The PACK Act amends the Federal Trade Commission Act to regulate on-package claims that a product’s packaging is recyclable, compostable, or reusable. It outlaws deceptive claims, requires clear qualifying language when recycling or composting isn’t widely available, demands accredited third‑party certification for such claims, and restricts certain resin identification markings.
Practically, the bill centralizes enforcement at the FTC (treating violations as unfair or deceptive acts), requires the Commission to issue nonbinding compliance guidance within two years, and preempts state laws that are not identical. The measure is aimed at reducing greenwashing while creating a single national framework and an ISO-based accreditation path for certifiers — with concrete thresholds and definitions that will drive compliance choices by manufacturers, certifiers, and waste managers.
At a Glance
What It Does
Prohibits deceptive recyclable/compostable/reusable claims on consumer packaging, mandates accredited third‑party certification using ISO standards, requires qualified disclosures when collection or composting infrastructure is lacking, and bans the chasing-arrows resin code on packaging that is ineligible for those claims.
Who It Affects
Consumer-product manufacturers, packagers, and brand owners who label packaging; third‑party certifiers and accreditation bodies seeking new ISO-driven work; waste collection and composting operators whose infrastructure determines claim qualifications; and state regulators due to the bill’s preemption clause.
Why It Matters
The bill replaces a patchwork of state rules and voluntary industry guidance with a federal, standards-based compliance path tied to ISO accreditation and FTC enforcement. It creates both a market for accredited certifiers and a compliance risk for companies that continue to make unqualified environmental claims.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The PACK Act creates a single federal standard for three types of environmental packaging claims: recyclable, compostable, and reusable. For each claim category the bill says a seller may not state the claim unless it’s true and, in many cases, unless the seller meets additional proof or disclosure requirements designed to prevent consumer confusion.
The law targets on-package messaging — words, symbols, or electronic links — and excludes basic disposal instructions from the definition of a claim.
On recyclable claims the bill does two notable things: it requires sellers to qualify a generic “recyclable” statement by disclosing either the percentage of consumers or communities with access to recycling for that package or a graduated qualification tied to availability; and it creates an exemption from that qualification when at least 60% of consumers have access to recycling and the whole package (aside from minor incidental parts) is recyclable. The bill also specifies situations that are not “recyclable” — for example, when a material’s shape or a mixed component prevents acceptance by recycling programs.For compostable claims the bill requires competent, reliable scientific evidence and a clear, prominent qualification if the material won’t break down safely or in a timely way in a home compost, if municipal or institutional composting is not widely available, or if the claim would otherwise mislead about landfill performance.
Reusable claims must be backed by a practical means for reuse — either a collection-and-reuse system or a consumer product sold to enable reuse of the original package.Crucially, the PACK Act makes third‑party certification mandatory: manufacturers must use certification bodies that have been accredited by an accreditation body that meets specified ISO requirements. The FTC is directed to issue nonbinding guidance within two years to help firms comply, but the bill bars the FTC from adopting binding rules under its usual rulemaking authority.
It also instructs the FTC to work with the EPA and to stand up an advisory council of industry and technical experts within one year. Finally, the law preempts state laws that are not identical to its requirements, centralizing enforcement and legal standards at the federal level.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires accredited third‑party certification for any compostable, recyclable, or reusable packaging claim and ties accreditation standards to ISO/IEC 17065 (for certifiers) and ISO/IEC 17011 (for accreditation bodies).
A recyclable claim must be qualified unless a ‘substantial majority’ (defined as 60% or more) of consumers have access to recycling and the entire package (excluding minor incidental components) is recyclable.
The FTC must issue compliance guidance within two years but the bill expressly prohibits the Commission from issuing binding rules or regulations under its rulemaking authority for these claims.
Packaging that is ineligible to bear a recyclable, compostable, or reusable claim may not display a resin identification code surrounded by the three chasing-arrows symbol; an equilateral-triangle code consistent with ASTM D7611/D7611M–19 is allowed.
The bill preempts state and local laws on these packaging claims unless those laws are identical to the federal requirements, shifting oversight and legal challenges to the federal level.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Provides the act’s common name: the Packaging and Claims Knowledge Act of 2025 (PACK Act). This is procedural but establishes the bill’s branding for subsequent legal references.
Recyclable claims: truthfulness, qualifiers, and availability exemption
Sets the basic rule that packaging cannot be labeled 'recyclable' unless it actually is recyclable in practice. It requires firms to include a clear, prominent qualification about program availability — either the percentage of consumers/communities with access to recycling for that package or a varying-strength qualification — unless the package meets an availability exemption (60%+ access and whole-package recyclability). The practical result: manufacturers must audit actual acceptance in local programs or use the exemption, and labeling choices will depend on the distribution footprint and material acceptance.
