Existing law prohibits certain stores from providing a single-use carryout bag to a customer at the point of sale and prohibits full-service restaurants from providing single-use plastic straws to consumers unless requested by the consumer.

This bill would, on and after January 1, 2026, require a business, as defined, that accepts payment through cash, credit, or debit transactions, subject to certain exceptions, to provide a consumer with the option to receive or not receive a proof of purchase. On and after January 1, 2026, the bill would prohibit a business from printing a paper proof of purchase if the consumer opts to not receive a proof of purchase, unless otherwise required by state or federal law. The bill would also exempt a business from the requirement to provide the consumer with an option to not receive a proof of purchase if a consumer voluntarily opts in to receive a proof of purchase through the rules of an association, warehouse, or other club to which the consumer belongs. The bill would prohibit, on and after January 1, 2024, a paper proof of purchase provided to a consumer by a business from containing bisphenol A, and, on and after January 1, 2025, from containing any bisphenols. The bill would specify that the first and 2nd violations of the requirements of the bill would result in a notice of violation and any subsequent a violation would be punishable by a civil penalty of $25 $100 for each day the business is in violation, but not to exceed an annual total of $300. $3,000. The bill would authorize the Attorney General, a county counsel, a district attorney, or a city attorney to enforce those provisions.

Existing law prohibits certain stores from providing a single-use carryout bag to a customer at the point of sale and prohibits full-service restaurants from providing single-use plastic straws to consumers unless requested by the consumer.

This bill would, on and after January 1, 2025, 2026, require a business, as defined, that accepts payment through cash, credit, or debit transactions, subject to certain exceptions, to provide a consumer with certain options related to the receipt of the consumers proof of purchase and the option to receive or not receive a proof of purchase. On and after January 1, 2026, the bill would prohibit a business from printing a paper proof of purchase if the consumer opts to not receive a proof of purchase, unless otherwise required by state or federal law. The bill would not require the proof of purchase to be provided in electronic form if the business is incapable of sending an electronic proof of purchase due to unexpected technical difficulties. The bill would also exempt a business from the requirement to provide the consumer with an option to not receive a proof of purchase if a consumer voluntarily opts in to receive a proof of purchase through the rules of an association, warehouse, or other club to which the consumer belongs. The bill would prohibit, on and after January 1, 2024, a paper proof of purchase provided to a consumer by a business from containing bisphenol A, and, on and after January 1, 2025, from containing any bisphenols. The bill would also prohibit a paper proof of purchase provided to a consumer by a business from including items not essential to the transaction, including, but not limited to, coupons or advertisements. The bill would specify that the first and 2nd violations of any of those provisions the requirements of the bill would result in a notice of violation and any subsequent violation would be punishable by a civil penalty of $25 for each day the business is in violation, but not to exceed an annual total of $300. The bill would authorize the Attorney General, a county counsel, a district attorney, or a city attorney to enforce those provisions.

Existing law prohibits certain stores from providing a single-use carryout bag to a customer at the point of sale and prohibits full-service restaurants from providing single-use plastic straws to consumers unless requested by the consumer.

This bill would would, on and after January 1, 2025, require a business, as defined, that accepts payment through cash, credit, or debit transactions, subject to certain exceptions, to provide a consumer with certain options related to the receipt of the consumers proof of purchase and would prohibit a business from printing a paper proof of purchase if the consumer opts to not receive a proof of purchase, unless otherwise required by state or federal law. The bill would not require the proof of purchase to be provided in electronic form if the business is incapable of sending an electronic proof of purchase due to unexpected technical difficulties. The bill would prohibit prohibit, on and after January 1, 2024, a paper proof of purchase provided to a consumer by a business from containing bisphenol A or bisphenol S, and A, and, on and after January 1, 2025, from containing any bisphenols. The bill would also prohibit a paper proof of purchase provided to a consumer by a business from including items not essential to the transaction, including, but not limited to, coupons or advertisements. The bill would specify that the first and 2nd violations of any of those provisions would result in a notice of violation and any subsequent violation would be punishable by a civil penalty of $25 for each day the business is in violation, but not to exceed an annual total of $300. The bill would authorize the Attorney General, a county counsel, a district attorney, or a city attorney to enforce those provisions.

Existing law prohibits certain stores from providing a single-use carryout bag to a customer at the point of sale and prohibits full-service restaurants from providing single-use plastic straws to consumers unless requested by the consumer.

This bill would require a business, as defined, that accepts payment through cash, credit, or debit transactions, subject to certain exceptions, to provide a consumer with certain options related to the receipt of the consumers proof of purchase and would prohibit a business from printing a paper proof of purchase if the consumer opts to not receive a proof of purchase, unless otherwise required by state or federal law. The bill would not require the proof of purchase to be provided in electronic form if the business is incapable of sending an electronic proof of purchase due to unexpected technical difficulties. The bill would prohibit a paper proof of purchase provided to a consumer by a business from containing bisphenol A or bisphenol S, and from including items not essential to the transaction, including, but not limited to, coupons or advertisements. The bill would specify that the first and 2nd violations of any of those provisions would result in a notice of violation and any subsequent violation would be punishable by a civil penalty of $25 for each day the business is in violation, but not to exceed an annual total of $300. The bill would authorize the Attorney General, a county counsel, a district attorney, or a city attorney to enforce those provisions.

Existing law prohibits certain stores from providing a single-use carryout bag to a customer at the point of sale and prohibits full-service restaurants from providing single-use plastic straws to consumers unless requested by the consumer.

This bill would require a business, as defined, that accepts payment through cash, credit, or debit transactions, subject to certain exceptions, to provide a consumer with certain options related to the receipt of the consumers proof of purchase to a consumer only at the consumers option and would prohibit a business from printing a paper proof of purchase if the consumer opts to not receive a proof of purchase, unless otherwise required by state or federal law. The bill would not require the proof of purchase to be provided in electronic form or paper form, at the consumers option, if a consumer opts to receive a proof of purchase, unless a prescribed form is otherwise required by state or federal law or if the business is incapable of sending an electronic proof of purchase due to unexpected technical difficulties. The bill would prohibit a paper proof of purchase provided to a consumer by a business from containing bisphenol A or bisphenol S, and from including items not essential to the transaction, including, but not limited to, coupons or advertisements. The bill would specify that the first and 2nd violations of any of those provisions would result in a notice of violation and any subsequent violation would be punishable by a civil penalty of $25 for each day the business is in violation, but not to exceed an annual total of $300. The bill would authorize the Attorney General, a county counsel, a district attorney, or a city attorney to enforce those provisions.

Existing law prohibits certain stores from providing a single-use carryout bag to a customer at the point of sale and prohibits full-service restaurants from providing single-use plastic straws to consumers unless requested by the consumer.

This bill would require a business, as defined, that accepts payment through cash, credit, or debit transactions, subject to certain exceptions, to provide a proof of purchase to a consumer only at the consumers option and would prohibit a business from printing a paper proof of purchase if the consumer opts to not receive a proof of purchase, unless otherwise required by state or federal law. The bill would require the proof of purchase to be provided in electronic form or paper form, at the consumers option, if a consumer opts to receive a proof of purchase, unless a prescribed form is otherwise required by state or federal law or the business is incapable of sending an electronic proof of purchase due to unexpected technical difficulties. The bill would prohibit a paper proof of purchase provided to a consumer by a business from containing bisphenol A or bisphenol S, and from including items not essential to the transaction, including, but not limited to, coupons or advertisements. The bill would specify that the first and 2nd violations of any of those provisions would result in a notice of violation and any subsequent violation would be punishable by a civil penalty of $25 for each day the business is in violation, but not to exceed an annual total of $300. The bill would authorize the Attorney General, a district attorney, or a city attorney to enforce those provisions.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Anthony Portantino, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular Session

AB 1347 (Ting) - Solid waste: paper waste: proofs of purchase

Bill Summary:

AB 1347 would require a business to offer a consumer the option to receive or not receive a proof of purchase and would prohibit a paper proof of purchase from containing bisphenol.

Fiscal Impact:

The Department of Justice (DOJ) reports costs of $221,000 in 2023-24, $389,000 annually thereafter in additional staffing to enforce the prohibition of AB 1347 (Unfair Competition Law Fund). See Staff Comments for additional detail.

Background:

Point-of-sale receipts in California are generally printed on white thermal paper, which contain significant amounts of either BPA or BPS. Bisphenols, including BPA and BPS, are endocrine disrupters that are associated with possible cancer and reproductive risks. While paper is 15.5% of the state’s disposed waste stream, receipts make up a small percentage of the total paper disposed in California. Receipts are highly discouraged from being recycled because their bisphenol coatings contaminate the recycling stream. Receipts are viewed by the waste industry as contaminants in the paper recycling stream and their small makes them difficult to remove during the sorting process.

Proposed Law:

• Requires a business, on and after January 1, 2026, to offer a consumer, on equal terms, the option to receive a proof of purchase or not receive proof of purchase.
• Provides that on and after January 1, 2026, a business shall not print a paper proof of purchase if the consumer opts to not receive a proof of purchase, unless otherwise required by state or federal law.
• Provides that a business is not required to provide the consumer with an option to not receive a proof of purchase if a consumer voluntarily opts in to receive a proof of purchase through the rules of an association, warehouse, or other club to which the consumer belongs.
• Provides that as of January 1, 2024, a paper proof of purchase shall not contain bisphenol A (BPA), and as of January 1, 2025, a paper proof of purchase shall not contain any bisphenols.
• Authorizes public prosecutors to enforce this bill, including the Attorney General. Provides that a violation is subject to a penalty of $100 for each day the business is in violation, not to exceed $3,000 annually.
• Specifies that these provisions do not prohibit a business from offering a consumer the option of receiving an electronic proof of purchase, including, but not limited to, an email proof of purchase or text proof of purchase, unless otherwise prohibited by state or federal law.
• Defines terms for purposes of the bill, including “business,” “consumer,” “invoice,” and “proof of purchase.”

Related Legislation:

AB 161 (Ting, 2019) was substantially similar to this bill. AB 161 was held on this Committee’s suspense file.

Staff Comments:

This bill would authorize the Attorney General and other public prosecutors to enforce its provisions. Effective enforcement of AB 1347’s prohibition on the use of BSA and BPS in printed receipts would likely necessitate additional staff in the Consumer Protection Section within DOJ. The DOJ reports that CPS anticipates increased consumer protection and privacy enforcement litigation could stem from the elimination of paper receipts where customers are encouraged to release telephone numbers or email addresses to obtain electronic receipts. In order to address the additional workload, the Section would require 1.0 additional Deputy Attorney General (DAG) and the legal complement of 1.0 Legal Secretary beginning on January 1, 2024 and ongoing. Staff notes that costs may be offset to the extent penalty revenue is successfully collected and allocated back to the DOJ for enforcement purposes.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Senator Allen, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular

SUBJECT: Solid waste: paper waste: proofs of purchase

DIGEST: This bill bans bisphenol A (BPA) in paper receipts beginning Jan 1, 2024. Beginning January 1, 2025, the bill bans bisphenol S (BPS) in receipts, prohibits stores from giving consumers paper receipts unless requested.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Establishes the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (IWMA), administered by the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), to regulate the disposal, management, and recycling of solid waste. Establishes under the IWMA a state policy goal that at least 75% of solid waste be source reduced, recycled, or composted by 2020. (Public Resources Code (PRC) §§ 40000 et. seq.)
2. Establishes a statewide “bag ban” that prohibits a store from providing a plastic single-use carryout bag to a customer at the point of sale unless it is a reusable, compostable bag sold at not less than $0.10. (PRC §42283-42284)
3. Establishes a “plastic straw ban” that prohibits restaurants from providing single-use plastic straws to consumers unless requested by the consumer. (PRC § 42270)
4. Requires retailers to give receipts to customers as proof of purchase. (Revenue and Taxation Code §6001 et seq.)

This bill:

1. Bans paper receipts that contain bisphenol A by January 1, 2024, and bisphenol S by January 1, 2025.
2. Beginning Jan 1, 2026, requires businesses to only print paper receipts if the consumer opts to receive a printed receipt. Exempts businesses from this requirement if a consumer voluntarily opts in to receive a proof of purchase through the rules of an association, warehouse, or other club to which the consumer belongs.
3. Exempts businesses that make less than two million dollars annually and health care providers.
4. Establishes enforcement through civil penalties of up to $300 annually, brought by the Attorney General, a district attorney, a county counsel, or a city attorney. Businesses that are out of compliance with this law are afforded two warning citations before being given a penalty.
5. Makes related findings and declarations.
   

Background

1. Waste Reduction Goals. More than 40 million tons of solid waste are disposed of in California’s landfills annually, of which 28.4% is organic materials, 13% is plastic, and 15.5% is paper. Under the IWMA, CalRecycle is tasked with reducing the amount of waste that gets landfilled in California. The IWMA establishes a goal that 75% of solid waste generated in the state be diverted from landfills through source reduction, recycling, and composting by 2020. Local governments are responsible for averting 50% of the waste generated within the jurisdiction from landfill disposal since 2000.
2. Receipts in the Waste Stream. Paper receipts, which are printed and then often immediately discarded, are a subset of overall paper waste. Most businesses offer paper receipts to customers as proof of payment at checkout. These paper receipts are printed on special thermal paper, which changes color when heated. To achieve this effect, receipts are made with either BPA or BPS, with BPS being far more prevalent in California, according to the American Forest and Paper Association (AFPA).

Because receipts are thin and contain BPA/BPS, receipts are not recycled in California. Instead, receipts end up in landfills. Items are problematic in the waste stream if they are high volume and difficult to manage, or if they are toxic or pollute the waste stream.

• 1. Volume. Paper makes up an astonishing 15.5% of the state’s disposed waste stream. Receipts, however, make up just a small portion of this paper disposal. Estimates on the total amount of paper receipts produced every year vary: AFPA estimates that receipts contribute 180,000 tons of paper waste per year in the US, while Grand View Research puts the number around 280,000 tons per year. Assuming Californians get receipts at the same rate as everyone else and given that California represents 10% of the U.S. population, this would translate to between 18,000-28,000 tons of paper waste from receipts each year in California. In 2021, Californians disposed of 6.19 million tons of paper waste. Using this information for a back-of-the-envelope calculation, paper receipts account for about 0.37% of all paper waste in California.
  2. Toxicity. Bisphenols, including BPA and BPS are known endocrine disrupters, meaning that they can cause harm to reproduction and are associated with increased risks for cancer. According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), BPA is a reproductive, developmental, and systemic toxicant in animal studies and is weakly estrogenic.

