misled by the "Made in U.S.A." label.
Indeed, depending on how the term "negligible" is interpreted,
the new standard set by this bill may end up providing less
protection than (and thereby contravene) federal labeling laws.
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).) If a broader
interpretation of the word "negligible" is embraced, this bill
may be read in such a way as to create a foreign content safe
SB 661 (Hill)
PageH of?
harbor in California law which, depending on the product at
issue, could exceed the amount of foreign content permissible
under the FTC's "all or virtually all" standard.
DOES AMBIGUITY IN THE DEFINITION OF NEGLIGIBLE AUTHORIZE THE USE
OF MISLEADING LABELS?
3. Ensuring consumers get the benefit of their bargain and
assuring consumer confidence
California's "Made in U.S.A." law, along with California's other
strong statutes on false advertising and misrepresentation, are
intended to protect both consumers and competitors in the
marketplace. Collectively, these statutes promote fair
competition and help to ensure that consumers have the
information that they need to make informed purchasing
decisions. The key to ensuring that consumers are able to make
informed purchasing decisions and get the benefit of their
bargain-i.e. get what they pay for-is to make sure that product
labels are accurate and truthful, including labels stating that
a product is "Made in U.S.A."
Many consumers have indicated that whether or not a product is
American-made is important to them, and market research
indicates that they are willing to pay more for a product if
they know that it is made in the United States. These consumer
sentiments came to light when, in 1997, the FTC considered
revising its "Guides for the Use of U.S. Origin Claims" in a way
that would have weakened the federal standard. Overwhelmingly,
consumers opposed the proposed revisions and "generally
supported an 'all of virtually all' standard or advocated a
specific percentage, usually 90 percent or, more often, 100
percent." (Federal Trade Commission, Enforcement Policy
Statement on U.S. Origin Claims, 62 Fed. Reg. 63756, 63758 (Dec.
2, 1997).) The FTC noted that "[s]everal commenters asserted
that changing the current standard would confuse consumers who
wish to buy American products, leaving them unable to determine
whether a product was truly made in the United States." (Ibid.)
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. (Ibid.)
SB 661 (Hill)
PageI of?
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. (Ibid.)
In January 2011, the California Supreme Court further described
the importance of truthful and accurate claims of domestic
origin, stating:
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.)
This bill seeks to expand the use of the "Made in U.S.A." label
by specifically allowing the label to be used on products with
foreign-made components, so long as each foreign component
constitutes only a negligible part of the final manufactured
product. The policy question 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
SB 661 (Hill)
PageJ of?
informed decisions. In opposition to the bill, the Consumer
Federation of California (CFC) writes:
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 would be to allow
manufacturers to mislead consumers by claiming that a product is
"Made in America" when that statement is not entirely true.
SHOULD MANUFACTURERS BE PERMITTED TO USE INACCURATE COUNTRY OF
ORIGIN LABELS ON THEIR PRODUCTS?
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
Several proponents of SB 661 argue that existing California law
disincentivizes companies from making their products in the
United States because California's domestic origin labeling
standard is so strict. For example, the author writes:
Over 50 years [after the enactment of California's "Made in
America" statute, the law] is having the reverse impact of
what was intended: it's penalizing California companies who
are making products consisting of nearly all US components.
Today's global economy is different than the economy in
1961. Modern companies rely on components from around the
world. California companies shouldn't be penalized if
almost all of their products' components are from US
sources but a small percentage of the product is from
foreign sources due to lack of availability in the U.S.
Despite these assertions, staff notes that because the "Made in
U.S.A." label can have such marketing significance, existing law
SB 661 (Hill)
PageK of?
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:"
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 permit companies who sell their goods
in California to use a certain quantity of foreign-made
components in their products and still derive the benefits of a
"Made in U.S.A." label, the bill arguably reduces current market
incentives for manufacturers to find a way to source 100 percent
of their components in the United States. By reducing these
existing market incentives, this bill would likely bring about
an overall increase in the percentage of foreign labor or
foreign material contained in products labeled "Made in
America."
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 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
SB 661 (Hill)
PageL of?
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 ensuring that
businesses play on a level playing field. This bill would
potentially upend that playing field, placing businesses that
have found ways to make 100 percent of a product in the United
States at a competitive disadvantage with a competitor who
outsources a certain quantity of their product's components.
Furthermore, as noted in Comment 2, this bill is potentially
more confusing and deceptive for businesses that rely on the new
California standard because products that adhere to the new
standard may nonetheless be held in violation of the federal
standard. Although the author argues that this bill is
intended, in part, to provide uniformity for companies selling
products in all 50 states, the bill would still create a
different standard from that of the FTC, leading to potential
conflicts between the two standards, and to difficulty for
manufacturers who sell "Made in America" products both within
and outside of California.
Finally, it should be noted this bill would not give California
businesses any more of a competitive advantage or disadvantage
based on product labeling than they currently receive under
existing law. California's labeling laws create a level playing
field for all manufacturers who sell goods in this state, and
impose no more of a burden on manufacturers who choose to locate
in California than on those who choose to locate in another
state. As the Consumer Federation of California, in opposition,
states:
[The law] applies to every product "offered for sale" in
our state, regardless of the location where the product was
manufactured. The law establishes a level playing field
for all domestic manufacturers. 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
SB 661 (Hill)
PageM of?
The author asserts that the need for this bill arises, in part,
because a business may manufacture nearly its entire product in
the United States but if one component of that product is made
outside of the United States, California law would prohibit use
of the "Made in U.S.A." label. Although the author correctly
asserts that a product not meeting California's high standard
for being labeled as "Made in U.S.A." could be required to adopt
separate labeling for units sold in the state, it is important
to note that there is nothing in existing law which would
preclude businesses from employing a truthful qualified claim
for products that contain foreign parts. For example, labels
that truthfully state "90 percent Made in the U.S.A.,"
"Assembled in the U.S.A.," "Assembled in California," "Designed
in California," or "Assembled in U.S.A. with 85 percent U.S.A.
content" would all be permissible under California law.
California's "Made in America" statute only prohibits use of the
pure "Made in U.S.A." label when the product at issue is not
truly made in the United States.
Qualified claims of domestic origin 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 of domestic origin
would arguably satisfy both California and federal law, allowing
manufacturers who use them to uniformly label products offered
for sale in all 50 states.
7. 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
discretion and independence of the Judicial branch. The
Committee has received notice of several lawsuits against
various out-of-state defendants that allegedly falsely labeled
products for sale in California as "Made in U.S.A." in violation
of existing state law. This bill does not specify how it would
impact pending litigation.
SB 661 (Hill)
PageN of?
Support : 4S Industries, Inc.; California Asian Pacific Chamber
of Commerce; California Manufacturers and Technology
Association; California Retailers Association; California Small
Business Association; Made in the USA Foundation; National
Federation of Independent Business; Star Milling Co.
Opposition : Consumer Federation of California (unless amended);
California Labor Federation; California Teamsters Public Affairs
Council; San Mateo County Central Labor Council; United Food and
Commercial Workers Union, Western States Council
HISTORY
Source : Author
Related Pending Legislation : None Known
Prior Legislation :
AB 890 (Jones, 2013) would have provided that 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 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 failed passage out of the Senate
Judiciary Committee on a 2-5 vote.
AB 858 (Jones, 2012) would have amended California's "Made in
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
on a 2-3 vote.
ABX6 8 (Beall, 2010) which was identical to AB 858, was
introduced in the Sixth Extraordinary Session but was never
SB 661 (Hill)
PageO of?
referred to a policy 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.
**************