SB 808 (Roth) — Assembly Committee on Jobs, Economic Development, and the Economy (June 29, 2021)
Summary
Analysis of SB 808 (Roth), as amended April 7, 2021, for the June 29, 2021 hearing of the Assembly Committee on Jobs, Economic Development, and the Economy, with Sabrina Cervantes as Chair. The subject is GO-Biz: Made in California Program, and the Senate vote is listed as 37-0. The summary says SB 808 modifies the Made in California Program by removing the requirements that the finished product could lawfully use the "Made in USA" label and that a qualified third party verify the company and labeled products. It says the bill retains re-certification every three years, with the company now allowed to self-certify. California Manufacturing and Technology Association is listed in support, and opposition is none on file.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Cite this document
“SB 808 (Roth) — Assembly Committee on Jobs, Economic Development, and the Economy (June 29, 2021).”
Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/2021-06-29-sb-808-jede-analysis-796312c088/
, SHA-256 5b5a346215926102a63a837fd63f2007d33dd70470704c6aa5edfed99034efa3.Full text
SB 808
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 29, 2021
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JOBS, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, AND THE ECONOMY
Sabrina Cervantes, Chair
SB 808 (Roth) – As Amended April 7, 2021
SENATE VOTE: 37-0
SUBJECT: GO-Biz: Made in California Program
POLICY FRAME: California faces many hurdles in meeting the economic recovery challenges of the
COVID-19 pandemic. Among other economic truths, the pandemic laid bare the risks of relying on
extended global supply chains to meet the basic needs of California families, as well as production and
component requirements for our manufacturing and retail trade sectors. Moving forward, enhancement of
domestic manufacturing capacity appears to be a high priority.
President Biden has invoked the Defense Production Act (DPA) as a means to expedite, assure, and
expand the supply of selective products to meet the nation’s emergency, as well as economic recovery
needs. Earlier in the year, he used the DPA to accelerate production of at-home and point-of-care
coronavirus tests and is most recently using the DPA to address shortages of the computer chips used in
the manufacturing cars.
Beyond the DPA, the American Jobs Plan calls for major new investments in the US manufacturing,
including $52 billion for capital access programs to support domestic manufacturers and the
modernization of US supply chains, $50 billion to increase semiconductor manufacturing and research,
and $12 billion in targeted workforce training programs in underserved communities.
SB 808 proposes to use this heightened interest in reshoring and expansion of domestic manufacturing
capacity to relaunch the state’s Made in California Program. Leveraging manufacturing as an economic
recovery tool has many unique economic development qualities. Not only does manufacturing provide
average wage levels well above the statewide average, manufacturing also supports a wide range of small
businesses within their expanded supply chain. Further, investments in manufacturing also advantage
other industry sectors, including trade, transportation, professional services, and finance.
The analysis includes information on the economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on California
business, manufacturing in California, the Made in California Program, potential enforcement challenges
triggered by the proposed program changes, and a list of related legislation. Suggested amendments are
included in Comment 8.
SUMMARY: SB 808 modifies the Made in California Program by removing the requirements that the
finished product could lawfully use the “Made in USA” label, and that a qualified third party verify that
the company and labeled products meet the requirements of the state program.
The bill retains the requirement for re-certification every three years, however the company would now be
allowed to self-certify their compliance. Enforcement of potential fraudulent activity under the Consumer
Legal Remedies Act is also retained, which allows an individual or group of individuals to seek damages
through the civil courts.
SB 808
Page 2
EXISTING LAW:
1) Establishes the Made in California Program, within the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic
Development (GO-Biz), for the purposes of encouraging consumer product awareness and fostering
the purchases of high-quality California products.
a) Requires GO-Biz to develop a program that permits a company to represent that a product is made
in this state. To be eligible under the program, a company is required to establish all of the
following:
i) The product is substantially made by an individual located in California.
ii) The finished product could lawfully use a “Made in USA” label, as specified.
iii) Defines “substantially made” to mean completing an act that adds at least 51% of a final
product’s wholesale value by manufacture, assembly, fabrication, or production to create a
final, recognizable product. The bill also states that “substantially made” does not include the
act of packaging a product.
iv) Excludes agricultural products subject to the Buy California Program from the Made in
California Program.
b) Requires each company to register with GO-Biz for use of the “Made in California” label.
