Proposition 67 and Proposition 65 contain conflicting provisions regarding how revenue from the state-mandated sale of carryout bags would be distributed. Proposition 67 would allocate revenue from the sales to the stores themselves, permitting them to use the revenue in three ways:

(1) To cover costs associated with complying with Proposition 67.

(2) To cover the costs of providing the recycled paper or reusable bags.

(3) To provide educational materials encouraging the use of reusable bags.

Proposition 65 would allocate the revenue into a new state fund, the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Fund, which could be expended to support drought mitigation, clean drinking water supplies, recycling, litter removal, wildlife habitat restoration, beach cleanup, and state, regional, and local parks. Stores would not keep the revenue from a state-mandated sale of carryout bags.

Should Proposition 67 pass and Proposition 65 be defeated, then revenue from the state-mandated sale of carryout bags would go to stores to be used for covering costs and education.

Should Proposition 67 be defeated and Proposition 65 pass, then there would be no single-use bag ban. Furthermore, should California legislate a bag ban, all revenue from that ban would be allocated to an environmental fund.

Should both propositions pass, but Proposition 67 by a larger margin, then revenue would go to stores.

Should both propositions pass, but Proposition 65 by a larger margin, then a statewide single-use bag ban would go into effect and the revenue would go into an environmental fund. The Legislative Analyst's Office also notes that Proposition 65 might prevent Proposition 67's bag ban depending on how court's interpret the propositions.

Should both propositions be defeated, then there would be no single-use bag ban, nor a requirement for how revenue be distributed should California legislate a ban in the future.

The American Progressive Bag Alliance, which funded the petition drive to place Proposition 67 on the ballot, is also behind Proposition 65. Supporters of the plastic bag ban, including a number of newspapers, argue that the alliance is backing Proposition 65 in an attempt to turn stores against the bag ban. Pam Villarreal of the free-market think tank National Center for Policy Analysis disagrees, contending, "The debate over California's statewide plastic bag ban has shaped up to be a battle over the involuntary transfer of wealth from customers' wallets to big grocers. Ultimately California voters will decide what they do with their money and how it should be spent."  Grocers backing the bag ban claim the initiative would not be a source of profits, as revenue must be spent on covering costs and education. Also, the Sacramento Natural Foods Co-op notes paper bags cost "14 to 15 cents each. It's inaccurate to suggest it's a revenue stream when it is still a major expense."

^{Source:  https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_65,_Dedication_of_Revenue_from_Disposable_Bag_Sales_to_Wildlife_Conservation_Fund_(2016)}