RESOURCES | REGULATIONS

Fashion Industry Regulations

What the lack of oversight in garment manufacturing in the U.S. means for consumers

Despite being one of the largest apparel markets in the world, the U.S. lacks meaningful regulations around how clothes are made, leaving environmental impact and labor practices largely unchecked. And while certain rules exist for children’s clothing, many of the most harmful substances used in the fashion industry remain underregulated, if addressed at all. Here’s what parents should know.

1) Where the biggest gaps are:

Unlike in Europe, where laws require brands to disclose more about how and where their products are made, the U.S. fashion industry operates with far fewer checks and balances.

  • No national oversight for labor wages in fashion: There are no federal laws in the U.S. that specifically regulate wages or working conditions for garment workers. In Los Angeles, the country’s largest garment hub, wage theft and unsafe working conditions have been widely documented. Until recently, many workers earned as little as $2-$6/hour under the piece-rate pay system. California became the first state to ban this practice with the Garment Worker Protection Act (SB62) which now requires hourly wages. Most other states offer no such protections.

  • Toxic chemicals aren’t well-regulated—even in kidswear: While the U.S. does have some legal protections for kids’ clothing—such as limits on lead and phthalates—these only apply to certain components, like plasticized trims, and don’t address many of the chemicals children are exposed to through fabric. There are no national restrictions on substances like formaldehyde, PFAs, azo dyes, or flame retardants, which can be harmful with repeated or long-term exposure. Unless a garment is specifically marketed as stain- or water-resistant, brands aren’t required to test for or disclose those chemicals, leaving parents with little visibility into what’s actually in their kids’ clothes.

  • No supply chain transparency requirements: The U.S. doesn’t requre brands to disclose where or how their garments are made. There are no mandatory public reporting standards for factory locations, wage policies, or sourcing practices—so any transparency a brand offers is entirely voluntary.

What Oversight Looks Like Elsewhere:

European Union

  • The EU’s REACH regulation restricts over 2,000 hazardous substances in textiles (including many banned azo dyes, formaldehyde, heavy metals, and flame retardants) and requires suppliers to communicate safety information throughout the supply chain. The EU Strategy for Sustainable and Circular Textiles is now pushing for labeling, traceability, and minimum traceability requirements.

  • In addition to the following EU regulations, France has banned the destruction of unsold clothing. Under the Anti-Waste and Circular Economy Law passed in 2020, it’s illegal for fashion brands and retailers to burn, shred, or destroy unsold or returned clothing. Instead, these items must be reused, donated, or recycled. The textile-specific provisions took full effect in January 2022 as part of a broader national effort to reduce overproduction and promote circularity.

  • Germany has strengthened its environmental oversight through national policies like mandatory Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR). Under EPR, brands must take responsibility for the full life cycle of their products, including collection and recycling of textile waste. Germany also enforces strict packaging waste laws and is piloting textile collection systems aimed at boosting circularity.

    Scandinavia

    Countries like Sweden and Denmark go beyond EU minimums, enforcing stricter bans on certain chemicals in children’s textiles and offering public access to chemical safety data. Sweden’s Chemicals Agency is particularly active in testing and reporting non-compliant children’s clothing.

UK

  • Post-Brexit, the UK retained many of the EU’s chemical bans and added new frameworks for sustainable product regulation and extended producer responsibility.

  • Labor transparency is also gaining traction, though implementation varies.

  • Australia & New Zealand

    Both countries follow precautionary principles for chemical regulation, and Australia’s Modern Slavery Act mandates public reporting on forced labor risks. However, garment-specific legislation remains limited.


Japan

  • In 2022, Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry (METI) released a decade-long plan to promote fiber-to-fiber recycling and water-free dyeing technologies—critical innovations aimed at cutting waste and water use in a major textile economy.

  • The bluesign certification is phasing out all intentionally added PFAs from textiles by 2026.

  • However, reports have highlighted widespread worker exploitation under the country’s “Technical Intern Training Program,” including forced overtime, health risks from dye exposure, and inadequate legal protections for foreign garment workers.

Sources:

SB62 Californial Garment Worker Protection Act

CPSC - CPSIA chemical limits

NIH - Formaldehyde Exposure Study