i) Requires, as part of the registration process, that a company submits a qualified third-party
certification that the product meets the requirements of the Made in California Program.
ii) Requires, as a condition of retaining a company’s participation in the Made in California
Program, the submittal of a new compliance certification by a qualified third-party at least
once every three years.
iii) Defines a “qualified third-party” to mean an individual, group, or association that possesses a
professional license, certification, or other equivalent documentation indicating sufficient
training, education, or expertise to perform a regulatory compliance audit.
c) Authorizes GO-Biz to establish a marketing agreement, consistent with the authority for the
California Department of Food and Agriculture. The marketing agreement would provide, among
other things, for the funding, governance, and conditions related to the issuance of a “Made in
California” label.
d) Authorizes GO-Biz to require a fee to accompany the registration. In addition:
i) Authorizes GO-Biz to accept monetary donations or other donations from businesses,
nonprofit organizations, or individuals to implement the Made in California Program.
ii) Requires the deposit of the proceeds from fees and monetary donations in the Made in
California Fund, as specified.
e) Requires GO-Biz to annually report to the Legislature regarding expenditures, progress, and
ongoing priorities of the Made in California Program.
f) Requires enforcement of the provisions of the Made in California Program be undertaken pursuant
to the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, as specified.
SB 808
Page 3
i) Specifies that it is an unlawful deceptive practice to represent that a product is made in
California by using a “Made in California” label, unless the product complies with the
requirements of the Made in California Program.
ii) Specifies that GO-Biz is not required to enforce, audit, or investigate a company that
participates in the Made in California Program.
iii) Authorizes any consumer who suffer damages as a result of the use of a method, act, or
practice declared to be unlawful under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act to bring an action
against that person to recover or obtain any of the following:
(1) Actual damages, but in no case shall the total award of damages in a class action be less
than one thousand dollars ($1,000).
(2) An order enjoining the methods, acts, or practices.
(3) Restitution of property.
(4) Punitive damages.
(5) Any other relief that the court deems proper.
iv) Allows for a class action suit to be filed on behalf of a class of consumers adversely affected
by an unfair method of competition, act, or practice.
2) Establishes the Buy California Program within the California Department of Food and Agriculture for
the purposes of encouraging consumer nutritional and food awareness and to foster purchases of high
quality California agricultural products.
3) Protects consumers and competitors against unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices
and unfair, deceptive, untrue, or misleading advertising.
a) Makes it unlawful for any person, firm, corporation, or association to sell or offer for sale in this
state any merchandise on which merchandise or on its container there appears the words “Made in
USA,” or similar words if the merchandise or any article, unit, or part thereof, has been entirely or
substantially made, manufactured, or produced outside of the US.
i) Any person, corporation, firm, partnership, joint stock company, or any other association or
organization which violates or proposes to violate this chapter may be enjoined by any court of
competent jurisdiction.
ii) Actions for injunction may be prosecuted by the Attorney General or any district attorney,
county counsel, city attorney, or city prosecutor in this state in the name of the people of the
State of California upon their own complaint; or upon the complaint of any board, officer,
person, corporation, or association; or by any person who has suffered injury in fact and has
lost money or property as a result of a violation of this chapter.
b) Makes it unlawful, under the Unfair Competition Law, for any person, corporations, firms,
partnerships, joint stock company, or association to engage in unfair competition, which means
and includes any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive,
untrue or misleading advertising.
i) Makes it unlawful for any person, firm, corporation, or association; or any employee thereof
with intent directly or indirectly to dispose of real or personal property to make or disseminate
SB 808
Page 4
information before the public which is untrue or misleading, and which is known, or which by
the exercise of reasonable care should be known, to be untrue or misleading
ii) Requires actions for relief to be prosecuted exclusively in a court of competent jurisdiction by
the Attorney General, or a district attorney, or by a county counsel authorized by agreement
with the district attorney, in actions involving violation of a county ordinance, or by a city
attorney of a city having a population in excess of 750,000, or by a city attorney in a city and
county or, with the consent of the district attorney, by a city prosecutor in a city having a full-
time city prosecutor in the name of the people of the State of California upon their own
complaint or upon the complaint of a board, officer, person, corporation, or association, or by a
person who has suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property as a result of the unfair
competition.