While BPA and BPS are found in many household items and can most easily enter human bodies through diet (BPA is used to line cans and BPS is in microwave safe foodware), BPA and BPS are also present in paper receipts. A report by the nonprofit The Ecology Center found that 93% of paper receipts are coated with BPA or BPS. In one 2010 study, BPA was detected at levels between 0.8% and 2.8% of the total weight of the receipts tested. When people handle receipts, they can be exposed to BPA/ BPS. This is exacerbated because hand sanitizer and hand cream can increase how much BPA can be absorbed through the skin. Once touched, BPA can also be transferred by a cashier or consumer’s hands to other surfaces, like food. The people most likely to be impacted by BPA and BPS in receipts are workers who handle receipts frequently: according to the Environmental Working Group and the Center for Disease Control, retail workers have 30 percent more BPA or BPS found in their bodies than others who do not have regular contact with receipts.

Recognizing receipts as a source of potentially harmful BPA, Connecticut banned the use of receipt paper containing BPA in 2011. Beginning in 2020, the European Union will also prohibit the use of BPA on receipt paper.

Comments

1. Purpose of the Bill. According to the author, “With the increasing adoption of e-receipts, paper receipts have become unnecessary and antiquated. Yet many businesses are still providing paper receipts, many of which are coated with toxic chemicals that makes them harmful to human health and nearly impossible to recycle. According to Green America’s Skip the Slip report, over 3 million trees and 10 billion gallons of water in the United States are used to create proof of purchase receipts. That’s a lot of environmental impact for something that we generally don’t need, especially if you’re just buying a pack of gum or getting a cup of coffee to-go. This bill would reduce waste and ensure that we don’t expend valuable resources by simply requiring businesses to only provide a receipt upon the request of the customer. Printed receipts would have to be BPA/BPS free and not be longer than necessary”
2. Skip the Slip. While receipts only comprise about 0.37% of the total amount of paper waste generated in California, the availability of alternatives to paper receipts, including electronic receipts, makes this a relatively easy product to source reduce. California’s solid waste hierarchy places source reduction at the top of the hierarchy, followed by reuse and then recycling. While paper receipts (especially ones without BPA/BPs) may technically be recyclable or compostable, the volume of single-use materials generated in California far exceeds our capacity to recycle or compost those materials. Requiring consumers to request a paper receipt is intended to reduce the number of paper receipts generated, which will conserve the resources needed to make the receipts and reduce the generation of waste receipts.

Potentially even more compelling, receipts made with BPA and BPS can be a threat to human health given that the chemicals are endocrine disruptors and can be transferred through human skin. These chemicals can also have negative impacts on sensitive organisms if they leach into ecosystems.

1. Is $300 a Year Enough? The provisions in AB 1347 are enforced by a civil penalty of $25 per business day of violation, up to $300 annually. This maximum $300 per year civil penalty only applies to large businesses that make over $2 million annually, so the fine would represent, at most, 0.015% of a business’ income. This fine may be insufficient to incentivize businesses to switch away from BPA/BPS receipts or shift their behavior around providing paper receipts at all.

From the enforcement angle, the low penalty could also provide some hurdles to implementation. A local entity wanting to enforce this ban would have to find a business in violation twice and keep a record of that data before giving out a civil penalty for a mere $25. Any entity that attempts to enforce this measure could easily spend more money than they would recoup in the process.

The enforcement provisions in this bill are identical to the mechanism in the State’s single-use plastic straw ban (AB 1884, Calderon, Chapter 576, Statutes of 2018). Under the plastic straw ban, restaurants were required to stop giving out plastic straws as a default. The $300 penalty, with only a small chance of being enforced against a specific business, has not been a sufficient disincentive for many restaurants that still offer plastic straws. Prior to the plastic straw ban, the state had enacted several other single-item bans. SB 270’s plastic bag ban imposes civil liability on a person or entity in the amount of $1,000 per day for the first violation, $2,000 per day for the second violation, and $5,000 per day for the third and subsequent violations. In the case of plastic six-pack rings, the state imposes an infraction and a fine not to exceed $1,000 on any person who sells or distributes these rings.

Suggested Amendment. The Committee and author may wish to amend the bill to remove the requirement that a violation occurs three times before there is a penalty and increase the civil penalty up to $100 fine per day up to $3,000 for businesses that make more than $2 million.

1. Committee amendments. Staff recommends the committee adopt the bolded amendments contained in comment 3 above.

DOUBLE REFERRAL:

This measure was heard in Senate Judiciary Committee on June 27, 2023, and passed out of committee with a vote of 9-2.

Related/Prior Legislation

SB 728 (Limon, 2023) bans the manufacture and sale of plastic gift cards beginning January 1, 2026. This measure is currently on second reading.

SB 1884 (Calderon Chapter 576, Statutes of 2018) Established a “plastic straw ban” that prohibited restaurants from providing single-use plastic straws to consumers unless requested by the consumer.

AB 161 (Ting, 2019). Banned BPA and BPS and set requirements to source reduce paper receipts. The bill was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

SB 270 (Padilla, Chapter 850, Statutes of 2014). Established a Statewide “bag ban” that prohibits a store from providing a single-use carryout bag to a customer at the point of sale unless it is a compostable bag sold at not less than $0.10.

SOURCE:

Author

SUPPORT:

7th Generation Advisors
Active San Gabriel Valley
Ban Sup (single Use Plastic)
Bay Area Youth Lobbying Initiative
Breast Cancer Prevention Partners
California Product Stewardship Council
California Resource Recovery Association
Californians Against Waste

Cleanearth4kids.org
Clean Water Action
Climate Action California
Climate Reality Project, Los Angeles Chapter
Climate Reality Project, San Fernando Valley
Courage California
Ecology Center
Ecology Center (BERKELEY)
Educate. Advocate.
Environmental Working Group
Facts Families Advocating for Chemical and Toxics Safety
Fort Ord Environmental Justice Network
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Friends of The Earth
Glendale Environmental Coalition
Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA)
Green America
Green Science Policy Institute
Greenpeace USA
Grove Collaborative
Heal the Bay
Laane (los Angeles Alliance for A New Economy)
National Stewardship Action Council
Natural Resources Defense Council
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Northern California Recycling Association
Plastic Free Future
Plastic Oceans International
Plastic Pollution Coalition
Recology
Rethinkwaste
Safer States
San Francisco Baykeeper
Santa Cruz Climate Action Network
Save Our Shores
Sierra Club California
Surfrider Foundation
The 5 Gyres Institute
The Center for Oceanic Awareness, Research, and Education
The Keep a Breast Foundation
The Last Plastic Straw
The Story of Stuff Project
Upstream
Voices for Progress
Wishtoyo Chumash Foundation
Zero Waste USA

OPPOSITION:

Auto Care Association
California Attractions and Parks Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California Grocers Association
California Manufacturers and Technology Association
California Restaurant Association
California Retailers Association
Cawa
Costco Wholesale
Electronic Transactions Association
Gateway Chambers Alliance
Norwalk Chamber of Commerce

Orange County Business Council
Paper Receipts Converting Association
The Toy Association

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT:

A broad coalition on environmental groups including NRDC write in support of the bill, stating: “In 2021, receipts generated 334,000,000 pounds of waste. In a survey from Green America, consumers threw away or lost 49 percent of paper receipts they received, even if they intended to keep the receipt. AB 1347 gives the consumer the choice of how to receive their proof of purchase at checkout, saving resources and preventing unnecessary waste. AB 1347 would prevent unnecessary waste by limiting receipt printing to those who truly want a paper receipt reduces unnecessary waste of our state’s natural resources. AB 1347 would also protect the health of Californians by requiring all printed receipts to be free of BPA and BPS, reducing consumers’ exposure to toxic substances. We urge you to support AB 1347 to reduce unneeded waste and protect consumer health.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION:

Orange County Business Council (OCBC) write sin opposition, stating “OCBC does not take issue with the bill’s banning of Bisphenol-A (BPA) or Bisphenol-S (BPS) in paper receipts, but urges the author to amend the bill so that the ban takes effect on January 1, 2025. The current target of January 1, 2024, does not allow enough time for thousands of businesses to comply with the bill as there will not be adequate supplies of BPA/BPS-free paper.

OCBC is opposed to the provision requiring all businesses to provide consumers with the option to not get a receipt or to receive an electronic receipt. Orange County retailers, grocers and restaurants decrease theft, especially organized retail theft, by utilizing paper receipts as a tangible record of purchase for each transaction. In contrast, electronic receipts can be more easily manipulated.

-- END --

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Senator Thomas Umberg, Chair

2023-2024 Regular Session

Bill No: AB 1347 (Author:Ting)

Version: June 19, 2023

Hearing Date: June 27, 2023

Fiscal: Yes

Urgency: No

Consultant: AM

SUBJECT

Solid waste: paper waste: proofs of purchase

DIGEST

This bill, on an after January 1, 2025, requires a business, as defined, to offer a consumer, on equal terms, the option of receiving a proof of purchase by email, text message, paper, or not receiving one at all. The bill prohibits a business from printing a proof of purchase if the consumer opts to not receive one, unless otherwise required by state or federal law, and prohibits a paper receipt from containing items nonessential to the transaction if they would make the receipt longer. The bill also prohibits a proof of purchase provided to a consumer from containing bisphenol A, on an after January 1, 2024, or any bisphenols on an after January 1, 2025. A violation of these provisions subjects a business to a civil penalty, as provided. The bill defines various terms for these purposes.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Every year millions of paper receipts are printed by businesses. These receipts can have a detrimental impact on the environment and pose health risks as many paper receipts are coated with bisphenol-A (BPA) or bisphenol-S (BPS), which are known endocrine-disruptors. Paper receipts also generate waste and require the use of large quantities of water and trees to produce. This bill seeks to address these environmental and health concerns by requiring a business to provide consumers with the option of receiving an electronic receipt, a paper receipt, or no receipt, and prohibits a paper receipt from containing items nonessential to the transaction if they would make the receipt longer. The bill authorizes the Attorney General, a district attorney, or a city attorney to enforce these provisions, and provides for a violation to be punished by a civil penalty of $25 per day, not to exceed $300 annually. This bill is substantially similar to AB 161 (Ting, 2019), which passed this Committee but ultimately died in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

The bill is sponsored by Californians Against Waste and supported by numerous environmental and community organizations. The bill is opposed by various businesses and organizations representing businesses. Should this bill pass out of this Committee, it will be heard next in the Senate Environmental Quality Committee.

PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE LAW

Existing law:

1. Establishes the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA), which grants consumers certain rights with regard to their personal information, including enhanced notice, access, and disclosure; the right to deletion; the right to restrict the sale of information; and protection from discrimination for exercising these rights. It places attendant obligations on businesses to respect those rights. (Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.)
   1. Establishes the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020 (CPRA), which amends the CCPA and creates the California Privacy Protection Agency (PPA), which is charged with implementing these privacy laws, promulgating regulations, and carrying out enforcement actions. (Civ. Code § 798.100 et seq.; Proposition 24 (2020).)
2. Prohibits, pursuant to the Song Beverly Credit Card Act, persons and entities that accept credit cards for the transaction of business from doing any of the following and subjects a person who violates these provisions to a civil penalty:
   1. Requesting or requiring the cardholder, as a condition of accepting the credit card as payment for goods or services, to write any personal identification information on the credit card transaction form or otherwise.
   2. Requesting or requiring the cardholder, as a condition of accepting the credit card as payment for goods or services, to provide personal identification information that the person or entity accepting the credit card writes, causes to be written, or otherwise records upon the credit card transaction form or otherwise.
   3. Utilizing, in any credit card transaction, a credit card form that contains preprinted spaces specifically designated for filling in any personal identification information of the cardholder. (Civ. Code § 1747.08(a).)
3. Requires that local governments divert at least 50 percent of solid waste from landfill disposal, and establishes a statewide goal that 75 percent of solid waste be diverted from landfill disposal by 2020, and annually thereafter. (Pub. Res. Code §§ 41780 & 41780.01.)
4. Requires commercial waste generators, including multi-family dwellings, to arrange for recycling services and requires local governments to implement commercial solid waste recycling programs designed to divert solid waste from businesses. (Pub. Res. Code §§ 42649 et. seq.)
5. Requires generators of specified amounts of organic waste to arrange for recycling services for that material. (Pub. Res. Code §§ 42649.8 et. seq.)

This bill:

1. Requires a business to offer a consumer, on equal terms, at least all of the following options for receiving a proof of purchase:
   1. an email receipt;
   2. a text message receipt;
   3. a paper receipt; and
   4. no receipt.
2. Provides that a business is not required to provide an electronic proof of purchase if, due to limited internet connectivity, a power outage, or other unexpected technical difficulties, the business is incapable of sending an electronic proof of purchase. Under these circumstances, the business must provide the consumer a paper proof of purchase unless the consumer opts not to receive a proof of purchase.
3. Prohibits a paper proof of purchase provided to a consumer by a business from including printouts of items nonessential to the transaction if those nonessential items make the paper proof of purchase longer than necessary to provide the consumer with the essential items to the transaction.
   1. “Items nonessential to the transaction” include, but are not limited to, coupons or advertisements.
4. Prohibits a paper proof of purchase provided to a consumer by a business from containing bisphenol A on and after January 1, 2024, and from containing any bisphenols on and after January 1, 2025.
5. Provides that a first and second violation results in a notice of violations, and any subsequent violation is punishable by a civil penalty of $25 for each day a business is in violation, but is not to exceed $300 annually.
6. Authorizes the Attorney General, a district attorney, a county counsel, or a city attorney to enforce these provisions.
7. Specifies that his section does not alter any consumer privacy protection provided by law, or any other consumer right under federal, state, or local law.
8. Defines the following terms:
   1. “Business” means a person that accepts payment through cash, credit, or debit transactions.
   2. “Business” does not include either any of the following:
      1. a health care provider, as defined in Section 123105 of the Health and Safety Code;
      2. an entity organized as a nonprofit institution that has annual gross sale receipts of less than two million dollars ($2,000,000); or
      3. except for purposes of the prohibition in 4), above, an entity that is not subject to the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (Title 1.81.5 (commencing with Section 1798.100) of Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code).
   3. “Consumer” means a person who purchases, and does not offer for resale, food, alcohol, other tangible personal property, or services.
   4. “Invoice” means an itemized list of goods or services provided before or after the point of sale through a contract stating the amount due.
   5. “Person” includes any individual, firm, association, organization, partnership, limited liability company, business trust, corporation, or company.
   6. “Proof of purchase” means a receipt for the retail sale of food, alcohol, or other tangible personal property, or for the provision of services, provided at the point of sale, but does not include an invoice.

