It was the wrong side of the line
On this page10
A bottle described as 6 oz that is not
The threshold is less than a 6-ounce capacity, so a bottle slightly under is inside the ban. Where a design rests on the line, the stated capacity has to be confirmed rather than assumed from the name.
A state that was not checked
New York, Illinois and Washington have their own measures with their own definitions. A product designed against California and shipped nationally may be fine in one state and not in the next.
A product list read too narrowly
Assuming body wash is bath soap, or that a two-in-one shampoo and conditioner is neither. The list names three things and the edges are where the arguments are.
Or too broadly
Replacing everything including lotion and mouthwash because it felt safer, which costs money the statute did not ask for. That is a brand decision and should be made as one.
A reusability claim nobody could support
The softest lever, resting on a reading of intention. A thin bottle with a label calling it reusable is the version most likely to be rejected.
The guest-facing inconsistency
Dispensers for shampoo beside a small plastic lotion bottle. Lawful, and it reads to a guest as the property doing the minimum.
The supplier who did not know
Which is the commercial failure. A hotel buyer asking about AB 1162 and getting a vague answer buys elsewhere, and this is a market where the buyers now know the rule better than most vendors.
Write the position down
Which products, which states, which threshold, with the statute quoted. One page, used in every sales conversation, is the whole of the fix.
And the fix is a page, not a project
Products, states, threshold, statute quoted. One sheet, kept current, answers every version of this question a buyer will ask.