c) Establishes the Unfair Trade Practices Act for the purpose of safeguarding the public against the
creation or perpetuation of monopolies and to foster and encourage competition by prohibiting
unfair, dishonest, deceptive, destructive, fraudulent, and discriminatory practices by which fair and
honest competition is destroyed or prevented.
i) Makes it unlawful for any person engaged in the production, manufacture, distribution or sale
of any article or product of general use or consumption with intent to destroy the competition
of any regular established dealer in such article or product, or to prevent the competition of
any person who in good faith, intends, and attempts to become such dealer, to create locality
discriminations.
ii) Authorizes, under certain circumstances, civil actions to be brought by any person, trade
association, the Attorney General or district attorney.
iii) Specifies that in any action brought under the Unfair Practices Act that it is not necessary to
allege or prove actual damages or the threat thereof, or actual injury or the threat thereof, to the
plaintiff.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
COMMENTS:
1) A Closer Look at the Impact of COVID-19 on Businesses: During the initial months of the 2021-
22 legislative session, the Assembly Committee on Jobs, Economic Development, and the Economy
(JEDE) held several hearings examining policy options for supporting an inclusive economic
recovery. Dr. Robert Fairlie, University of California Santa Cruz, testified at the Committee’s
February 23, 2021, hearing and provided an overview of the economic impacts of the pandemic on
small business owners in the US and in California. His presentation began with his work, The Impact
of Covid-19 on Small Business Owners: Evidence of Early-Stage Losses from the April 2020 Current
Population Survey. In this report he used a simulation model to estimate that between February 2020
and April 2020 there was a decrease of business activity of 41% among Black-owned businesses, 32%
among Latinx-owned businesses, and 26% among Asian-owned business. The report further stated
that immigrant business owners experienced substantial losses of 36%. Female-owned businesses
were also disproportionately impacted, experiencing a 25% decline in business activity.
SB 808
Page 5
Dr. Fairlie regularly tracked business activity by demographic group and found that by June 2020,
business activity had returned, but was still down substantially from pre-pandemic levels, “The Impact
of COVID-19 on Small Business Owners: The First Three Months after Social Distancing,”
published in Journal of Economics and Management Strategies in August 2020.
While overall business activity was down -8% in June, activity among Black business owners
remained at -19% and for immigrant owners -18%. Business owners who were women (-10%),
Latinx (-10%), and Asian (-10%) still fared worse than white business owners (-5%). Chart 1 shows
this transition on a monthly basis, for selected business owners of color.
Chart 1 - Change in Number of Active US Business Owners by Race and Ethnicity
African-American Latinx Asian
Relative to Relative to Relative to
Feb. Month in Reg. Feb. Month in Reg. Feb. Month in Reg.
2020 Prev. Yr. Adjusted 2020 Prev. Yr. Adjusted 2020 Prev. Yr. Adjusted
Feb. 2020 0% 2% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% -1% 0%
Mar. 2020 0% 13% -6% -6% -3% -4% 5% 4% 6%
Apr. 2020 -41% -38% -52% -32% -28% -32% -26% -36% -29%
May 2020 -26% -23% -35% -19% -14% -20% -21% -24% -24%
June 2020 -19% -24% -28% -10% -4% -8% -10% -14% -10%
July 2020 -10% -18% -18% -11% 0% -10% -9% -5% -7%
Aug. 2020 1% -2% -5% -3% 2% -3% -11% -11% -9%
Sept. 2020 2% -6% -6% 1% 0% 0% -17% -12% -20%
Oct. 2020 7% -3% -4% 3% 1% -1% -15% -5% -17%
Nov. 2020 3% 0% -5% 5% -1% -2% -22% -16% -27%
Dec. 2020 -3% -10% -12% -3% -1% -7% -20% -20% -23%
Notes: (1) Estimates are a continuation from those reported in Fairlie, Robert. 2020. “The Impact of COVID-19 on
Small Business Owners: The First Three Months after Social-Distancing Restrictions" Journal of Economics and
Management Strategy. (2) Reg. Adjusted estimates are based on regression analysis accounting for trends and
seasonality (monthly).