COMMENTS

1. Stated need for the bill

The author writes:

With the increasing adoption of e-receipts, paper receipts have become unnecessary and antiquated. Yet many businesses are still providing paper receipts, many of which are coated with toxic chemicals that makes them harmful to human health and nearly impossible to recycle. According to Green America’s Skip the Slip report, over 3 million trees and 10 billion gallons of water in the United States are used to create proof of purchase receipts. That’s a lot of environmental impact for something that we generally don’t need, especially if you’re just buying a pack of gum or getting a cup of coffee to-go. This bill would reduce waste and ensure that we don’t expend valuable resources by requiring businesses that are subject to the California Consumer Protection Act (CCPA) to offer customers the option between an electronic receipt, paper receipt and no receipt. AB 1347 would also ban the use of BPA/BPS on all printed receipts in the state.

1. Paper receipts
   1. Health risks posed by paper receipts

Paper receipts are a ubiquitous part of our economy, with some estimates finding that “cashiers, waiters, banks, and many other employees handle as many as 30 receipts per hour.”^[1] Most receipts are printed on thermal paper and “because of the way the ink develops, BPA and BPS are added in their free form without being bound to the paper or polymerized[,]” which leads to the chemicals transferring easily to anything the thermal paper touches.^[2] In 2016, the European Union banned the use of BPA in thermal receipts to take effect in 2020 and classified BPA as a “substance that has toxic effects on our ability to reproduce.”^[3] In the United States, Connecticut became the first state to ban the manufacture, sale, or distribution of thermal receipt paper or cash register receipt paper containing BPA.^[4]

The Assembly Natural Resources Committee notes:

Point-of-sale receipts in California are generally printed on white thermal paper, which is very thin, lightweight paper coated with a material that changes color when heated. Generally, this coating contains significant amounts of either BPA or BPS. According to the American Forest and Paper Association (AFPA), receipt paper used in California almost exclusively uses BPS.^[5]

The bill prohibits BPA in receipts on and after January 1, 2024. In response to concerns raised by the opposition related to adequate supply of receipt paper that does not contain BPS, the bill bans all other bisphenols in receipts beginning on January 1, 2025.

• 1. Bill is intended to reduce the amount of receipt waste generated in the state

The author and sponsors of the bill state that it is intended to reduce the amount of receipt waste generated in the state. According to Green America’s Skip the Slip report, each year in the U.S. receipt use consumes over 12.4 million trees, 13 billion gallons of water, and generates 1.5 billion pounds of waste, and 4 billion pounds of carbon dioxide.^[6] Even if toxic chemicals are banned on paper receipts, they are generally made of material that is generally not recyclable. The size and composition of receipts commonly makes them a contaminant in the recycling stream. They note that in April of 2022, CVS started explicitly asking customers at cash registers if they want a printed receipt, digital receipt, or no receipt and that within four months, CVS saved 87 million yards of receipt paper. California’s solid waste hierarchy places source reduction at the top of the solid waste management hierarchy, followed by reuse and then recycling, with disposal being the last resort. Requiring consumers to request a paper receipt is intended to reduce the number of paper receipts generated, which will conserve the resources needed to make the receipts and reduce the generation of waste receipts.

A coalition of environmental and community groups, including the sponsor of the bill Californians Against Waste, write:

In 2021, the United States used 284,000 metric tons of receipts that are effectively impossible to recycle due to toxic coatings in thermal receipt paper.

In 2021, receipts generated 334,000,000 pounds of waste. In a survey from Green America regarding consumer receipt preferences, respondents said they threw away or lost 49 percent of paper receipts they received, even if they intended to keep the receipt. (footnotes omitted) […]

However, according to the Assembly Natural Resources “receipts make up a small percentage of the total paper disposed in California.” That Committee further noted, “estimates vary on the amount of receipt paper used in the US. According to the AFPA, the US annually uses approximately 180,000 tons of paper receipts. Grand View Research, which provides market information, estimates that around 280,000 tons of thermal paper is used in the US each year for receipts. California-specific data is not available.”^[7]

• 1. This bill’s proposed solution to the issues raised above

In light of the negative impacts posed by paper receipts, the bill seeks to do several things:

• Requires a business to offer a consumer, at a minimum, all of the following options: (1) an email receipt, (2) a text message receipt, (3) a paper receipt, and (4) no receipt.
• Prohibits a business from printing a receipt if a consumer elects to not receive one, unless otherwise required by state or federal law.
• Provides that a business is not required to provide an electronic receipt if, due to limited internet connectivity, a power outage, or other unexpected technical difficulties, the business is incapable of sending an electronic receipt. Under these circumstances, the business is required to provide the consumer a paper receipt unless the consumer opts not to receive a receipt.
• Prohibits a receipt provided to a consumer from containing BPA on and after January 1, 2024, or any bisphenols on and after January 1, 2025.
• Prohibits paper receipts from including printouts of items nonessential to the transaction if those nonessential items make the paper proof of purchase longer than necessary to provide the consumer with the essential items to the transaction. Items nonessential to the transaction include, but are not limited to, coupons or advertisements.

The bill defines “business” as a company that accepts payment through credit or debit transactions, and specifies that a business does not include a health care provider or an entity organized as a nonprofit institution that has annual gross sale receipts of less than $2 million. The bill also provides that a business does not include an entity that is not subject to the CCPA, except for the requirement that a receipt not contain any BPA or BPS. A first and second violation by a business results only in a notice of a violation, and any subsequent violations subject a business to a civil penalty of $25 for each day the business is in violation, not to exceed $300 in a year. As such, the bill provides only nominal fines for the enforcement of its provisions. The Attorney General, a district attorney, and a city attorney are authorized to enforce these provisions. The bill specifically states it does not alter any consumer privacy protection provided by law, including the CCPA or the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act, or any consumer rights under federal, state, or local law.

1. This bill implicates privacy issues and the First Amendment
   1. Privacy and the CCPA

Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution provides: “All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.” Privacy is therefore not just a policy goal, it is a constitutional right of every Californian. Current technology has allowed many tasks that previously required the use of paper to be done digitally or electronically, which has the potential to provide waste reduction and other positive environmental impacts. However, this also impacts the privacy rights of individuals. Finding the appropriate balance between protecting Californian’s privacy and other important policy goals, such as waste reduction, is not an easy task and will require careful consideration by the Legislature.

Under the CCPA, email addresses and phone numbers fall within the definition of personal information. The CCPA provides consumers with numerous rights related to the collection and sale of their personal identifying information, including that consumers are entitled to certain disclosures, have the right to opt out of the sale of their personal identifying information, and the right to request that a business delete their personal identifying information. A violation of the CCPA could subject a business to civil liability of up to $2,500 per violation, or up to $7,500 per intentional violation, in an action brought by the Attorney General, as specified. (Civ. Code § 1798.155.) Opposition raises the valid point that a business that currently does not collect consumer information to avoid being subject to the CPRA would now be required to collect that information and, therefore, be required to be subject to the CPRA. The opposition notes that CPRA compliance is especially cumbersome and costly for small and medium-sized businesses.

In order for a business to offer a receipt in an electronic form, a business must obtain personal information from a consumer, such as a consumer’s email address or phone number. The bill in print does allow a consumer to choose a paper receipt; however, it is likely that many consumers will opt to receive an electronic receipt. This collection of personal information by businesses raises serious issues of data protection and could place consumers at an increased risk of having their personal information stolen. There have been several examples of massive data breaches that have led to the personal information of millions of consumer’s being stolen by hackers, including Epsilon International in 2011 (millions affected)^[8], Equifax in 2017 (143 million affected)^[9], Marriott International in 2018 (up to 500 million affected),^[10] and T-Mobile in 2023 (37 million affected).^[11]

In order to reduce the privacy risks associated with requiring the collection of email addresses and telephone numbers under the bill, the Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee amended the bill to limit the application of the provisions of the bill, except for the ban on BPA and BPS receipts, to businesses that are already covered under the CCPA. Even with this amendment, that Committee noted:

The question before this Committee is whether or not the environmental impact of the proposed policies is worth any erosion of Californians’ privacy rights and/or consumer protections that may be required in order to achieve the stated goals of the author. The answer appears, unfortunately, that beyond banning the use of toxic chemicals, it is unclear that this bill makes a significant difference in the amount of paper waste and may, in fact, unintentionally increase electronic waste. Therefore, the bill may result in an expansion in the number of the businesses that collected [sic] telephone numbers and email addresses and that does pose some level of privacy risk for customer[s], with very little, if any benefit.^[12]

If this bill were to be enacted, it would mandate businesses to collect email addresses and phone numbers of their customers. The CCPA, though it does provide some protections for consumers, it requires a consumer to take affirmative action to request that their information be deleted and does not provide any protections for data breaches.

• 1. The bill places restrictions on speech

The bill’s provisions that prohibit paper receipts from including printouts of items nonessential to the transaction if those nonessential items make the paper proof of purchase longer than necessary to provide the consumer with the essential items to the transaction implicate the First Amendment of the federal Constitution. Opposition notes that this provision is regulating commercial speech and would prevent a business from including things other than coupons or advertisements, such as information about supporting a community event or a specific charity or encouraging their customers to vote.

The First Amendment prohibits the government from “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” This bill’s provisions would likely be considered a time, place, and manner restriction as the limitation imposed is content-neutral, meaning it applies without regard to the content of the message. When determining whether a statute is content neutral, the court has stated that the principal inquiry is if the government’s purpose in regulation is due to disagreement with the message the speech conveys. ((Ward v. Rock Against Racism (1989) 491 U.S. 781, 791)) The court noted that a law “that serves purposes unrelated to the content of expression is deemed neutral, even if it has an incidental effect on some speakers or messages but not others.” The purpose of the bill’s provision is to discourage receipts from being longer than necessary in order to address the environmental impact of receipts, not because of the content contained on the receipt.

The Supreme Court has held that governments may “impose reasonable restrictions on the time, place, or manner of protected speech, provided the restrictions ‘are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, that they are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and that they leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information.’” (Ibid.) This is commonly referred to as an intermediate scrutiny standard. It is unclear if a court would find that addressing the environmental concerns posed by paper receipts is a significant governmental interest given the evidence; however, it is likely the bill could meet this prong of the strict scrutiny standard.

In regards to whether the bill is narrowly tailored, the court has held that “[g]overnment may not regulate expression in such a manner that a substantial portion of the burden on speech does not serve to advance its goals.” (Id. at 799.) The court further elaborated that “the means chosen are not substantially broader than necessary to achieve the government's interest” and “will not be invalid simply because a court concludes that the government's interest could be adequately served by some less-speech-restrictive alternative.” (Id. at 800.) The bill prohibits receipts from being longer than necessary to provide the consumer with the essential items to the transaction, and specifically states this includes coupons and advertisements. Nothing under the bill prohibits a business from offering coupons or advertisements in a separate form to a consumer, which arguably leaves alternative channels for communication. However, it is unclear if a court would find that the burden this bill places on speech is done so in a manner that does not serve to advance the stated goal to reduce waste, given the Assembly Committee of Natural Resources statement that receipts make up a small percentage of the total paper disposed in California.

• 1. Bill requires the option of no receipt

The bill would require a business to not provide a receipt at the option of the consumer. Opposition has raised several issue with this provision of the bill. Most specifically, they note that paper receipts are utilized to decrease theft and that a growing number of businesses have begun checking receipts as consumers exit their stores to combat the growing issue of organized retail theft, and that allowing a consumer to opt out of receiving a paper receipt or the option of no receipt at all would affect these businesses ability to use paper receipts to combat such theft. They also state that some businesses point of sale systems cannot support this type of mandate and would require some businesses to purchase new systems.

Costco Wholesale writes that they are opposed to the bill as well unless a provision is included that exempts a business from this requirement if “the rules of an association or club to which the consumer belongs requires generation of receipts in paper form” as they argue that paper receipts are integral to their business model and have been for decades. The Orange County Business Council writes that they believe the bill interferes with federal requirements that SNAP and WIC recipients have to receive paper receipts. However, the bill allows a paper receipt to be printed and provided if required under federal or state law.

1. Proposed amendments

Given the concerns raised above, the author has agreed to amend the bill to remove the mandated collection of personal information and the restrictions on the length of a receipt in the bill. The author has also agreed to push the enactment date of the requirement to offer a receipt or no receipt option to a consumer until January 1, 2026 to give businesses time to ensure their technology can comply with the bill’s requirements. Lastly, the author has proposed an amendment to address the concerns raised by Costco Wholesale. A mock-up of the amendments in context is attached to this analysis.

1. Statements in support

A coalition of environmental and community groups, including Californians Against Waste the sponsor of the bill, writes:

This outdated technology [paper receipts] simply does not match current consumer lifestyles. In a survey from Green America, 86 percent of respondents want retailers to offer digital receipts as an option due to environmental concerns and for easier storage. AB 1347 would give consumers the option to choose between a printed, digital, or no receipt, which matches what consumers already prefer.

93% of receipts are coated in Bisphenol-A (BPA) or Bisphenol-S (BPS) for text to appear on the receipt. BPA and BPS are easily transferred through surface contact which can contaminate paper collected for recycling. The easy spread of BPA and BPS also pose a risk to human health, as both BPA and BPS can easily be absorbed through the skin and enter the bloodstream. BPA and BPS are endocrine disruptors linked to numerous health concerns including fetal development issues, reproductive impairment, Type 2 diabetes, thyroid conditions and other health concerns. AB 1347 would require all printed receipts to be free of BPA and BPS, limiting consumers exposure to these toxic substances and eliminate the chance of contamination in recycling facilities.

Over 3.5 million trees and 10 billion gallons of water were used to manufacture receipts every year in the United States. This is a tremendous investment in resources for an item that the average person throws away. As we continue to mitigate the effects of climate change, it is imperative that we also minimize the waste of valuable resources to manufacture a product that can readily be replaced through available technology. (footnotes omitted)

1. Statements in opposition

A coalition of organizations representing various businesses, including the California Retailers Association, the California Grocers Association, and the California Restaurant Association, are opposed unless the bill is amended to remove all the provision but the BPA and BPS ban. They write:

A growing number of businesses check receipts as consumers exit their stores which helps to reduce theft. Authorizing a consumer to opt out of receiving any proof of purchase makes it impossible to know who has purchased the products they are walking out with.

Requiring businesses to offer an electronic receipt is also problematic. Not all businesses have point-of-sale (POS) systems that enable them to collect emails and send electronic receipts. In fact, some specifically do not want to collect such consumer information because it may make them subject to the California Privacy Rights Act. CPRA compliance is especially cumbersome and costly for small and medium-sized businesses. Also, in environments like drive throughs, there is generally not a way to have a consumer enter their email from their vehicle.

