Compliance · United States
UFLPA: the burden of proof is yours.
US import law presumes your cotton is made with forced labour until you prove otherwise. For a fashion brand, that means tracing fibre back to the farm.
Book a discovery call →A presumption, not an accusation.
The Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act reverses the burden of proof that importers are used to. The rebuttable presumption applies to goods imported into the United States on or after 21 June 2022 that were produced wholly or in part in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, or by an entity on the UFLPA Entity List.
Customs and Border Protection does not have to prove that forced labour was used. The importer has to prove that it was not, to a clear and convincing evidence standard. That is a documentary exercise, and it happens under time pressure, after the goods are already detained.
Source: US Customs and Border Protection, UFLPA enforcement guidance.
The list got 30 per cent longer last week.
On 3 August 2026 the Department of Homeland Security added 43 companies to the Entity List, the largest single expansion since the law was enacted, taking the total to 187. The newly listed companies span five high-priority enforcement sectors, including apparel and cotton.
There is no de minimis exemption. Any amount traceable to a listed entity can warrant detention of an entire shipment. A garment with a small percentage of cotton is in scope if that cotton is in scope.
Source: Department of Homeland Security, Federal Register notice published 3 August 2026.
Cotton does not travel in a straight line.
Cotton passes through farm, gin, spinner, weaver or knitter, dyehouse and cut-and-sew before it becomes a garment. At every one of those stages, cotton from different origins can be blended.
Proving origin therefore requires documentation at every tier, not a declaration from the factory that shipped the goods. The factory can tell you what it received. It usually cannot tell you where the fibre was grown.
This is the same tier visibility problem that governs carbon accounting, with a different regulator and a harsher consequence.
What a rebuttal actually needs.
Supply chain traceability documentation from the finished good back to the raw fibre. Transaction records at each transfer. Evidence tying specific production to specific inputs.
Purchase orders and supplier codes of conduct do not meet the standard on their own. They record an intention, not a chain of custody.
What you get
Deliverables
Entity List screening
Your supplier list checked against the current list, at every tier you can see.
Cotton origin traceability map
Farm to finished good, with the gaps named.
Documentation gap assessment
What you hold against what a rebuttal requires.
Blending risk assessment
Where inputs of different origin combine.
Evidence pack structure
How records need to be held to be usable at short notice.
Sourcing exposure review
Where alternative supply would take six to twelve months.
Related: the same tier-by-tier evidence problem drives emissions measurement. See Scope 3 emissions in fashion.
This is a regulatory diagnostic, not legal advice. Confirm your final position with qualified counsel.
Find out what you would have to prove.
A structured review of your cotton supply chain, the documentation you hold, and the evidence a rebuttal would actually require.
Book a discovery call →