Source: Robert W. Fairlie, Professor of Economics, University of California, Santa Cruz, https://people.ucsc.edu/~rfairlie/current/
2) California Small Businesses in the Pandemic: According to Dr. Fairlie’s testimony at the
February 23, 2021, hearing, there were over 1.8 million small businesses estimated to be in California
at the end of January 2020. By the end of January 2021, he reported that the number of small
businesses in California had fallen to 1.6 million. In the First Quarter of 2020, California business
activity decreased by an estimated loss of 100,000 businesses, followed by a 200,000 decrease in the
Second Quarter. In the Third Quarter, as businesses began reopening in the state, business activity
increased by 165,000 businesses. In the final Quarter of 2020, business activity was up by 10,000
from the prior quarter.i
This business activity data, it should be noted, is reported in the aggregate and does not distinguish
between new business activity and activity attributed to the continuation of existing businesses. Chart
2 - California Small Businesses, copied from the slide deck provided by Dr. Fairlie at the JEDE
hearing, tracks business activities from January 2019 through January 2021.
SB 808
Page 6
Chart 2
Among other features, the data shows that although there has been a measurable level of regained
business activity since April 2020, California has not recovered to pre-pandemic small business
activity levels. For this research, the federal definition of a small businesses is used, meaning
businesses with under 500 employees.
3) Good Start – Now Largely Inactive: According to the 2019-20 annual report of the Made in
California Program, GO-Biz and the Office of the Small Business Advocate (CalOSBA), who
administers the program, have tried a variety of approaches but have been unsuccessful in
implementing CA Made, the name GO-Biz branded for the Made in California Program. Below is a
relevant excerpt from the 2019-20 annual report.
“In this reporting period and since the inception program, the CA Made program has not built
significant participation from the state’s large manufacturing sector. Despite extensive efforts by
GO-Biz and CalOSBA since program launch, CA Made remains mostly inactive.
“On June 7, 2016, regulations for CA Made were approved and filed, and an official webpage for
CA Made was launched – www.camade.ca.gov. A digital advertising campaign was also released
in late summer 2016 that included both digital banner placements across a variety of
manufacturing, small business and business publication websites, and promotion on major social
media platforms. In addition, CalOSBA staff incorporated CA Made information as part of its
small business forums and stakeholder meetings that it conducted across the state. The
promotional efforts generated attention and led prospective applicants to the website. During the
marketing roll-out between August and December 2016, the CA Made website received over
6,200 page views during 2,400 sessions from 1,844 unique users.
“In November 2017, a partnership was launched with California Manufacturing Technology
Consulting (CMTC), a U.S. Department of Commerce designated Manufacturing Extension
Partnership (MEP), to expand offerings for any certified CA Made firms. Additional services
included business advising, acceleration services, marketing, and networking.
SB 808
Page 7
“Despite GO-Biz’s promotional efforts, CalOSBA received only two complete applications for the
program since launch. The first complete application was approved in March 2017 for a three-
year period. The second complete application was approved in July 2019 for a three-year period,
yet the applicant declined to renew their certification for the subsequent two years.
“To further understand the barriers to participation, GO-Biz conducted four focus groups across
the state in December 2016 and found that firms were deterred by the third-party certification
requirements and the on-site visits.
“In August 2019, GO-Biz partnered with CMTC to conduct a survey across its clients to
understand program barriers and perceived value-add. With 111 survey responses, top barriers
identified were third-party certification and fees (approximately $2000 total) and the Made in
USA standard.”
4) 2019-20 Program Activity: In addition to the Made in California Program, the CalOSBA
administers a number of other programs and provides services that benefit small manufacturers. Made
in California Program registrants benefit from not only being able to use the “Made in California”
label on products, packaging, and point-of-sale merchandising, but also benefit from:
Placement of the product and company bio on the “CA Made” website;
Marketing via GO-Biz's social media sites;
Learning about information on services from program partners; and
Business-to-business networking, technical advising, and additional marketing through the Made
in California partnership with California Manufacturing Technology Consulting.
In general, running the CA Made program through the CalOSBA should be a good fit, as many of the
other program and resources within the unit would also be helpful to California producers. However,
according to the 2019-20 annual report, “historic challenges and barriers in its structuring” have
resulted in an inactive program.
During the report period, CA Made had no active certifications nor applications or inquiries in
process. From October 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020, only three new accounts were created on
the CA Made application portal (https://camade.ca.gov/Login.aspx) and there were zero outbound
“clicks” to the CA Made website from the GO-Biz website (www.business.ca.gov).
