The European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG) has opened a 100-day consultation between 23 July and 31 October 2026 on the draft ESRS that apply to certain non-EU companies reporting under CSRD. This is relevant if you are, for example a UK, US or Japanese company with a large presence in the EU, whatever sector you operate in.
This exposure draft sets out what type of sustainability information certain non-EU undertakings need to disclose in accordance with Article 40a of the Accounting Directive – to be known as ESRS-40a. The CSRD for these companies will be known as the ‘ESRS-40a Sustainability Report’.
Our firm published this prior client alert to help companies prepare for California’s SB 343, known as the “Truth in Recycling Law,” which is set to become effective on October 4, 2026. However, the law was recently challenged in the US District Court for the Southern District of California by a coalition that includes the Flexible Packaging Association and the American Forest & Paper Association, and earlier this week on July 14, 2026, that court issued a preliminary injunction preventing enforcement of SB 343 pending further proceedings in litigation. Read the full update here.
On June 23, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued a significant decision in Garfield County, Utah v. Trump, Nos. 23-4106 & 23-4107, holding that federal courts may review—and that sovereign immunity does not necessarily bar—challenges to a President’s designation of national monuments under the Antiquities Act. While the court stopped short of deciding whether President Biden’s expansions of the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments actually exceeded statutory limits, it vacated the district court’s dismissal and remanded for the district court to interpret the Act’s substantive limits in the first instance. The decision sets up what could become the first judicial invalidation of a national monument proclamation in the statute’s 120-year history, and it deepens an emerging body of appellate authority subjecting presidential monument designations to ultra vires review.
On July 13, 2026, before the district court took up the remanded issues, President Trump issued two proclamations, one shrinking the Bears Ears monument from approximately 1.36 million acres to approximately 121,000 acres and the second shrinking Grand Staircase-Escalante monument from approximately 1.87 million acres to approximately 182,000 acres. The prior proclamations issued by President Obama, Proclamation 9558, and by President Biden, Proclamation 10285, established the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Commission (BEC) to give Tribal Nations a formal role in the monument’s management, was also ordered terminated by President Trump. The July 13 proclamations open the removed lands to the multiple use public land laws, including US Forest Service sales, mineral entry under the mining law, and mineral and geothermal leasing under the mineral leasing laws.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) recently announced a series of informal public hearings regarding proposed deregulatory actions affecting workplace safety and health standards. The hearings follow proposed rulemakings published in the Federal Register on July 1, 2025 and April 6, 2026.
The proposed actions would impact a broad range of OSHA regulations, including requirements governing 16 chemical substances, respiratory protection, medical evaluations, walking-working surfaces, and color coding for marking physical hazards.
The informal public hearings will be conducted virtually beginning August 19, 2026 and will continue on subsequent weekdays.
The public comment period as well as registration for individuals or organizations wishing to testify, submit documentary evidence, or question witnesses is now closed. The hearings, however, will provide non-participating employers, industry groups, labor organizations, safety professionals, and other interested parties with an opportunity to listen to testimony and perspectives regarding the proposals. OSHA has emphasized that stakeholder participation is critical to ensure the agency considers the best available evidence as it evaluates potential deregulatory actions.
Fever-Tree has recently launched a legal challenge against the Environment Agency (EA) over its application of the waste disposal fees under the Packaging Extended Producer Responsibility (pEPR) scheme to their glass bottles supplied to pubs, bars and restaurants.
Background
The pEPR scheme has been implemented under the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging and Packaging Waste) Regulations 2024 (Regulations) and has been phased in across the UK since April 2025. It is part of the UK’s wider environmental strategy to reduce waste and support a more circular economy by shifting the full cost of managing household packaging waste from taxpayers to the companies that produce and place packaging on the market that constitute primary or shipment packaging.
Manufacturers and distributors around the country are gearing up to comply with Minnesota’s Amara’s Law, which targets the use of intentionally added perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in consumer products. The first stage of Amara’s Law took effect in 2025 when eleven categories of new products sold in Minnesota, such as carpets, cookware, dental floss, and menstrual products, were required to be made without PFAS. The goal of the law is to ultimately phase out all non-essential uses of PFAS due to their persistence in the environment and concerns with potential associated environmental and health risks.
As part of its initiative to drive transparency around PFAS use, Amara’s Law introduced several reporting requirements, which were outlined by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) in December 2025. Compared to the federal PFAS reporting program administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), Minnesota’s program is generally viewed as a stricter and more compliance-heavy program.
The environmental permitting landscape for data centers is shifting rapidly, with federal and state regulators often pulling in opposite directions. The Trump Administration has moved to accelerate federal environmental review and to open federal lands for data center siting. States and localities have responded by tightening scrutiny of the energy, water, and land use impacts of these facilities. This post summarizes the relevant permitting framework, the key federal and state developments, and what comes next.
Environmental Permitting Overview:
Large-scale data center projects typically require overlapping federal, state, and local environmental authorizations, with the precise mix turning on site location, project design, and affected resources.
Federal requirements may include National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review for projects involving federal action; Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 consultation for projects affecting listed species or critical habitat; National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) coverage for cooling water, stormwater, and process wastewater discharges; Section 404 Clean Water Act (CWA) permits (with Section 401 certification) for discharges of dredged or fill material; Prevention of Significant Deterioration or Nonattainment New Source Review preconstruction permits and Title V operating permits for major air sources; and Section 106 National Historic Preservation Act review where applicable.
State requirements commonly include air, water withdrawal, industrial wastewater, stormwater, and hazardous waste permits, along with review under “little NEPA” statutes such as the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Local approvals typically include zoning, conditional use, building, noise, traffic, and grading permits.
If you follow extended producer responsibility (EPR) litigation, your inbox has been full of updates about Oregon. For good reason: the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW) filed suit in federal court in July 2025 challenging the constitutionality of Oregon’s Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act, secured a preliminary injunction in February 2026, and has a trial date set for July. That’s high drama with potential real ramifications (although the court did rule that the injunction only covered entities who were members of NAW when the injunction issued and the court has denied at least one motion by other groups to intervene in the lawsuit as plaintiffs). The recent release of lists of compliant and non-compliant entities was also quite unexpected.
While everyone is focused on the Pacific Northwest, a second packaging EPR lawsuit quietly landed in Colorado, one of the other states with more advanced EPR programs. It deserves serious attention from manufacturers and distributors operating anywhere in the country.
Regulation of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in consumer products continues to accelerate across the United States at the state level. In addition to phase-outs and bans on certain consumer products containing PFAS, state regulators are turning to labeling requirements as a tool to drive transparency and liability.
One notable recent development comes from New Mexico. The New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) formally proposed a rule to require consumer-facing labels on products containing intentionally added PFAS. On March 23, the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board (NMEIB) officially approved the rule, making New Mexico the first state to require such labels on all products containing PFAS, even if those products are currently exempt from reporting/disclosure obligations to the state. The labeling requirements will go into effect January 1, 2027.
Although the precise label is not yet finalized, the required label is expected to consist of an Erlenmeyer flask image containing the word “PFAS.” For products other than complex durable goods, this label will be required to appear on the product and in some cases the packaging as well. For complex durable goods (defined to include products with a useful life of at least five years and composed of at least 100 components) the label need not appear on the product but must be included in a consumer-facing product specification sheet and operation and maintenance manual.
