The 2025 legislative session brought a mix of victories and complex new mandates for graphics communications businesses. In a recent webinar, Print Creative Alliance’s legal advocate, RJ Cervantes of Resilient Advocacy, Inc., and HR expert Susan Levi shared the latest updates relevant to our members. Here’s an overview of what’s changing this year and what to expect from the regulatory landscape in the year ahead.
New requirements effective January 1, 2026
Several new laws took place at the start of the year:
Minimum wage increase: The statewide minimum wage is increasing to $16.90 per hour.
SB 294: Workplace Know Your Rights Act: Employers must provide a stand-alone annual written notice to employees regarding workers’ compensation, immigration inspections, and organizing rights. The state has released a template for this notice that companies can use.
SB 513: Personnel File Access: This law expands the types of records employees may inspect. Files must now include education and training records. These records must detail the training provider, duration, date, and core competencies covered.
Defeated legislation and future risks
In positive news, several bills that would have significantly increased the cost and complexity of doing business were stopped this year. However, many of these issues are expected to return in future sessions.
SB 7: AI in Employment (Vetoed): This bill sought to regulate Automated Decision Systems (ADS) used in hiring and firing. It would have prohibited the use of screening tools that automatically filter applicants based on specific criteria. Governor Newsom vetoed the bill following extensive advocacy from the business community.
SB 310: Private Right of Action (PAGA) (Dead): This proposal attempted to roll back the 2024 PAGA reforms. It would have created new pathways for litigation abuse regarding wage and hour penalties.
SB 464: Pay Data Publication (Amended): Originally, this bill intended to publicly list company pay data on a state website to highlight inequities. Publishing the data without context or without consideration for the potential nuances that could be inherent in each individual business could have created unnecessary legal and reputational risks. Following industry pushback, amendments removed the public “shaming” provision.
SB 573: Corporate Tax Increase (Failed): This bill proposed more than doubling the corporate tax rate to address the state budget shortfall. While it did not pass, it remains a likely topic for future budget discussions.
SB 682: PFAS Ban (Vetoed): This would have created a de facto ban on products containing trace amounts of PFAS. There are numerous questions about the definition of “intentionally added” versus trace elements found in paper, a key concern for the printing and packaging industry.
AB 914 Massive Expansion of CARB (Dead): This bill sought to grant the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and potentially local air districts broad authority to assess unlimited fees and unlimited regulatory scope onto businesses.
AB 1331: Regulatory Expansion (Dead): This would have banned the use of surveillance technology in the workplace, including security cameras, cybersecurity systems, and anti-theft devices. These are often used for worker safety, so it was important to stop from passing, but will probably be on the menu in 2026.
Understanding the SB 54 packaging mandate
The Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act (SB 54) continues to evolve. While the Newsom administration is currently refining the regulations, the core requirements involve producers taking financial responsibility for the lifecycle of their packaging. By shifting the cost of end-of-life disposal to the industry, the state aims to meet specific recycling rates and source reduction standards over the coming years.
Here’s where the law stands as of publication:
- It creates new standards for recycling rates with specific timeframes.
- It implements source reduction standards, where a package itself has to reduce the amount of plastic associated with that package by certain metrics over time.
- Producers of packaging must also join what’s called a producer responsibility organization (PRO) and with that comes significant reporting requirements and fees that are assessed on your business and your use of those products. The PRO will use the fees to help build the recycling infrastructure in order for everyone to meet the recycling rates set into law.
Determining who qualifies as a producer is a common point of confusion.
A company qualifies as a producer if it:
- Owns or licenses the brand or trademark under which a packaged good is sold in California;
- If that entity is not in California, the importer or first distributor of the product into the state; or
- If no brand or importer can be identified, the retailer or seller that first offers the packaged good for sale in California.
- Additionally, current statutes do not exempt business-to-business transactions. A printer that packages materials for another company that eventually reaches a retailer may still be viewed as the producer.
If your company only prints or converts packaging materials, such as cartons, boxes, labels, flexible films, etc., and does not own or license the brand, you are not considered a “producer” under SB 54.
Even if a printer is not the official producer, the economic impact is significant. Producers must pay fees based on packaging tonnage. These producers will likely rely on printers to provide precise weight and material data. There is also a strong possibility that brands will look to share the burden of these new fees with their supply chain partners.
Here’s what to do to ensure you’re in compliance:
- Assess your status: Determine if your specific business model triggers producer status.
- Review materials: Audit current packaging to understand weight and material categories.
- Join the PRO: Register with CalRecycle and the Circular Action Alliance if required.
- Client dialogue: Discuss these changes with customers to coordinate reporting and cost expectations.
Anti-trust law development
The California Law Revision Commission (CLRC) is spearheading a significant shift in state antitrust enforcement and developing a new legal standard for “single firm conduct.” This proposal moves beyond regulating “mega-corporations” to include any business that might hold significant market share in a specific geographic area.
A proposed bill scheduled for January 2026 introduces a standard where individual business actions can be deemed harmful to a marketplace. Under this concept, the general public could file suit in county superior courts alleging “bad actor” behavior. For example, if a printing company holds a 50% market share in a specific town or county, that positioning alone could lead to litigation and penalties. The law would view market dominance on a local level with the same scrutiny usually reserved for statewide monopolies.
The draft language highlights two specific areas of concern for the graphics communications industry.
- First, the use of pricing algorithms to determine job quotes could be flagged as an antitrust violation.
- Second, the proposal includes a strict mergers and acquisitions standard. If passed, the Attorney General would have the authority to approve or deny any business sale or purchase valued over $8 million.
This oversight would subject local transitions to a state tribunal. Many owners view antitrust law as a concern only for large corporations like Meta and Google, yet these changes could impact single-person firms and local family businesses.
You don’t have to navigate this on your own
As a member of Print Creative Alliance, you have support in navigating these legal complexities. Our teams are here to help you understand which regulations apply to you and provide resources to keep your company in compliance. We will be issuing updates throughout the year to keep you informed. If you have any questions, reach out to Lou Caron at 323.728.9500, Ext. 274 or lou.caron@printcreative.org or Ian Flynn at 323.728.9500, Ext 501 or ian.flynn@printcreative.org.