Additionally, there is a major compliance issue when it comes to grocery retailers that are WIC and SNAP authorized. Federal regulations require a receipt to be printed with the transaction amount and the benefit balance. These requirements are very strict and if not followed, it could cause an issue with federal regulators. Another issue is the technology capabilities of the processing companies, the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) requires authorized retailers to partner with FNS authorized payment processing companies. For example, Square has the capability to offer the option of an emailed or printed receipt as well as processing SNAP Payments. However, it is not available to high-risk merchants, those who are prone to fraud and back charges. Some grocers will fall into that category depending on their location.

This bill further prohibits the inclusion of any information that is not essential to the transaction, including but not limited to coupons and advertisements. We believe this provision raises constitutional questions. Restricting what can and cannot be printed on a receipt is a limit of commercial speech. Businesses add information to receipts that cover a wide variety of topics — not simply coupons or advertisements. Under this bill, a business would be prohibited from encouraging customers to vote in an upcoming election or to support a community event or charity.

Additionally, we believe that the provision cited above is anti-consumer. This bill explicitly prohibits a business from providing coupons on paper receipts. This greatly limits California consumers’ ability to access coupon based savings.

SUPPORT

Californians Against Waste (sponsor)
5 Gyres Institute

7th Generation Advisors

Active San Gabriel Valley

Ban Single Use Plastic (SUP)

Ban Sup (single Use Plastic)

Bay Area Youth Lobbying Initiative

Breast Cancer Prevention Partners

California Product Stewardship Council

California Resource Recovery Association

Californians Against Waste

Center for Oceanic Awareness, Research, and Education

Clean Water Action

Climate Action California

Climate Reality Project, Los Angeles Chapter

Climate Reality Project, San Fernando Valley

Courage California

Ecology Center

Educate.Advocate.

Environmental Working Group

Facts Families Advocating for Chemical and Toxics Safety

Fort Ord Environmental Justice Network

Friends Committee on Legislation of California

Friends of the Earth

Glendale Environmental Coalition

Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives

Green America

Green Science Policy Institute

Greenpeace USA

Grove Collaborative

Heal the Bay

Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy

National Stewardship Action Council

Natural Resources Defense Council

Northern California Recycling Association

Plastic Free Future

Plastic Oceans International

Plastic Pollution Coalition

Recology

RethinkWaste

San Francisco Baykeeper

Santa Cruz Climate Action Network

Save Our Shores

Sierra Club California

Surfrider Foundation

The 5 Gyres Institute

The Keep a Breast Foundation

The Story of Stuff Project

Upstream

Voices for Progress

Wishtoyo Chumash Foundation

Zero Waste USA

OPPOSITION

Auto Care Association

California Chamber of Commerce

California Fuels & Convenience Alliance

California Grocers Association

California Manufacturers & Technology Association

California Restaurant Association

California Retailers Association

CAWA

Costco Wholesale

Electronic Transactions Association

Orange County Business Council
Paper Receipts Converting Association

The Toy Association

RELATED LEGISLATION

Pending Legislation: None known.

Prior Legislation:

AB 161 (Ting, 2019) was substantially similar to this bill. AB 161 died in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

PRIOR VOTES

Assembly Floor (Ayes 49, Noes 17)

Assembly Appropriations Committee (Ayes 11, Noes 4)

Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee (Ayes 8, Noes 2)

Assembly Natural Resources Committee (Ayes 8, Noes 2)

**************

mock-up of propsed amendments to Sec. 2 of the bill^[13]

SEC. 2. Chapter 3.7 (commencing with Section 42190) as added to Part 3 of Division 30 of the Public Resources Code, is amended to read:

CHAPTER  3.7. Proof of Purchase

42190. For purposes of this chapter, the following definitions apply:

(a) (1) “Business” means a person that accepts payment through cash, credit, or debit transactions.

(2) “Business” does not include any of the following:

(A) A health care provider, as defined in Section 123105 of the Health and Safety Code.

(B) An entity organized as a nonprofit institution that has annual gross sale receipts of less than two million dollars ($2,000,000).

(C) Except for purposes of subdivision (d) (b) of Section 42190.1, an entity that is not subject to the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (Title 1.81.5 (commencing with Section 1798.100) of Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code).

(b) “Consumer” means a person who purchases, and does not offer for resale, food, alcohol, other tangible personal property, or services.

(c) “Invoice” means an itemized list of goods or services provided before or after the point of sale through a contract stating the amount due.

(d) “Person” includes any individual, firm, association, organization, partnership, limited liability company, business trust, corporation, or company.

(e) “Proof of purchase” means a receipt for the retail sale of food, alcohol, or other tangible personal property, or for the provision of services, provided at the point of sale, but does not include an invoice.

42190.1. (a) (1) On and after January 1, 2025, 2026 a business shall offer a consumer, on equal terms, at least all of the following options for receiving a proof of purchase: the option to receive a proof of purchase or not receive a proof of purchase.

(1) An email receipt.

(2) A text message receipt.

(3) A paper receipt.

(4) No receipt.

(b) A

(2) On and after January 1, 2026, a business shall not print a paper proof of purchase if the consumer opts to not receive a proof of purchase, unless otherwise required by state or federal law.

(3) Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), a business is not required to provide the consumer with an option to not receive a proof of purchase if a consumer voluntarily opts in to receive a proof of purchase through the rules of an association or warehouse or other club to which the consumer belongs.

(c) Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2) of subdivision (a), a business is not required to provide an electronic proof of purchase if, due to limited internet connectivity, a power outage, or other unexpected technical difficulties, the business is incapable of sending an electronic proof of purchase. Under those circumstances, the business shall provide the consumer a paper proof of purchase unless the consumer opts not to receive a proof of purchase pursuant to this section.

(d) (b) On and after January 1, 2024, a paper proof of purchase provided to a consumer by a business shall not contain bisphenol A. On and after January 1, 2025, a paper proof of purchase provided to a consumer by a business shall not contain any bisphenols.

(e) (1) A paper proof of purchase provided to a consumer by a business shall not include printouts of items nonessential to the transaction if those nonessential items make the paper proof of purchase longer than necessary to provide the consumer with the essential items to the transaction.

(2) “Items nonessential to the transaction” include, but are not limited to, coupons or advertisements.

(f)(c) The Attorney General, a district attorney, a county counsel, or a city attorney may enforce this section. The first and second violations of this section shall result in a notice of violation, and any subsequent violation shall be punishable by a civil penalty of twenty-five dollars ($25) for each day the business is in violation, but not to exceed three hundred dollars ($300) annually.

(g)(d) (1) This section does not alter any consumer privacy protection provided by law, including, but not limited to, those protections provided pursuant to the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (Title 1.81.5 (commencing with Section 1798.100) of Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code), including the amendments approved by the voters in Proposition 24 at the November 3, 2020, statewide general election, and the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971 (Title 1.3 (commencing with Section 1747) of Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code), including paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 1747.08 of the Civil Code.

(2) This section does not alter any other consumer right under federal, state, or local law.

(f) This section does not prohibit a business from offering a consumer the option of receiving an electronic proof of purchase, including but not limited to an email proof of purchase or text proof of purchase, unless otherwise prohibited by state or federal law.

1. Ecology Center, Receipt Paper Study 2018 Findings Overview, available at https://www.ecocenter.org/our-work/healthy-stuff-lab/reports/more-you-bargained-receipt-paper-study-2018/receipt-paper-study. ↑

2. Safer Chemicals Healthy Families, New report: 9 out of 10 receipts contain toxic BPA or BPS (Jan, 17, 2018), available at https://saferchemicals.org/2018/01/17/new-report-9-out-of-10-receipts-contain-toxic-bpa-or-bps/. ↑

3. ECHA, Bisphenols available at https://www.echa.europa.eu/hot-topics/bisphenols. ↑

4. Senate Bill 210 (Meyer, 2011), C.G.S.A. § 21a-12e. ↑

5. Asm. Natural Resources Comm. Analysis of AB 1347 (2023-24 gen. sess.) as amended Feb. 16, 2023 at p. 3. ↑

6. Green America, Skip the Slip: Environmental Costs & Human Health Risks of Paper Receipts with Proposed Solutions at p. 2, available at https://www.greenamerica.org/sites/default/files/2018-05/Skip%20the%20Slip%20Report%20-%20May%202018.pdf. ↑

7. Asm. Natural Resources Comm. Analysis of AB 1347 (2023-24 gen. sess.) as amended Feb. 16, 2023 at p. 3. ↑

8. Halliday, Josh, Epsilon email hack: millions of customers’ details stolen, The Guardian (Apr. 4, 2011), available at https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/apr/04/epsilon-email-hack (as of Jun. 16, 2019). ↑

9. FTC, The Equifax Data Breach: What to Do (Sept. 8, 2017), available at https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/blog/2017/09/equifax-data-breach-what-do (as of Jun. 16, 2019). ↑

10. FTC, The Marriott data breach (Dec. 4, 2018), available at https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/blog/2018/12/marriott-data-breach (as of Jun. 16, 2019). ↑

11. Wyatte Grantham-Philips, In latest T-Mobile hack, 37 million customers have personal data stolen, company says, USA Today, https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2023/01/20/tmobile-data-hack-37-million-customers/11088603002/. ↑

12. Asm. Privacy and Consumer Protection Comm. Analysis of AB 1347 (2023-24 gen. sess.) as amended April 19, 2023 (as stored April 24, 2023) at p. 1. ↑

13. The amendments may also include technical, nonsubstantive changes recommended by the Office of Legislative Counsel. ↑

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 1347

Author:(Ting)

As Amended Ver:May 2, 2023

Majority vote

SUMMARY

This bill prohibits, beginning January 1, 2024, the use of bisphenol A (BPA) or bisphenol S (BPS) in printed proofs of purchase (receipts) and establishes other receipt requirements for businesses subject to the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA).

Major Provisions

1. Prohibits a paper receipt provided to a customer by a business from containing BPA or BPS.
2. Requires a business to offer a customer at least all of the following options for receiving a receipt: an email receipt, a text message receipt, a paper receipt, and no receipt.
3. Prohibits paper receipts from containing printouts of items nonessential to the transaction if those items make the receipt longer than necessary to provide the consumer with the items essential to the transaction.
4. Prohibits a business from printing a paper receipt if the customer opts not to receive a receipt, unless otherwise required by state or federal law.
5. Provides that a business is not required to provide an electronic receipt if, due to limited internet connectivity, a power outage, or other unexpected technical difficulties, the business is incapable of sending an electronic receipt. Provides that under those circumstances, the business shall provide the consumer a paper receipt unless the consumer opts not to receive a receipt.
6. Authorizes the Attorney General, a district attorney, a county counsel, or a city attorney to enforce this bill, and provides that the first and second violations of this bill shall result in a notice of violation, and any subsequent violation is punishable by a civil penalty of $25 for each day the business is in violation, up to a maximum of $300 annually.
7. Provides that this bill does not alter any consumer privacy protection provided by law or any other consumer right under federal, state, or local law.

COMMENTS

Point-of-sale receipts in California are generally printed on white thermal paper, which contain significant amounts of either BPA or BPS. Bisphenols, including BPA and BPS, are endocrine disrupters that are associated with possible cancer and reproductive risks. The US Environmental Protection Agency notes that exposure to BPA and BPS may occur during the manufacture and use of thermal paper and at its end-of-life. Once touched, BPA can also be transferred by a cashier or consumer’s hands to other surfaces, like food. While paper is 15.5% of the state’s disposed waste stream, receipts make up a small percentage of the total paper disposed in California. While receipts may be technically recyclable, CalRecycle indicates receipts are highly discouraged from being recycled because their toxic BPA or BPS coatings contaminate the recycling stream. Their small size also makes them nearly impossible to remove during the sorting process, making them difficult to manage. Similarly, receipts are technically compostable, in that they will break down in an industrial compost facility. However, the BPA and BPS coatings result in receipts also acting as a contaminant in compost.

This bill is intended to reduce the toxicity of receipts by prohibiting the use of BPA and BPS coatings, and reduce the overall generation of receipts by requiring them to only be distributed upon request and by prohibiting the inclusion of unnecessary items on the receipts.

According to the Author

With the increasing adoption of e-receipts, paper receipts have become unnecessary and antiquated. Yet many businesses are still providing paper receipts, many of which are coated with toxic chemicals that makes them harmful to human health and nearly impossible to recycle. According to Green America’s Skip the Slip report, over 3 million trees and 10 billion gallons of water in the United States are used to create proof of purchase receipts...This bill would reduce waste and ensure that we don’t expend valuable resources by simply requiring businesses to only provide a receipt upon the request of the customer. Printed receipts would have to be BPA/BPS free and not be longer than necessary.

Arguments in Support

Writing in support, a coalition of organizations states:

AB 1347 would require all printed receipts to be free of BPA and BPS, limiting consumers’ exposure to these toxic substances and eliminate the chance of contamination in recycling facilities. Over 3.5 million trees and 10 billion gallons of water were used to manufacture receipts every year in the United States. This is a tremendous investment in resources for an item that the average person throws away. As we continue to mitigate the effects of climate change, it is imperative that we also minimize the waste of valuable resources to manufacture a product that can readily be replaced through available technology.

Arguments in Opposition

Writing in opposition, a coalition of organizations states:

AB 1347 will require businesses to provide consumers with the option not to get a receipt or to receive an electronic receipt. While some businesses do provide this choice, other retailers, grocers and restaurants utilize receipts to decrease theft. A growing number of businesses check receipts as consumers exit their stores which helps to reduce theft… Not all businesses have point-of-sale (POS) systems that enable them to collect emails and send electronic receipts. In fact, some specifically do not want to collect such consumer information because it may make them subject to the California Privacy Rights Act…This bill further prohibits the inclusion of any information that is not essential to the transaction, including but not limited to coupons and advertisements. We believe this provision raises constitutional questions. Restricting what can and cannot be printed on a receipt is a limit of commercial speech.

FISCAL COMMENTS

The Department of Justice (DOJ) estimates costs of approximately $221,000 in fiscal year (FY) 2023-24 and $389,000 in FY 2024-25 and ongoing (General Fund) for one additional deputy attorney general and one legal secretary to enforce this bill. The Consumer Protection Section within DOJ’s Public Rights Division anticipates increased consumer protection and privacy enforcement litigation from the elimination of paper receipts where customers are encouraged to release telephone numbers or email addresses to obtain electronic receipts.