While GO-Biz and CalOSBA conducted no specific outreach on the CA Made program during the
report period, CalOSBA had been very active in supporting small manufacturers during the COVID-
19 pandemic. In addition, the CalOSBA’s extensive network of small business centers, funded
through the Small Business Technical Assistance Expansion Program, have been asked to support
manufacturing firms and promote the CA Made brand.
Compounding the implementation challenges, GO-Biz explains in its 2019-20 annual report that
“[d]ue to limited participation and certification activity since program inception, the only third-party
certifier, TÜV Rheinland North America (TÜV), withdrew its offering for CA Made as of June 1,
2020. As a result, there are currently no third-party certifying organizations offering a CA Made
certification service. Despite extensive outreach, other third-party certifiers have not indicated an
interest in offering a CA Made certification, likely due to cost-benefit value since there are so few
participants. Going forward, any interested CA Made applicants would need to identify an
SB 808
Page 8
independent qualified third-party certifier and negotiate their own rate independently to complete their
application.”
In 2021, GO-Biz shared recommendations for relaunching the Made in California Program with
Senator Roth, who chairs the Senate Committee on Business, Professions, and Economic
Development. While SB 808 is not an officially sponsored bill by the Administration, GO-Biz is the
source of the initial bill language.
GO-Biz closes out its 2019-20 Made in California Program annual report by stating that “[p]roviding
a branded competitive edge for in-state makers, producers, and manufacturers remains a priority. GO-
Biz and CalOSBA will continue to explore ways to provide a strong labelling program bolstered by
marketing and support services to help grow revenues and rebuild California’s economy by increasing
demand for CA Made branded products.”
5) Enforcement Challenges: The Consumer Legal Remedies Act makes it unlawful to represent that a
product is made in California by using a “Made in California” label, if that the product does not
comply with the requirements of the GO-Biz’ Made in California Program.
In order to qualify for a “Made in California” label, the product must meet the labeling standards for
“Made in USA” and be substantially (51%) produced in California. In addition, the business must
register the product with GO-Biz.
There are three primary controls within the Made in California Program to ensure businesses do not
misrepresent products.
One, there are existing checks and balances in state law that govern the “Made in USA”
labeling standards, which were initially codified in 1961.
Two, a business is required to submit third-party verification that the product meets the “Made
in California” labeling standard, which includes both the US and California content
requirements.
Three, a consumer or group of consumers who suffers financial damage as an outcome of a
business unlawfully using the “Made in California” label may bring an action against the
business to recover damages.
SB 808 removes both the “Made in USA” content requirements and the third-party verification
process from the Made in California Program because, based on surveys and other feedback, these
requirements served as barriers to business participation.
In light of these proposed changes, it may be appropriate to add further enforcement mechanisms that
work within the new proposed program structure. The current enforcement is seemingly limited to
private citizens seeking compensation for personal damages. Considering the possible damage to the
California brand, in general, one area to consider is providing specific standing for a public prosecutor
to bring an action on behalf of the people of California.
Following discussions with Legislative Counsel, committee staff suggest that there are two
enforcement authorities that could address this potential lack of enforcement tools, including the
Unfair Practices Act pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 17000) and the Unfair
SB 808
Page 9
Competition Act pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 17200) of the Business and
Professions Code.
6) Manufacturing and the California Economy: Manufacturing plays an important role within the
California economy, supporting international trade and small businesses within the global supply
chain while providing high-paying jobs throughout. In 2017, California’s 35,321 manufacturing
establishments accounted for 14.2% of all manufacturing plants in the US, which produced 10.67% of
state GDP.
In 2018, the California manufacturing sector contributed over $316.7 billion to the state economy,
which represented 10.7% of total output. Manufacturing employed 1.3 million workers in California
in 2018, which accounted for 7.66% of the state’s non-farm employment in 2019. Average annual
income for a worker in manufacturing was $109,875 as compared to $59,149 for the nonfarm workers.
Average hourly earnings in manufacturing were $31.58 in January of 2018, as compared to $30 for all
private industry sectors and $18.04 for leisure and hospitality jobs.