Compostable and reusable claims: evidence and means-for-reuse
For compostable claims the bill requires competent, reliable scientific evidence and mandates prominent qualifications when home composting isn’t sufficient, municipal composting is not widely available, or the claim would mislead about landfill outcomes. Reusable claims require that companies provide a means to reuse the package — either by operating or contracting a collection-and-reuse system or by selling a companion product that enables reuse. Together these provisions force makers to connect claims to real end-of-life infrastructure or to concrete reuse systems.
Symbol and certification controls
Prohibits use of the chasing-arrows resin identification symbol on packaging that isn’t eligible to bear recyclable/compostable/reusable claims, though allows an ASTM-consistent equilateral-triangle code. It also makes third‑party certification mandatory and requires accreditation of those certifiers by bodies meeting ISO/IEC 17011. This shifts technical verification to accredited third parties and limits self-attestation by brand owners, creating a market for accredited certifiers and a gatekeeping role for accreditation bodies.
FTC guidance, EPA coordination, and advisory council
Directs the FTC to issue guidance within two years describing how to comply, including accreditation criteria and material-type considerations, but bars the FTC from issuing binding rules under section 6(g). The Commission must consult the EPA and form an advisory council of industry and technical experts within one year. Practically, compliance rules will evolve through guidance and stakeholder input rather than formal rulemaking, leaving some interpretive discretion to the FTC and to market actors.
Enforcement, preemption, and definitions
Treats violations as unfair or deceptive acts under the FTC Act, so the FTC enforces the new standards using its existing authorities and penalties; however, the FTC may not compel firms to make environmental claims. The bill preempts state and local laws that are not identical. The definitions section provides operative meanings (e.g., 'substantial majority' = 60%, 'consumer product', and technical standards like ASTM and ISO references) that will govern interpretation and litigation.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Consumer-packaged goods manufacturers that already use widely accepted recyclable/compostable/reusable packaging — gain clearer, nationally uniform rules and reduced risk of state-by-state enforcement mismatches.
- Accredited third‑party certification bodies and accreditation organizations — receive new, mandatory market demand for ISO-aligned certification and accreditation services.
- Consumers seeking reliable environmental information — benefit from standardized qualifiers, limits on misleading symbols, and an expectation of independent certification that reduces greenwashing.
- Large waste‑management and composting operators — benefit from clearer signaling of which materials to accept and from the incentive for manufacturers to match packaging designs to existing infrastructure.
Who Bears the Cost
- Mid-sized and small brand owners and packagers — face new compliance costs (testing, certifications, label redesigns) and administrative burdens to document availability across their distribution footprint.
- Third‑party certifiers that do not meet ISO/IEC 17065 or accreditation body requirements — will need investment to upgrade procedures and achieve accreditation or lose eligibility to certify claims.
- State and local governments — lose regulatory flexibility because the bill preempts nonidentical local standards and may need to adjust enforcement and procurement policies to the federal baseline.
- Retailers and distributors with national footprints — must coordinate labeling and product selection decisions in response to uniform federal criteria, which may shift sourcing and shelf‑space economics.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between establishing a single, evidence‑based national standard that reduces consumer confusion and greenwashing, and preserving local flexibility to push more ambitious environmental policy or to respond to region‑specific waste infrastructure — a trade‑off that forces firms and regulators to choose between uniformity and localized environmental ambition.
The bill leans heavily on standardized third‑party certification and ISO accreditation to police claims, but that dependence raises practical implementation challenges. Accreditation and certification are resource‑intensive; qualifying every packaging SKU by geography (to determine whether 60% access exists) will be data‑heavy and costly.
Small brands that rely on flexible labeling or regional materials may struggle to comply. The statute requires FTC guidance within two years, yet simultaneously prohibits the FTC from issuing binding rules — leaving firms to navigate mandatory certification requirements without the benefit of enforceable regulatory detail.
That creates a period of regulatory uncertainty where private certifiers and market norms will shape compliance ahead of comprehensive federal interpretation.
Preemption is another significant tension. The Act creates a national floor for claims but forbids states from enforcing nonidentical requirements.
States that have adopted stricter or different labeling standards will face a binary choice: conform to the federal regime or see their laws displaced. This reduces regulatory fragmentation but also removes a tool states might use to pursue more ambitious waste policy.
Finally, several key terms (for example, what constitutes a 'minor incidental component' or what it means for a package to be 'accepted' by recycling programs) will invite litigation and agency interpretation, because real-world recycling and composting systems vary widely and evolve over time.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.