1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |California Changes Its 'Made in the USA' Labeling Standard

California Changes Its 'Made in the USA' Labeling Standard

Client Alert | 3 min read | 10.02.15

Last week California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law a bill that changes the landscape of California's "Made in America" labeling requirements by allowing a product to carry a "Made in America" label even if a small percentage of the product is foreign-made.

Before this change in law, California applied a stringent standard that prohibited use of a "Made in America" label "if any article, unit, or part thereof" was imported. The FTC, however, applied an "all or virtually all" standard that viewed a product in its totality and evaluated the role of each component in the finished product, which meant that a product might qualify for a "Made in America" label even if some of its components were imported. In practice, this meant that, for example, a product with tiny foreign-made screws would have likely met the FTC's "Made in America" labeling standards, but not California's. This inconsistency led to confusion, class actions, and the sense among American manufacturers that "Made in America" labeling was virtually impossible. For more on the challenges of using"Made in America" labels, see our June article.

Under the revised California standard, a product can now be labeled as "Made in America" even if foreign components account for up to 5 percent of the final wholesale value of the product, and that limit increases to 10 percent for products containing components that cannot be sourced or manufactured in the U.S. On this second point, however, the law is explicit that cost cannot be the basis in determining whether a component can be sourced or manufactured in the U.S.

California's revised "Made in America" labeling standard is now more closely aligned with the FTC standard, a much-needed change that will likely bring some relief for many American manufacturers who have long struggled with conflicting and confusing labeling regulations.  

Hopefully, this new legislation will change "Made in America" labeling and enforcement for the better. The challenge going forward under the revised California standard will, of course, be calculating what percentage of a product's wholesale value is foreign components. In a world of simple widgets with a few pre-fabricated components, this calculation could be straightforward. But, when dealing with a complex, interconnected international supply chain for products with dozens of individual and highly-engineered elements, determining whether a "Made in America" label can be applied will still require a thorough analysis.

Other Articles in This Month's Edition:

Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25

Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality

On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument....

View All Insights