VOTES

ASM NATURAL RESOURCES: 8-2-1

YES: Luz Rivas, Addis, Friedman, Muratsuchi, Pellerin, Ward, Wood, Zbur

NO: Hoover, Mathis

ABS, ABST OR NV: Flora

ASM PRIVACY AND CONSUMER PROTECTION: 8-2-1

YES: Gabriel, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Irwin, Lowenthal, Papan, Wicks, Wilson

NO: Joe Patterson, Vince Fong

ABS, ABST OR NV: Essayli

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 11-4-1

YES: Holden, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Mike Fong, Hart, Lowenthal, Papan, Pellerin, Weber, Ortega

NO: Megan Dahle, Dixon, Mathis, Sanchez

ABS, ABST OR NV: Robert Rivas

UPDATED

VERSION: May 2, 2023

CONSULTANT: Elizabeth MacMillan / NAT. RES. / (916) 319-2092 FN: 0000720

Date of Hearing: May 10, 2023

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Chris Holden, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1347

Author:(Ting) – As Amended Ver:May 2, 2023

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill prohibits, beginning January 1, 2024, the use of bisphenol A (BPA) or bisphenol S (BPS) in printed proofs of purchase (receipts) and establishes other receipt requirements for businesses subject to the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA).

Specifically, this bill:

1. Prohibits a paper receipt provided to a customer by a business from containing BPA or BPS.
2. Requires a business to offer a customer at least all of the following options for receiving a receipt: an email receipt, a text message receipt, a paper receipt, and no receipt.
3. Prohibits paper receipts from containing printouts of items nonessential to the transaction if those items make the receipt longer than necessary to provide the consumer with the items essential to the transaction.
4. Prohibits a business from printing a paper receipt if the customer opts not to receive a receipt, unless otherwise required by state or federal law.
5. Provides that a business is not required to provide an electronic receipt if, due to limited internet connectivity, a power outage, or other unexpected technical difficulties, the business is incapable of sending an electronic receipt. Provides that under those circumstances, the business shall provide the consumer a paper receipt unless the consumer opts not to receive a receipt.
6. Authorizes the Attorney General, a district attorney, a county counsel, or a city attorney to enforce this bill, and provides that the first and second violations of this bill shall result in a notice of violation, and any subsequent violation is punishable by a civil penalty of $25 for each day the business is in violation, up to a maximum of $300 annually.
7. Provides that this bill does not alter any consumer privacy protection provided by law or any other consumer right under federal, state, or local law.

FISCAL EFFECT:

Department of Justice (DOJ) estimates costs of approximately $221,000 in fiscal year (FY) 2023-24 and $389,000 in FY 2024-25 and ongoing (General Fund) for one additional deputy attorney general and one legal secretary to enforce this bill. The Consumer Protection Section within DOJ’s Public Rights Division anticipates increased consumer protection and privacy enforcement litigation from the elimination of paper receipts where customers are encouraged to release telephone numbers or email addresses to obtain electronic receipts.

COMMENTS:

1) Purpose. According to the author:

With the increasing adoption of e-receipts, paper receipts have become unnecessary and antiquated. Yet many businesses are still providing paper receipts, many of which are coated with toxic chemicals that makes them harmful to human health and nearly impossible to recycle. According to Green America’s Skip the Slip report, over 3 million trees and 10 billion gallons of water in the United States are used to create proof of purchase receipts...This bill would reduce waste and ensure that we don’t expend valuable resources by simply requiring businesses to only provide a receipt upon the request of the customer. Printed receipts would have to be BPA/BPS free and not be longer than necessary.

2) Background. Point-of-sale receipts in California are generally printed on white thermal paper, which contain significant amounts of either BPA or BPS. Bisphenols, including BPA and BPS, are endocrine disrupters that are associated with possible cancer and reproductive risks. The US Environmental Protection Agency notes that exposure to BPA and BPS may occur during the manufacture and use of thermal paper and at its end-of-life. Once touched, BPA can also be transferred by a cashier or consumer’s hands to other surfaces, like food. While paper is 15.5% of the state’s disposed waste stream, receipts make up a small percentage of the total paper disposed in California. According to the Assembly Natural Resources Committee analysis of this bill, while receipts may be technically recyclable, CalRecycle indicates receipts are highly discouraged from being recycled because their toxic BPA or BPS coatings contaminate the recycling stream. Receipts are viewed by the waste industry as contaminants in the paper recycling stream. Their small size also makes them nearly impossible to remove during the sorting process, making them difficult to manage. Similarly, receipts are technically compostable, in that they will break down in an industrial compost facility. However, the BPA and BPS coatings are also a contaminant in compost.

Writing in support, a coalition of organizations states:

AB 1347 would require all printed receipts to be free of BPA and BPS, limiting consumers’ exposure to these toxic substances and eliminate the chance of contamination in recycling facilities. Over 3.5 million trees and 10 billion gallons of water were used to manufacture receipts every year in the United States. This is a tremendous investment in resources for an item that the average person throws away. As we continue to mitigate the effects of climate change, it is imperative that we also minimize the waste of valuable resources to manufacture a product that can readily be replaced through available technology.

Writing in opposition, a coalition of organizations states:

AB 1347 will require businesses to provide consumers with the option not to get a receipt or to receive an electronic receipt. While some businesses do provide this choice, other retailers, grocers and restaurants utilize receipts to decrease theft. A growing number of businesses check receipts as consumers exit their stores which helps to reduce theft… Not all businesses have point-of-sale (POS) systems that enable them to collect emails and send electronic receipts. In fact, some specifically do not want to collect such consumer information because it may make them subject to the California Privacy Rights Act…This bill further prohibits the inclusion of any information that is not essential to the transaction, including but not limited to coupons and advertisements. We believe this provision raises constitutional questions. Restricting what can and cannot be printed on a receipt is a limit of commercial speech.

Analysis Prepared by: Nikita Koraddi / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 25, 2023

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PRIVACY AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

Jesse Gabriel, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1347 (

Author:Ting) – As Amended Ver:April 19, 2023

As Proposed to be Amended

SUBJECT: Solid waste: paper waste: proofs of purchase

SYNOPSIS

This bill makes several changes to current law designed to reduce both toxic chemicals and paper waste in the environment. Specifically, the bill bans the use of the chemicals bisphenol A (BPA) and bisphenol S (BPS) in printed receipts. In addition, it prohibits businesses from printing any information on a receipt, other than information strictly related to the transaction. In addition, it requires businesses to offer all customers a choice between an email, text, or paper receipt, or no receipt at all.

The author recently took an amendment to address opposition concerns about the bill. Specifically, instead of requiring customers to proactively ask for a printed receipt, it requires that they be offered the receipt options enumerated above.

In order to reduce the privacy risks associated with requiring the collection of email addresses and telephone numbers, Committee amendments limit the other provisions of the bill only to business that are already covered under the California Consumer Protection Act (CCPA). Committee amendments do not affect the banning of BPA and BPS in receipts, however.

The question before this Committee is whether or not the environmental impact of the proposed policies is worth any erosion of Californians’ privacy rights and/or consumer protections that may be required in order to achieve the stated goals of the author. The answer appears, unfortunately, that beyond banning the use of toxic chemicals, it is unclear that this bill makes a significant difference in the amount of paper waste and may, in fact, unintentionally increase electronic waste. Therefore, the bill may result in an expansion in the number of the businesses that collected telephone numbers and email addresses and that does pose some level of privacy risk for customer, with very little, if any benefit.

This bill is sponsored by Californians Against Waste and supported by a large coalition of environmental organizations, including Greenpeace USA and Save the Bay. One organization, the National Association of Advertisers, opposes the bill. Finally, a large number of business organizations, including the California Chamber of Commerce, and the California Restaurants, Retailers, and Grocers Associations, have an “oppose unless amended position. “They have all agreed to remove their opposition if the scope of this bill is confined to removing BPA and BPS by January 1, 2025.

This bill previously passed the Assembly Natural Resources Committee on an 8-2-1 vote.

SUMMARY: Beginning January 1, 2024, prohibits the use of bisphenol A (BPA) or bisphenol S (BPS) in printed receipts. Establishes additional receipt requirements for businesses subject to the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). Specifically, this bill:

1. Defines a “proof of purchase” as a receipt for the retail sale of food, alcohol, or other tangible personal property, or for the provision of services, provided at the point of sale.
2. Prohibits proofs of purchase from containing BPA or BPS.
3. Requires a business, as defined, to offer customers the following options for a proof of purchase:
   1. An email proof of purchase.
   2. A text message proof of purchase.
   3. A paper proof of purchase.
   4. No proof of purchase
4. Prohibits paper receipts from containing any information that is not essential to the transaction, including coupons or advertisements.
5. Prohibits a business from printing a receipt if the customer opts not to receive a paper receipt, unless otherwise required by state or federal law.
6. Establishes civil penalties for violations of this statute in the amount of $25 for each day a business is in violation of the law, up to a maximum of $300 per year.
7. Defines a “business” that is subject to this statute as a person that accepts payment through cash, credit or debit transactions and has a gross annual revenue of at least $25 million and is subject to the CCPA.
8. Establishes that “items nonessential to the transaction” include, but are not limited to, coupons or advertisements.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Provides, pursuant to the California Constitution, that all people have inalienable rights, including the right to pursue and obtain privacy. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 1.)
2. Requires, except in specified situations, that retailers making sales of tangible personal property shall collect the tax from the purchaser and give the purchaser a receipt, as specified. (Rev. & Tax Code Sec. 6203.)
3. Establishes the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). (Civ. Code §§ 1798.100-1798.199.100.)
4. Provides that the CCPA applies to any for-profit entity that collects consumers’ personal information, does business in California, and meets one or more of the following criteria:
   1. It had gross annual revenue of over $25 million in the previous calendar year.
   2. It buys, receives, or sells the personal information of 100,000 or more California residents, households, or devices annually.
   3. It derives 50% or more of its annual revenue from selling California residents’ personal information. (Civ. Code § 1798.140(d).)
5. Defines “consumer” as a natural person who is a California resident. (Civ. Code § 1798.140(i).)
6. Provides a consumer, subject to exemptions and qualifications, various rights, including the following:
   1. The right to know the business or commercial purpose for collecting, selling, or sharing personal information and the categories of persons to whom the business discloses personal information. (Civ. Code § 1798.110.)
   2. The right to request that a business disclose the specific pieces of information the business has collected about the consumer, and the categories of third parties to whom the personal information was disclosed. (Civ. Code § 1798.110.)
   3. The right to request deletion of personal information that a business has collected from the consumer. (Civ. Code § 1798.105.)
   4. The right to opt-out of the sale of the consumer’s personal information if the consumer is over 16 years of age. (Sale of the personal information of a consumer below the age of 16 is barred unless the minor opts-in to its sale.) (Civ. Code § 1798.120.)
   5. The right to equal service and price, despite the consumer’s exercise of any of these rights, unless the difference in price is reasonably related to the value of the customer’s data. (Civ. Code § 1798.125.)
7. Defines “personal information” as information that identifies, relates to, describes, is reasonably capable of being associated with, or could reasonably be linked, directly or indirectly, with a particular consumer or household. Personal information includes such information as:
   1. Name, alias, postal address, unique personal identifier, online identifier, IP address, email address, account name, social security number, driver’s license number, passport number, or other identifier.
   2. Commercial information, including records of personal property, products or services purchased, obtained, or considered, or other purchasing or consuming histories or tendencies.
   3. Biometric information.
   4. Internet activity information, including browsing history and search history.
   5. Geolocation data.
   6. Professional or employment-related information. (Civ. Code § 1798.140(v).)
8. Establishes administrative penalties for CCPA violations, to be recovered through administrative enforcement actions brought by the California Privacy Protection Agency (Privacy Agency). (Civ. Code § 1798.155.)
9. Provides five years from the date upon which a violation of the CCPA occurred for the Privacy Agency to bring an administrative enforcement action. (Civ. Code § 1798.199.70.)
10. Establishes civil penalties for CCPA violations, to be recovered through a civil action brought on behalf of the people of the state of California by the Attorney General. (Civ. Code § 1798.199.90(a).)
11. Prohibits the Attorney General from filing a civil action under the CCPA after the Privacy Agency has issued a decision or an order against that person for the same violation. (Civ. Code § 1798.199.90(d).)
12. Pursuant to the Integrated Waste Management Act (Pub. Reso. Code § 40000 et seq.):
    1. Requires that local governments divert at least 50% of solid waste from landfill disposal and establishes a statewide goal that 75% of solid waste be diverted from landfill disposal by 2020.
    2. Requires commercial waste generators, including multi-family dwellings, to arrange for recycling services and requires local governments to implement commercial solid waste recycling programs designed to divert solid waste from businesses.
    3. Requires generators of specified amounts of organic waste to arrange for recycling services for that material.

FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal

COMMENTS:

1) Purpose. This bill would ban the use of the chemicals bisphenol A (BPA) and bisphenol S (BPS) in printed consumer receipts by January 1, 2024. Additionally, this bill seeks to reduce paper waste in California by requiring businesses to offer customers the option between an electronic receipt, paper receipt and no receipt. Finally, the author also proposes to reduce paper waste by prohibiting businesses from printing any extraneous information on a receipt.

2) Author’s statement. According to the author:

With the increasing adoption of e-receipts, paper receipts have become unnecessary and antiquated. Yet many businesses are still providing paper receipts, many of which are coated with toxic chemicals that makes them harmful to human health and nearly impossible to recycle. According to Green America’s Skip the Slip report, over 3 million trees and 10 billion gallons of water in the United States are used to create proof of purchase receipts. That’s a lot of environmental impact for something that we generally don’t need, especially if you’re just buying a pack of gum or getting a cup of coffee to-go. This bill would reduce waste and ensure that we don’t expend valuable resources by simply requiring businesses to only provide a receipt upon the request of the customer. Printed receipts would have to be BPA/BPS free and not be longer than necessary.

3) What this bill does. In an effort to address the environmental concerns related to paper receipts, this bill, as proposed to be amended, would do the following:

1. Eliminate the use of BPA and BPS in all receipts.

2. For a business that is subject to the CCPA (essentially, one that makes over $25 million in gross revenue per year), impose the following restrictions:

A. Require that the business offer its customers a choice in how they obtain a receipt. The customer can continue to receive a paper receipt, opt for an e-receipt delivered over text or email, or can opt out of receiving a receipt all together. These choices are already commonplace in many businesses and should be familiar to customers.

B. Prohibit the business from printing anything that is not essential to the transaction on a paper receipt.

C. Prohibit the printing of a paper receipt if the customer opts not to receive one. In other words, their systems can not automatically print a receipt that the business then throws in the trash.

D. Establish a modest civil penalty. Under this bill, a business would receive a warning for the first and second violations, and be liable for $25 each day thereafter that the business is in violation, but not to exceed $300 annually. (To underscore how modest these penalties are, staff notes that businesses found to be in violation of the CCPA may be liable for up to $2,500 per violation, or up to $7,500 per intentional violation, in an action brought by the Attorney General.)