Manufacturing is California’s most export-intensive activity, with $149.56 billion in manufactured
goods exported in 2018, which accounted for 86.2% of California’s annual exports. Employment
related to manufacturing has historically supported 25% of all manufacturing jobs. The growth in
manufactured goods between 2010 and 2019 was 19.8%. California exported $40.4 billion in exports
to Mexico and Canada under the USMCA agreement in 2019. The two largest exports by aggregate
dollar value in 2020 were computers and electronic products valued at $37.5 billion (24.1% of all
exports) and transportation equipment at $17.3 billion (11.2%).
Manufacturers comprise the largest sector of foreign-owned companies with US affiliates, employing
2.5 million workers in 2017. Also, manufacturing jobs have a large employment multiplier effect.
According to the Milken Institute, each manufacturing job supports roughly 2.5 other jobs in the
state's economy overall. In some specialized manufacturing sectors, such as electronics and computer
manufacturing, the multiplier effect is as high as 16 to 1. One of the reasons for the large multiplier
effect is the extended supply chains that are needed to support manufacturing and the export of goods,
which include many small businesses and logistic companies.
7) Manufacturing in the Future: Employment Development Department currently projects that,
between 2018 and 2028, total employment in California will rise by 16.3%, with total employment in
the manufacturing sector in California decreasing by 1.7%, as shown in Chart 2 below.
Chart 2 – Net Employment Growth in California
Estimated
Annual Average
Employment in Numerical Change Percent Change
Employment 2018
2028
Total
18,825,900 20,412,500 1,589.600 7.7%
Employment
Manufacturing 1,323,100 1,301,100 -22,000 -1.7%
Source: “Projections of Employment by Industry and Occupation, Long-Term (Ten Years) Projections,” EDD, 2018
While the aggregate employment down, some subsectors are anticipated to have more significant
increases, including motor vehicle manufacturing (36.5%) and beverage and tobacco product
manufacturing (20%). Chart 3 provides a more detailed look at selected job growth in the
manufacturing sector, while also illustrating the importance of new policy interventions. Relaunching
a modified Made in California Program is not, by itself, the answer to California’s stagnating
manufacturing sector, but could play a role within a larger set of strategies.
SB 808
Page 10
Chart 3 – Selected Net Job Growth in Manufacturing
Annual
Estimated
Average Numerical Percent
Employment
Employment Change Change
in 2028
2018
Manufacturing 1,323,100 1,301,100 -22,000 -1.7%
Durable Goods Manufacturing 845,400 834,600 -10,800 -1.3%
Wood Product Manufacturing 25,400 24,000 -1,400 -5.5%
Other Wood Product Manufacturing 18,000 17,200 -800 -4.4%
Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing 132,900 126,400 -6,500 -4.9%
Machinery Manufacturing 77,300 78,500 1,200 1.6%
Motor Vehicle Manufacturing 18,900 25,800 6,900 36.5%
Aerospace Product and Parts Manufacturing 76,000 77,500 1,500 2.0%
Ship and Boat Building 8,500 7,500 -1,000 -11.8%
Furniture and Related Product
34,900 28,800 -6,100 -17.5%
Manufacturing
Medical Equipment and Supplies
54,400 58,500 4,100 7.5%
Manufacturing
Nondurable Goods Manufacturing 477,700 466,500 -11,200 -2.3%
Food Manufacturing 161,400 162,700 1,300 0.8%
Beverage and Tobacco Product
63,600 76,800 13,200 20.8%
Manufacturing
Apparel Manufacturing 37,100 27,300 -9,800 -26.4%
Paper Manufacturing 21,300 19,900 -1,400 -6.6%
Petroleum and Coal Products
13,000 10,500 -2,500 -19.2%
Manufacturing
Chemical Manufacturing 80,700 83,500 2,800 3.5%
Pharmaceutical and Medicine
46,800 49,000 2,200 4.7%
Manufacturing
Manufacturing 1,323,100 1,301,100 -22,000 -1.7%
Durable Goods Manufacturing 845,400 834,600 -10,800 -1.3%
Source: “Projections of Employment by Industry and Occupation, Long-Term (Ten Years) Projections,” EDD, 2018
8) Proposed Amendments: Below is a list of amendments the committee members may wish to review
when considering the bill.
a) Require the business to sign their self-certification of eligibility under penalty of perjury.
b) Authorize a public prosecutor to bring a civil charge on behalf of the people of California for
unlawfully using the Made in California label under the Unfair Practices Act and the Unfair
Competition laws.
c) Tighten the rules related to donations by:
i) Prohibiting donations for the operation of the program be more than 20% of annual program
budget.
ii) Prohibiting donations for a specific event be more than 20% of the estimated event cost.
iii) Requiring donations be reported to the Legislature within 20 days of receipt.