4) The California Consumer Protection Act (CCPA). In 2018, the Legislature enacted the California Consumer Privacy Act (AB 375 (Chau, Chap. 55, Stats. 2018)), which gives consumers certain rights regarding their personal information, such as: (1) the right to know what personal information that is collected and sold about them; (2) the right to request the categories and specific pieces of personal information the business collects about them; and (3) the right to opt-out of the sale of their personal information, or opt-in, in the case of minors under 16 years of age. The CCPA was the byproduct of compromises made between business interests on one side, and consumer and privacy interests on the other, to provide a legislative alternative to a ballot initiative on the same subject.

Subsequently, in 2020, California voters passed Proposition 24, the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), which established additional privacy rights for Californians. With the passage of the CCPA and the CPRA, California now has the most comprehensive laws in the country when it comes to protecting consumers’ rights to privacy.

In addition, Proposition 24 created the California Privacy Protection Agency (Privacy Agency) in California, vested with full administrative power, authority, and jurisdiction to implement and enforce the CCPA and the CPRA. The Agency’s responsibilities include updating existing regulations, and adopting new regulations.

A violation of the CCPA is punishable either through administrative penalties, to be recovered through administrative enforcement actions brought by the Privacy Agency, or civil penalties recovered through a civil action brought on behalf of the people of the state of California by the Attorney General.

5) Receipts. According to the Natural Resources Committee’s analysis of this bill:

Point-of-sale receipts in California are generally printed on white thermal paper, which is very thin, lightweight paper coated with a material that changes color when heated. Generally, this coating contains significant amounts of either BPA or BPS. According to the American Forest and Paper Association (AFPA), receipt paper used in California almost exclusively uses BPS. Because thermal paper is so thin, it generally contains no recycled content, and thermal paper is generally not recyclable.

While paper is 15.5% of the state’s disposed waste stream, receipts make up a small percentage of the total paper disposed in California. Estimates vary on the amount of receipt paper used in the US. According to the AFPA, the US annually uses approximately 180,000 tons of paper receipts. Grand View Research, which provides market information, estimates that around 280,000 tons of thermal paper is used in the US each year for receipts. California-specific data is not available.

6) Bisphenols. Also according to the Natural Resources Committee analysis:

Bisphenols, including BPA, BPS, and other forms like bisphenol F, are endocrine disrupters that are associated with possible cancer and reproductive risks. According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), BPA is a reproductive, developmental, and systemic toxicant in animal studies and is weakly estrogenic, leading to questions about its potential impact on children’s health and development. The US EPA notes that exposure to BPA (and BPS) may occur during manufacture and use of thermal paper and at its end-of-life. In one 2010 study, BPA was detected at levels between 0.8% and 2.8% of the total weight of the receipts tested. Moreover, the amount of BPA that is absorbed through the skin increases if hand sanitizer or hand cream had been applied prior to handling the receipt. Once touched, BPA can also be transferred by a cashier or consumer’s hands to other surfaces, like food.

7) Committee amendments. In order to protect the privacy rights of consumers by not requiring smaller businesses to begin collecting and storing customers’ personal information in order to provide the option of electronic receipts, Committee amendments limit the businesses that are subject to the provisions of this bill to those already bound by the privacy protections included in the CCPA. The amendments to the definition of a “business” will be crafted by Legislative Counsel but in essence should be similar to the following:

(a) (1) “Business” means a person that accepts payment through cash, credit, or debit transactions and is otherwise subject to the California Consumer Protection Act (Civil Code §§ 1798.100-1798.199.100.).

(2) “Business” does not include either of the following:

(A) A health care provider, as defined in Section 123105 of the Health and Safety Code.

(B) An entity organized as a nonprofit institution that has annual gross sale receipts of less than two million dollars ($2,000,000).

The ban on BPA and BPS however, will continue to apply to all paper receipts in the state.

8) Analysis. The question before this Committee is whether or not the environmental impact of the proposed policies is worth any erosion of Californians’ privacy rights and/or consumer protections that may be required to achieve the stated goals of the author.

Requiring the removal of toxins from receipts is clearly an important policy. For almost two decades the Legislature has worked to remove bisphenols from all sorts of products, including baby bottles and toys, plastic packaging and cosmetics, to name a few. This bill furthers that work by insuring that something as ubiquitous as paper receipts no longer contain these toxins, which can lead to cancer or inflict reproductive damage on people who come into contact with them.

Committee amendments take care of the remaining privacy concerns. While the proposed Committee amendments take care of the bulk of the privacy concerns, it is important to note that any potential expansion of the businesses that collected telephone numbers and email addresses does pose some level of privacy risk for customers. On a larger scale, anything that fosters the unnecessary collection of new email and cell phone data places retailers and customers at increased risk of being part of a data breach event.

On a more individual level, generally speaking, e-receipts could potentially compromise the privacy of an individual living in the same household as their family. It could have the unintended consequence of releasing information that customers might like to keep private. For example, if a teenager purchases a sensitive item, like a pregnancy test or a book about sexuality, the electronic receipt could be visible to other family members who share the same account. Perhaps more crucially, an electronic receipt containing information about any product related to reproductive health or any purchases that may inadvertently disclose someone’s gender identity (e.g., a transgender teenage girl still publicly presenting as a boy purchasing make-up or clothing that is traditionally worn by girls) could have serious real world implications if inadvertently disclosed to someone in their household or family. However, under this bill, a customer would retain the right to decline a receipt or get a paper receipt. The Legislature is actively working on multiple fronts to insure that this type of sensitive personal information is strictly controlled and protected.

It remains unclear how much the other policies in the bill will impact the environment. Along with eliminating bishpenols, the bill prohibits paper receipts from containing any information that is not directly related to the transaction, including coupons and advertisements. However, nothing in this bill will prohibit businesses from printing coupons and other information separate from receipts for their customers. The likely approach retailers will take is to stop printing coupons and other information on the actual receipt itself and instead printing it on a secondary slip, either using the same receipt printer or adding a second printer to their systems, thus resulting in no net decrease to paper usage. Specifically, coupons that are currently printed on the backs of receipts will now be required to be printed on a separate piece of paper. So, while the author’s stated goal of shortening receipts will technically be achieved, the goal of reducing paper waste will not.

9) Related legislation. AB 161 (Ting, 2019) was substantially similar to this bill. It was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT. The sponsors of the bill, Californians Against Waste, argue:

AB 1347, which would reduce waste, conserve valuable resources, and limit exposure to toxic chemicals by simply requiring businesses to give consumers the choice between a printed, digital, or no receipt. Despite rising consumer popularity and expanded availability of e-receipts, many businesses still provide paper receipts. In 2021, the United States used 284,000 metric tons of receipts that are effectively impossible to recycle due to toxic coatings in thermal receipt paper.

In 2021, receipts generated 334,000,000 pounds of waste. In a survey from Green America regarding consumer receipt preferences, respondents said they threw away or lost 49 percent of paper receipts they received, even if they intended to keep the receipt. This outdated technology simply does not match current consumer lifestyles. In a survey from Green America, 86 percent of respondents want retailers to offer digital receipts as an option due to environmental concerns and for easier storage. AB 1347 would give consumers the option to choose between a printed, digital, or no receipt, which matches what consumers already prefer.

93% of receipts are coated in Bisphenol-A (BPA) or Bisphenol-S (BPS) for text to appear on the receipt. BPA and BPS are easily transferred through surface contact which can contaminate paper collected for recycling. The easy spread of BPA and BPS also poses a risk to human health, as both BPA and BPS can easily be absorbed through the skin and enter the bloodstream. BPA and BPS are endocrine disruptors linked to numerous health concerns including fetal development issues, reproductive impairment, Type 2 diabetes, thyroid conditions and other health concerns. AB 1347 would require all printed receipts to be free of BPA and BPS, limiting consumers’ exposure to these toxic substances and eliminate the chance of contamination in recycling facilities.

In addition to echoing the concerns outlined by the sponsor, a large coalition of environmental groups supporting the bill adds:

Over 3.5 million trees and 10 billion gallons of water were used to manufacture receipts every year in the United States. This is a tremendous investment in resources for an item that the average person throws away. As we continue to mitigate the effects of climate change, it is imperative that we also minimize the waste of valuable resources to manufacture a product that can readily be replaced through available technology.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION. While only one organization has expressed outright opposition to the bill, a large number of groups have an “oppose unless amended” position. A coalition of organizations, including the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Restaurant Association, the California Retailers Association, and the California Grocers Association writes:

The bill has several problematic provisions including one which mandates that most businesses providing receipts collect personal information. Specifically, the bill requires businesses offer an electronic receipt if the consumer chooses. It also mandates that businesses give consumers the option to receive a receipt and places limits on the speech that can be included on paper receipts.

However, we would remove our opposition if the above provisions were eliminated and the bill prohibits BPA and BPS in receipts as of January 1, 2025 which is when adequate supplies of BPA- and BPS-free paper will be available. Without these amendments, this bill is detrimental to consumers and difficult for businesses to comply.

AB 1347 will require businesses to provide consumers with the option not to get a receipt or to receive an electronic receipt. While some businesses do provide this choice, other retailers, grocers and restaurants utilize receipts to decrease theft. A growing number of businesses check receipts as consumers exit their stores which helps to reduce theft. Authorizing a consumer to opt out of receiving any proof of purchase makes it impossible to know who has purchased the products they are walking out with.

Requiring businesses to offer an electronic receipt is also problematic. Not all businesses have point-of-sale (POS) systems that enable them to collect emails and send electronic receipts. In fact, some specifically do not want to collect such consumer information because it may make them subject to the California Privacy Rights Act. CPRA compliance is especially cumbersome and costly for small and medium-sized businesses. Also, in environments like drive throughs, there is generally not a way to have a consumer enter their email from their vehicle.

[. . .]

This bill further prohibits the inclusion of any information that is not essential to the transaction, including but not limited to coupons and advertisements. We believe this provision raises constitutional questions. Restricting what can and cannot be printed on a receipt is a limit of commercial speech. Businesses add information to receipts that cover a wide variety of topics — not simply coupons or advertisements. Under this bill, a business would be prohibited from encouraging customers to vote in an upcoming election or to support a community event or charity.

Additionally, we believe that the provision cited above is anti-consumer. This bill explicitly prohibits a business from providing coupons on paper receipts. This greatly limits California consumers’ ability to access coupon-based savings.

We know that millions of customers utilize receipt coupons. Banning this access to cost savings will harm those who use coupons to save money on essential grocery and other items.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

5 Gyres Institute
7th Generation Advisors
Active San Gabriel Valley
Ban Single Use Plastic (SUP)
Breast Cancer Prevention Partners
California Product Stewardship Council
Californians Against Waste (sponsor)
Clean Water Action
Climate Action California
Climate Reality Project, Los Angeles Chapter
Climate Reality Project, San Fernando Valley
Educate. Advocate.
Environmental Working Group
Facts Families Advocating for Chemical and Toxics Safety
Fort Ord Environmental Justice Network
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Friends of The Earth
Friends of The Earth US
Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA)
Green America
Greenpeace USA
Heal the Bay
LAANE (Los Angeles Alliance for A New Economy)
National Stewardship Action Council
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Northern California Recycling Association
Plastic Free Future
Plastic Oceans International
Plastic Pollution Coalition
Rethinkwaste
Santa Cruz Climate Action Network
Save Our Shores
Sierra Club California
Surfrider Foundation
The 5 Gyres Institute
The Center for Oceanic Awareness, Research, and Education
The Story of Stuff Project
Upstream
Wishtoyo Chumash Foundation
Zero Waste USA

Oppose Unless Amended

American Forest & Paper Association
Auto Care Association
California Automotive Wholesalers' Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California Fuels and Convenience Alliance
California Grocers Association
California Manufacturers and Technology Association
California Restaurant Association
California Retailers Association
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Paper Receipts Converting Association
The Toy Association

Opposition

Association of National Advertisers

Analysis Prepared by: Julie Salley / P. & C.P. / (916) 319-2200

Date of Hearing:

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PRIVACY AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

Jesse Gabriel, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1347 (

Author:Ting) – As Amended Ver:April 19, 2023

As Proposed to be Amended

SUBJECT: Solid waste: paper waste: proofs of purchase

SYNOPSIS

This bill makes several changes to current law designed to reduce both toxic chemicals and paper waste in the environment. Specifically, the bill bans the use of the chemicals bisphenol A (BPA) and bisphenol S (BPS) in printed receipts. In addition, it prohibits businesses from printing any information on a receipt, other than information strictly related to the transaction. In addition, it requires businesses to offer all customers a choice between an email, text, or paper receipt, or no receipt at all.

The author recently took a number of amendments to address opposition concerns about the bill. Those amendments, among other things, exempted small businesses making under $1 million from the bill’s requirements, and instead of requiring customers to proactively ask for a printed receipt, requires that they be offered the receipt options enumerated above. Finally, the amendments added a new prohibition for businesses: they cannot print a paper receipt if the customer opts not to receive one. In other words, their systems could not automatically print a receipt that the business then throws in the trash. Nor could the business print paper receipts for their own records.

In order to reduce the privacy risks associated with requiring the collection of email addresses and telephone numbers, Committee amendments limit the other provisions of the bill only to business that are already covered under the California Consumer Protection Act (CCPA). Committee amendments do not affect the banning of BPA and BPS in receipts, however.

The question before this Committee is whether or not the environmental impact of the proposed policies is worth any erosion of Californians’ privacy rights and/or consumer protections that may be required in order to achieve the stated goals of the author. The answer appears, unfortunately, that beyond banning the use of toxic chemicals, it is unclear that this bill makes a significant difference in the amount of paper waste and may, in fact, unintentionally increase electronic waste. Therefore, the bill may result in an expansion in the number of the businesses that collected telephone numbers and email addresses and that does pose some level of privacy risk for customer, with very little, if any benefit.

This bill is sponsored by Californians Against Waste and supported by a large coalition of environmental organizations, including Greenpeace USA and Save the Bay. One organization, the National Association of Advertisers, opposes the bill. Finally, a large number of business organizations, including the California Chamber of Commerce, and the California Restaurants, Retailers, and Grocers Associations, have an “oppose unless amended position. “They have all agreed to remove their opposition if the scope of this bill is confined to removing BPA and BPS by January 1, 2025.

This bill previously passed the Assembly Natural Resources Committee on an 8-2-1 vote.