9) Related Legislation: Below is a list of bills from prior sessions.
SB 808
Page 11
a) AB 890 (Jones) Modifying the “Made in USA” Labeling Standard: This bill would have
provided that a product sold in California could carry the label “Made in USA” if it was
substantially made, manufactured, or produced in the US as measured by the following criteria: at
least 90% of the components, parts, articles, or units of the merchandise were manufactured in the
US; US manufacturing costs constitute at least 90% of the total manufacturing costs for the
merchandise; and the merchandise was last substantially transformed or assembled in the US.
Status: Failed passage in Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 2013.
b) AB 2624 (Medina) Establishing “Made in North America” Label: This bill would have made it
unlawful to sell or offer for sale in this state any product that contains the words “Made in North
America,” “North American Made,” or similar words on the product or its container unless all of
the product was made in the United States, Canada, or Mexico. The bill adds misrepresenting a
product as made in North America to the list of unfair methods of competition and unfair or
deceptive acts or practices actionable under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act. Status: Died on
the Senate Floor Inactive File, 2014.
c) SB 12 (Corbett) Made in California Program: This bill established the Made in California
Program, within the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development, for the purpose
of encouraging consumer product awareness and to foster purchases of high-quality products made
in this state. Status: Signed by the Governor, Chapter 541, Statutes of 2013.
d) SB 823 (Corbett) Establishing the “Made in California” Label: This bill would have created a
Made in California Program within the Governor’s Office of Economic Development. Status:
Held in the Assembly Committee on Appropriations, 2011.
e) SB 661 (Hill) Exceptions to the Made in USA Labeling Standard: This bill would have provided
that merchandise made, manufactured, or produced in the US that has an article, unit, or part from
outside of the US may be labeled and sold in California as “Made in USA” or “Made in America”
if the following requirements are met:
i) The manufacturer of the merchandise certifies that it can neither produce the article, unit, or
part within the US nor obtain the article, unit, or part of the merchandise from a domestic
source;
ii) The manufacturer’s determination that the article, unit, or part cannot be produced or obtained
within the United States from a domestic source is not based on the cost of the article, unit, or
part; and
iii) The article, unit, or part of the merchandise obtained from outside the United States constitutes
only a negligible part of the final manufactured product. Status: Failed passage in Senate
Committee on the Judiciary, 2014.
f) SB 1004 (Holmdahl) Made in USA Standard: This bill codified California’s “Made in the USA”
law, making it unlawful for any person, firm, corporation, or association to sell or offer for sale
any merchandise that advertises itself as being made or manufactured in the United States when
any article, unit, or part of the merchandise has been entirely or substantially made, manufactured,
or produced outside of the US. Status: Signed by the Governor, Chapter 676, Statutes of 1961.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
California Manufacturing and Technology Association
SB 808
Page 12
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by: Toni Symonds / J., E.D., & E. / (916) 319-2090
i Robert Fairlie, “California State Assembly, Feb. 2021- Written: Testimony”, https://people.ucsc.edu/~rfairlie/current/,
accessed February 24, 2021 and United States Census Bureau, “2017 SUSB Annual Data Tables by Establishment
Industry”, https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/susb/2017-susb-annual.html, accessed November 25,
2020, and United States Census Bureau, “2018 CBP and NES Combined Report”,
https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2018/econ/nonemployer-statistics/2018-combined-report.html, accessed
October 3, 2020, and United States Census Bureau, “2018 CBP and NES Combined Report”,
https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2018/econ/nonemployer-statistics/2018-combined-report.html, accessed
October 3, 2020.
File and source
- File
- 2021-06-29_sb-808-jede-analysis.pdf
- Size
- 621,517 bytes
- SHA-256
- 5b5a346215926102a63a837fd63f2007d33dd70470704c6aa5edfed99034efa3
- Original
- No public link identified.