SUMMARY: Beginning January 1, 2024, prohibits the use of bisphenol A (BPA) or bisphenol S (BPS) in printed receipts. Establishes additional receipt requirements for businesses subject to the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). Specifically, this bill:

1. Defines a “proof of purchase” as a receipt for the retail sale of food, alcohol, or other tangible personal property, or for the provision of services, provided at the point of sale.
2. Prohibits proofs of purchase from containing BPA or BPS.
3. Requires a business, as defined, to offer customers the following options for a proof of purchase:
   1. An email proof of purchase.
   2. A text message proof of purchase.
   3. A paper proof of purchase.
   4. No proof of purchase
4. Prohibits paper receipts from containing any information that is not essential to the transaction, including coupons or advertisements.
5. Prohibits a business from printing a receipt if the customer opts not to receive a paper receipt, unless otherwise required by state or federal law.
6. Establishes civil penalties for violations of this statute in the amount of $25 for each day a business is in violation of the law, up to a maximum of $300 per year.
7. Defines a “business” that is subject to this statute as a person that accepts payment through cash, credit or debit transactions and has a gross annual revenue of at least $25 million and is subject to the CCPA.
8. Establishes that “items nonessential to the transaction” include, but are not limited to, coupons or advertisements.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Provides, pursuant to the California Constitution, that all people have inalienable rights, including the right to pursue and obtain privacy. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 1.)
2. Requires, except in specified situations, that retailers making sales of tangible personal property shall collect the tax from the purchaser and give the purchaser a receipt, as specified. (Rev. & Tax Code Sec. 6203.)
3. Establishes the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). (Civ. Code §§ 1798.100-1798.199.100.)
4. Provides that the CCPA applies to any for-profit entity that collects consumers’ personal information, does business in California, and meets one or more of the following criteria:
   1. It had gross annual revenue of over $25 million in the previous calendar year.
   2. It buys, receives, or sells the personal information of 100,000 or more California residents, households, or devices annually.
   3. It derives 50% or more of its annual revenue from selling California residents’ personal information. (Civ. Code § 1798.140(d).)
5. Defines “consumer” as a natural person who is a California resident. (Civ. Code § 1798.140(i).)
6. Provides a consumer, subject to exemptions and qualifications, various rights, including the following:
   1. The right to know the business or commercial purpose for collecting, selling, or sharing personal information and the categories of persons to whom the business discloses personal information. (Civ. Code § 1798.110.)
   2. The right to request that a business disclose the specific pieces of information the business has collected about the consumer, and the categories of third parties to whom the personal information was disclosed. (Civ. Code § 1798.110.)
   3. The right to request deletion of personal information that a business has collected from the consumer. (Civ. Code § 1798.105.)
   4. The right to opt-out of the sale of the consumer’s personal information if the consumer is over 16 years of age. (Sale of the personal information of a consumer below the age of 16 is barred unless the minor opts-in to its sale.) (Civ. Code § 1798.120.)
   5. The right to equal service and price, despite the consumer’s exercise of any of these rights, unless the difference in price is reasonably related to the value of the customer’s data. (Civ. Code § 1798.125.)
7. Defines “personal information” as information that identifies, relates to, describes, is reasonably capable of being associated with, or could reasonably be linked, directly or indirectly, with a particular consumer or household. Personal information includes such information as:
   1. Name, alias, postal address, unique personal identifier, online identifier, IP address, email address, account name, social security number, driver’s license number, passport number, or other identifier.
   2. Commercial information, including records of personal property, products or services purchased, obtained, or considered, or other purchasing or consuming histories or tendencies.
   3. Biometric information.
   4. Internet activity information, including browsing history and search history.
   5. Geolocation data.
   6. Professional or employment-related information. (Civ. Code § 1798.140(v).)
8. Establishes administrative penalties for CCPA violations, to be recovered through administrative enforcement actions brought by the California Privacy Protection Agency (Privacy Agency). (Civ. Code § 1798.155.)
9. Provides five years from the date upon which a violation of the CCPA occurred for the Privacy Agency to bring an administrative enforcement action. (Civ. Code § 1798.199.70.)
10. Establishes civil penalties for CCPA violations, to be recovered through a civil action brought on behalf of the people of the state of California by the Attorney General. (Civ. Code § 1798.199.90(a).)
11. Prohibits the Attorney General from filing a civil action under the CCPA after the Privacy Agency has issued a decision or an order against that person for the same violation. (Civ. Code § 1798.199.90(d).)
12. Pursuant to the Integrated Waste Management Act (Pub. Reso. Code § 40000 et seq.):
    1. Requires that local governments divert at least 50% of solid waste from landfill disposal and establishes a statewide goal that 75% of solid waste be diverted from landfill disposal by 2020.
    2. Requires commercial waste generators, including multi-family dwellings, to arrange for recycling services and requires local governments to implement commercial solid waste recycling programs designed to divert solid waste from businesses.
    3. Requires generators of specified amounts of organic waste to arrange for recycling services for that material.

FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal

COMMENTS:

1) Purpose. This bill would ban the use of the chemicals bisphenol A (BPA) and bisphenol S (BPS) in printed consumer receipts by January 1, 2024. Additionally, this bill seeks to reduce paper waste in California by requiring businesses to provide customers with electronic receipts in addition to offering them a paper receipt or no receipt. Finally, the author also proposes to reduce paper waste by prohibiting businesses from printing any extraneous information on a receipt. This bill is author-sponsored.

2) Author’s statement. According to the author:

With the increasing adoption of e-receipts, paper receipts have become unnecessary and antiquated. Yet many businesses are still providing paper receipts, many of which are coated with toxic chemicals that makes them harmful to human health and nearly impossible to recycle. According to Green America’s Skip the Slip report, over 3 million trees and 10 billion gallons of water in the United States are used to create proof of purchase receipts. That’s a lot of environmental impact for something that we generally don’t need, especially if you’re just buying a pack of gum or getting a cup of coffee to-go. This bill would reduce waste and ensure that we don’t expend valuable resources by simply requiring businesses to only provide a receipt upon the request of the customer. Printed receipts would have to be BPA/BPS free and not be longer than necessary.

3) What this bill does. In an effort to address the environmental concerns related to paper receipts, this bill, as proposed to be amended, would do the following:

1. Eliminate the use of BPA and BPS in all receipts.

2. For a business that is subject to the CCPA (essentially, one that makes over $25 million in gross revenue per year), impose the following restrictions:

A. Require that the business offer its customers a choice in how they obtain a receipt. The customer can continue to receive a paper receipt, opt for an e-receipt delivered over text or email, or can opt out of receiving a receipt all together. These choices are already commonplace in many businesses and should be familiar to customers.

B. Prohibit the business from printing anything that is not essential to the transaction on a paper receipt.

C. Prohibit the printing of a paper receipt if the customer opts not to receive one. In other words, their systems can not automatically print a receipt that the business then throws in the trash. Nor can the business print paper receipts for its own records.

D. Establish a modest civil penalty. Under this bill, a business would receive a warning for the first and second violations, and be liable for $25 each day thereafter that the business is in violation, but not to exceed $300 annually. (To underscore how modest these penalties are, staff notes that businesses found to be in violation of the CCPA may be liable for up to $2,500 per violation, or up to $7,500 per intentional violation, in an action brought by the Attorney General.)

4) The California Consumer Protection Act (CCPA). In 2018, the Legislature enacted the California Consumer Privacy Act (AB 375 (Chau, Chap. 55, Stats. 2018)), which gives consumers certain rights regarding their personal information, such as: (1) the right to know what personal information that is collected and sold about them; (2) the right to request the categories and specific pieces of personal information the business collects about them; and (3) the right to opt-out of the sale of their personal information, or opt-in, in the case of minors under 16 years of age. The CCPA was the byproduct of compromises made between business interests on one side, and consumer and privacy interests on the other, to provide a legislative alternative to a ballot initiative on the same subject.

Subsequently, in 2020, California voters passed Proposition 24, the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), which established additional privacy rights for Californians. With the passage of the CCPA and the CPRA, California now has the most comprehensive laws in the country when it comes to protecting consumers’ rights to privacy.

In addition, Proposition 24 created the California Privacy Protection Agency (Privacy Agency) in California, vested with full administrative power, authority, and jurisdiction to implement and enforce the CCPA and the CPRA. The Agency’s responsibilities include updating existing regulations, and adopting new regulations.

A violation of the CCPA is punishable either through administrative penalties, to be recovered through administrative enforcement actions brought by the Privacy Agency, or civil penalties recovered through a civil action brought on behalf of the people of the state of California by the Attorney General.

5) Receipts. According to the Natural Resources Committee’s analysis of this bill:

Point-of-sale receipts in California are generally printed on white thermal paper, which is very thin, lightweight paper coated with a material that changes color when heated. Generally, this coating contains significant amounts of either BPA or BPS. According to the American Forest and Paper Association (AFPA), receipt paper used in California almost exclusively uses BPS. Because thermal paper is so thin, it generally contains no recycled content, and thermal paper is generally not recyclable.

While paper is 15.5% of the state’s disposed waste stream, receipts make up a small percentage of the total paper disposed in California. Estimates vary on the amount of receipt paper used in the US. According to the AFPA, the US annually uses approximately 180,000 tons of paper receipts. Grand View Research, which provides market information, estimates that around 280,000 tons of thermal paper is used in the US each year for receipts. California-specific data is not available.

6) Bisphenols. Also according to the Natural Resources Committee analysis:

Bisphenols, including BPA, BPS, and other forms like bisphenol F, are endocrine disrupters that are associated with possible cancer and reproductive risks. According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), BPA is a reproductive, developmental, and systemic toxicant in animal studies and is weakly estrogenic, leading to questions about its potential impact on children’s health and development. The US EPA notes that exposure to BPA (and BPS) may occur during manufacture and use of thermal paper and at its end-of-life. In one 2010 study, BPA was detected at levels between 0.8% and 2.8% of the total weight of the receipts tested. Moreover, the amount of BPA that is absorbed through the skin increases if hand sanitizer or hand cream had been applied prior to handling the receipt. Once touched, BPA can also be transferred by a cashier or consumer’s hands to other surfaces, like food.

7) Committee amendments. In order to protect the privacy rights of consumers by not requiring smaller businesses to begin collecting and storing customers’ personal information in order to provide the option of electronic receipts, Committee amendments limit the businesses that are subject to the provisions of this bill to those already bound by the privacy protections included in the CCPA. The amendments to the definition of a “business” will be crafted by Legislative Counsel but in essence should be similar to the following:

(a) (1) “Business” means a person that accepts payment through cash, credit, or debit transactions and is otherwise subject to the California Consumer Protection Act (Civil Code §§ 1798.100-1798.199.100.).

(2) “Business” does not include either of the following:

(A) A health care provider, as defined in Section 123105 of the Health and Safety Code.

(B) An entity organized as a nonprofit institution that has annual gross sale receipts of less than two million dollars ($2,000,000).

The ban on BPA and BPS however, will continue to apply to all paper receipts in the state.

8) Analysis. The question before this Committee is whether or not the environmental impact of the proposed policies is worth any erosion of Californians’ privacy rights and/or consumer protections that may be required to achieve the stated goals of the author.

Requiring the removal of toxins from receipts is clearly an important policy. For almost two decades the Legislature has worked to remove bisphenols from all sorts of products, including baby bottles and toys, plastic packaging and cosmetics, to name a few. This bill furthers that work by insuring that something as ubiquitous as paper receipts no longer contain these toxins, which can lead to cancer or inflict reproductive damage on people who come into contact with them.

Committee amendments take care of the remaining privacy concerns. While the proposed Committee amendments take care of the bulk of the privacy concerns, it is important to note that any potential expansion of the businesses that collected telephone numbers and email addresses does pose some level of privacy risk for customers. On a larger scale, anything that fosters the unnecessary collection of new email and cell phone data places retailers and customers at increased risk of being part of a data breach event.

On a more individual level, encouraging e-receipts could potentially compromise the privacy of an individual living in the same household as their family. It could have the unintended consequence of releasing information that customers might like to keep private. For example, if a teenager purchases a sensitive item, like a pregnancy test or a book about sexuality, the electronic receipt could be visible to other family members who share the same account. Perhaps more crucially, an electronic receipt containing information about any product related to reproductive health or any purchases that may inadvertently disclose someone’s gender identity (e.g., a transgender teenage girl still publicly presenting as a boy purchasing make-up or clothing that is traditionally worn by girls) could have serious real world implications if inadvertently disclosed to someone in their household or family.

The Legislature is actively working on multiple fronts to insure that this type of sensitive personal information is strictly controlled and protected.

It remains unclear how much the other policies in the bill will impact the environment. Along with eliminating bishpenols, the bill prohibits paper receipts from containing any information that is not directly related to the transaction, including coupons and advertisements. However, nothing in this bill will prohibit businesses from printing coupons and other information separate from receipts for their customers. The likely approach retailers will take is to stop printing coupons and other information on the actual receipt itself and instead printing it on a secondary slip, either using the same receipt printer or adding a second printer to their systems, thus resulting in no net decrease to paper usage. In fact, instead of reducing waste, this policy may actually increase environmentally harmful waste. Specifically, coupons that are currently printed on the backs of receipts will now be required to be printed on a separate piece of paper. So, while the author’s stated goal of shortening receipts will technically be achieved, the goal of reducing paper waste will not.

In addition, it may be that an unintended consequence of prohibiting information from being included on a receipt will inflict additional harm to the environment by increasing electronic waste. If large retailers decide to purchase and install secondary printers at every checkout point in their stores, that would result in a doubling of the number of thermal receipt printers currently in use. As an example, assuming there are over one million large brick and mortar retail businesses in the country, and 10 percent of them are in California, that would equate to over 100,000 stores. If just half of those businesses decide to install secondary printers at their retail locations and those locations average ten checkout points, that is a half-million printers that at best may last 10 years before winding up in a landfill.

9) Related legislation. AB 161 (Ting, 2019) was substantially similar to this bill. It was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT. The sponsors of the bill, Californians Against Waste, argue:

AB 1347, which would reduce waste, conserve valuable resources, and limit exposure to toxic chemicals by simply requiring businesses to give consumers the choice between a printed, digital, or no receipt. Despite rising consumer popularity and expanded availability of e-receipts, many businesses still provide paper receipts. In 2021, the United States used 284,000 metric tons of receipts that are effectively impossible to recycle due to toxic coatings in thermal receipt paper.

In 2021, receipts generated 334,000,000 pounds of waste. In a survey from Green America regarding consumer receipt preferences, respondents said they threw away or lost 49 percent of paper receipts they received, even if they intended to keep the receipt. This outdated technology simply does not match current consumer lifestyles. In a survey from Green America, 86 percent of respondents want retailers to offer digital receipts as an option due to environmental concerns and for easier storage. AB 1347 would give consumers the option to choose between a printed, digital, or no receipt, which matches what consumers already prefer.

93% of receipts are coated in Bisphenol-A (BPA) or Bisphenol-S (BPS) for text to appear on the receipt. BPA and BPS are easily transferred through surface contact which can contaminate paper collected for recycling. The easy spread of BPA and BPS also poses a risk to human health, as both BPA and BPS can easily be absorbed through the skin and enter the bloodstream. BPA and BPS are endocrine disruptors linked to numerous health concerns including fetal development issues, reproductive impairment, Type 2 diabetes, thyroid conditions and other health concerns. AB 1347 would require all printed receipts to be free of BPA and BPS, limiting consumers’ exposure to these toxic substances and eliminate the chance of contamination in recycling facilities.

In addition to echoing the concerns outlined by the sponsor, a large coalition of environmental groups supporting the bill adds:

Over 3.5 million trees and 10 billion gallons of water were used to manufacture receipts every year in the United States. This is a tremendous investment in resources for an item that the average person throws away. As we continue to mitigate the effects of climate change, it is imperative that we also minimize the waste of valuable resources to manufacture a product that can readily be replaced through available technology.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION. While only one organization has expressed outright opposition to the bill, a large number of groups have an “oppose unless amended” position. A coalition of organizations, including the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Restaurant Association, the California Retailers Association, and the California Grocers Association writes:

The bill has several problematic provisions including one which mandates that most businesses providing receipts collect personal information. Specifically, the bill requires businesses offer an electronic receipt if the consumer chooses. It also mandates that businesses give consumers the option to receive a receipt and places limits on the speech that can be included on paper receipts.

However, we would remove our opposition if the above provisions were eliminated and the bill prohibits BPA and BPS in receipts as of January 1, 2025 which is when adequate supplies of BPA- and BPS-free paper will be available. Without these amendments, this bill is detrimental to consumers and difficult for businesses to comply.

AB 1347 will require businesses to provide consumers with the option not to get a receipt or to receive an electronic receipt. While some businesses do provide this choice, other retailers, grocers and restaurants utilize receipts to decrease theft. A growing number of businesses check receipts as consumers exit their stores which helps to reduce theft. Authorizing a consumer to opt out of receiving any proof of purchase makes it impossible to know who has purchased the products they are walking out with.

Requiring businesses to offer an electronic receipt is also problematic. Not all businesses have point-of-sale (POS) systems that enable them to collect emails and send electronic receipts. In fact, some specifically do not want to collect such consumer information because it may make them subject to the California Privacy Rights Act. CPRA compliance is especially cumbersome and costly for small and medium-sized businesses. Also, in environments like drive throughs, there is generally not a way to have a consumer enter their email from their vehicle.

[. . .]

This bill further prohibits the inclusion of any information that is not essential to the transaction, including but not limited to coupons and advertisements. We believe this provision raises constitutional questions. Restricting what can and cannot be printed on a receipt is a limit of commercial speech. Businesses add information to receipts that cover a wide variety of topics — not simply coupons or advertisements. Under this bill, a business would be prohibited from encouraging customers to vote in an upcoming election or to support a community event or charity.

Additionally, we believe that the provision cited above is anti-consumer. This bill explicitly prohibits a business from providing coupons on paper receipts. This greatly limits California consumers’ ability to access coupon-based savings.

We know that millions of customers utilize receipt coupons. Banning this access to cost savings will harm those who use coupons to save money on essential grocery and other items.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

5 Gyres Institute
7th Generation Advisors
Active San Gabriel Valley
Ban Single Use Plastic (SUP)
Breast Cancer Prevention Partners
California Product Stewardship Council
Californians Against Waste (sponsor)
Clean Water Action
Climate Action California
Climate Reality Project, Los Angeles Chapter
Climate Reality Project, San Fernando Valley
Educate. Advocate.
Environmental Working Group
Facts Families Advocating for Chemical and Toxics Safety
Fort Ord Environmental Justice Network
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Friends of The Earth
Friends of The Earth US
Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA)
Green America
Greenpeace USA
Heal the Bay
LAANE (Los Angeles Alliance for A New Economy)
National Stewardship Action Council
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Northern California Recycling Association
Plastic Free Future
Plastic Oceans International
Plastic Pollution Coalition
Rethinkwaste
Santa Cruz Climate Action Network
Save Our Shores
Sierra Club California
Surfrider Foundation
The 5 Gyres Institute
The Center for Oceanic Awareness, Research, and Education
The Story of Stuff Project
Upstream
Wishtoyo Chumash Foundation
Zero Waste USA

Oppose Unless Amended

American Forest & Paper Association
Auto Care Association
California Automotive Wholesalers' Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California Fuels and Convenience Alliance
California Grocers Association
California Manufacturers and Technology Association
California Restaurant Association
California Retailers Association
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Paper Receipts Converting Association
The Toy Association

Opposition

Association of National Advertisers

Analysis Prepared by: Julie Salley / P. & C.P. / (916) 319-2200

Date of Hearing: March 27, 2023

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

Luz Rivas, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1347 (

Author:Ting) – As Introduced Ver:February 16, 2023

SUBJECT: Solid waste: paper waste: proofs of purchase

SUMMARY: Beginning January 1, 2024, prohibits stores from providing paper receipts to consumers except upon request. Prohibits the use of bisphenol A (BPA) or bisphenol S (BPS) in receipts.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Pursuant to the Integrated Waste Management Act (Public Resources Code § 40000 et seq.):
   1. Requires that local governments divert at least 50% of solid waste from landfill disposal and establishes a statewide goal that 75% of solid waste be diverted from landfill disposal by 2020.
   2. Requires commercial waste generators, including multi-family dwellings, to arrange for recycling services and requires local governments to implement commercial solid waste recycling programs designed to divert solid waste from businesses.
   3. Requires generators of specified amounts of organic waste to arrange for recycling services for that material.
      
2. Requires retailers that are required to collect use tax from purchasers (including lessees) must give a receipt to each purchaser for the amount of the tax collected. The receipt does not need to be “in any particular form,” but must include specified information including the name and place of business, the name and address of the purchaser, a description of the property sold or leased, and the date on which the property was sold or leased. (Revenue and Taxation Code §6001 et seq.)
3. Various laws regarding the collection of fees, including recycling fees on tires and certain electronic devices require that the fee is itemized on the invoice at the point of sale. (Various statutes)

THIS BILL:

1. Beginning January 1, 2024:
   1. Requires that a proof of purchase (i.e., receipt) only be provided to a consumer by a business at the consumer’s option, unless it is otherwise required by state or federal law;
   2. Prohibits the printing of a proof of purchase by a business if a consumer opts not to receive the proof of purchase, unless it is otherwise required by state or federal law; and,
   3. Specifies that if a consumer opts to receive a proof of purchase, it must be provided in printed or electronic form, at the consumer’s option, unless a prescribed form is otherwise required by state or federal law.
2. Specifies that a business is not required to provide an electronic proof of purchase if it is incapable of sending one due to limited internet connectivity, a power outage, or other unexpected technical difficulties.
3. Prohibits a proof of purchase provided to a consumer by a business from containing BPA or BPS.
4. Prohibits a proof of purchase provided to a consumer by a business from including printouts of items nonessential to the transaction if those items make the paper proof of purchase longer than necessary to provide the consumer with items essential to the transaction. Specifies that nonessential items include things like coupons and advertisements.
5. Authorizes the Attorney General, district attorney, or city attorney to enforce the provisions of the bill. Establishes that the first and second violation shall result in a notice of violation, and any subsequent violation is an infraction punishable by $25 per day, not to exceed $300 annually.
6. Specifies that nothing in the bill alters a consumer privacy protection or the consumer rights of individuals.
7. Defines terms used in the bill, including:
   1. “Business” as a person that accepts payment through cash, credit, or debit transactions. Specifies that business does not include health care providers, as specified, or nonprofit institutions that have annual gross sale receipts of less than $2 million.
   2. “Consumer” as a person who purchases, and does not offer for resale, food, alcohol, other tangible personal property, or services.
   3. “Person” as any individual, firm, association, organization, partnership, limited liability company, business trust, corporation, or company.
   4. “Proof of purchase” as a receipt for the retail sale of food, alcohol, or other tangible personal property, or for the provision of services, provided at the point of sale, but not including an invoice.

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown

COMMENTS:

1. Author’s statement:

With the increasing adoption of e-receipts, paper receipts have become unnecessary and antiquated. Yet many businesses are still providing paper receipts, many of which are coated with toxic chemicals that makes them harmful to human health and nearly impossible to recycle. According to Green America’s Skip the Slip report, over 3 million trees and 10 billion gallons of water in the United States are used to create proof of purchase receipts. That’s a lot of environmental impact for something that we generally don’t need, especially if you’re just buying a pack of gum or getting a cup of coffee to-go. This bill would reduce waste and ensure that we don’t expend valuable resources by simply requiring businesses to only provide a receipt upon the request of the customer. Printed receipts would have to be BPA/BPS free and not be longer than necessary.

1. Waste management in California. More than 40 million tons of waste are disposed of in California’s landfills annually, of which 28.4% is organic materials, 13% is plastic, and 15.5% is paper. The Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) is charged with diverting at least 75% of solid waste from landfills statewide by 2020. Local governments have been required to divert 50% of the waste generated within the jurisdiction from landfill disposal since 2000. AB 341 (Chesbro), Chapter 476, Statutes of 2011, requires commercial waste generators, including multi-family dwellings, to arrange for recycling services for the material they generate and requires local governments to implement commercial solid waste recycling programs designed to divert solid waste generated by businesses out of the landfill. A follow up bill, AB 1826 (Chesbro), Chapter 727, Statutes of 2014, requires generators of organic waste (i.e., food waste and yard waste) to arrange for recycling services for that material to keep it out of the landfill.

SB 1383 (Lara), Chapter 395, Statutes of 2016, requires the Air Resources Board (ARB) to approve and implement a comprehensive short-lived climate pollutant strategy to achieve, from 2013 levels, a 40% reduction in methane, a 40% reduction in hydrofluorocarbon gases, and a 50% reduction in anthropogenic black carbon, by 2030. In order to accomplish these goals, the bill specified that the methane emission reduction goals include targets to reduce the landfill disposal of organic waste, including paper, 50% by 2020 and 75% by 2025 from the 2014 level.

1. Receipts. Point-of-sale receipts in California are generally printed on white thermal paper, which is very thin, lightweight paper coated with a material that changes color when heated. Generally, this coating contains significant amounts of either BPA or BPS. According to the American Forest and Paper Association (AFPA), receipt paper used in California almost exclusively uses BPS. Because thermal paper is so thin, it generally contains no recycled content, and thermal paper is generally not recyclable.

While paper is 15.5% of the state’s disposed waste stream, receipts make up a small percentage of the total paper disposed in California. Estimates vary on the amount of receipt paper used in the US. According to the AFPA, the US annually uses approximately 180,000 tons of paper receipts. Grand View Research, which provides market information, estimates that around 280,000 tons of thermal paper is used in the US each year for receipts. California-specific data is not available.

Bisphenols, including BPA, BPS, and other forms like bisphenol F, are endocrine disrupters that are associated with possible cancer and reproductive risks. According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), BPA is a reproductive, developmental, and systemic toxicant in animal studies and is weakly estrogenic, leading to questions about its potential impact on children’s health and development. The US EPA notes that exposure to BPA (and BPS) may occur during manufacture and use of thermal paper and at its end-of-life. In one 2010 study, BPA was detected at levels between 0.8% and 2.8% of the total weight of the receipts tested. Moreover, the amount of BPA that is absorbed through the skin increases if hand sanitizer of hand cream had been applied prior to handling the receipt. Once touched, BPA can also be transferred by a cashier or consumer’s hands to other surfaces, like food.

1. Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. This bill is focused on source-reduction. California’s solid waste hierarchy places source reduction at the top of the solid waste management hierarchy, followed by reuse and then recycling. Disposal should be the last resort. Requiring consumers to request a paper receipt is intended to reduce the number of paper receipts generated, which will conserve the resources needed to make the receipts and reduce the generation of waste receipts.
   
   According to the AFPA, receipts are recyclable. While this may be technically true, CalRecycle indicates that they are highly discouraged from being recycled because their toxic BPA or BPS coatings contaminate the recycling stream. They are viewed by the waste industry as contaminants in the paper recycling stream. Their small size makes them nearly impossible to remove during the sorting process, making them difficult to manage.

Similarly, they are technically compostable, in that they will break down in an industrial compost facility. However, the BPA and BPS coatings are also a contaminant in compost.

1. European Union action. The European Union (EU) adopted a regulation (Commission Regulation 2016/2235) in 2016 to ban the use of BPA, in concentrations greater than 0.02% by weight, in thermal paper used for receipts on and after January 2, 2020. The regulation cites risk to cashiers and consumers who are exposed to BPA by handling thermal paper receipts and goes on to state that, “the population at risk was the unborn children of pregnant workers and consumers exposed to BPA contained in the thermal paper they handle.” The regulation’s findings note that BPS, the most likely substitute to BPA in receipts, may have a toxicological profile similar to BPA; therefore, it encourages monitoring for the use of BPS in thermal paper and consideration of further action to restrict its use.
2. This bill. This bill is intended to reduce the amount of receipt waste generated in the state by requiring business to provide them only when requested by the consumer. Not only is this material not recyclable, the size and composition of receipts generally makes them a contaminant in the recycling stream.

This bill also prohibits the use of toxic BPA and BPS in receipts, which would provide significant health benefits to consumers and especially to cashiers who handle large numbers of receipts on a daily basis. This change would also reduce the contamination associated with receipts that enter the recycling or composting streams. Should this bill become law, the author and stakeholders may wish to monitor what replacements are proposed by the industry for BPA and BPS to ensure that they are not replaced by another toxic chemical.

The author may wish to consider amending the bill to update the findings and declarations as the bill moves through the legislative process.

1. Previous legislation. AB 161 (Ting) of 2019 was substantially similar to this bill. It was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
2. Double referral. This bill has also been referred to the Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

5 Gyres Institute

7th Generation Advisors

Active San Gabriel Valley

Ban Single Use Plastic (SUP)

Breast Cancer Prevention Partners

California Product Stewardship Council

Californians Against Waste

Clean Water Action

Educate. Advocate.

Environmental Working Group

Friends of the Earth

Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA)

Green America

Greenpeace USA

Heal the Bay

National Stewardship Action Council

Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)

Northern California Recycling Association

Plastic Free Future

RethinkWaste

Save Our Shores

Sierra Club California

Surfrider Foundation

The Story of Stuff Project

Wishtoyo Chumash Foundation

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Elizabeth MacMillan / NAT. RES. /