In our May 6, 2026, blog, we shared a cautionary note about how environmental laws in other states may affect your company, even if you don’t manufacture in that state. Recently, news regarding states’ Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) laws again highlighted how state environmental laws affect companies that sell goods in those states.

Growth in Extended Producer Responsibility Laws

Currently, seven states have EPR laws:  California, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Minnesota, Maine, and Maryland.

According to the law firm Proskauer, “A new era of corporate environmental regulations is emerging through Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) packaging legislation. While EPR laws have existed in the U.S. for years for specific products like paint, electronics, mattresses and batteries, over the past few years, a new product has joined the list: consumer packaging.”

Meeting consumer packaging EPR requirements poses a new set of challenges for companies selling goods in those states.  These requirements basically shift the packaging waste and recycling costs from local governments to the product manufacturing companies.  This also includes retaining a Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO), and there is only one PRO in the United States:  Circular Action Alliance (CAA).

These new requirements are not going unchallenged.  Two states have been at the center of recent legal action:  California and Oregon.

EPR Requirements in California and Oregon

California’s SB 54, the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act, begins in 2027 with penalties of $50,000/day for non-compliance.

SB 54 covers the following:

• Plastic packaging of any kind – rigid, flexible, or film
• Paper or cardboard packaging (fiber-based covered material)
• Glass or metal packaging sold as consumer goods
• Multi-material packaging with a covered component
• E-commerce fulfillment packaging shipped to California addresses

Source:  Orbitlex

Additionally, to continue selling Expanded Polystyrene (EPS) food service ware in California, EPS food service ware producers must demonstrate that all EPS meets a 25% recycling rate as of January 1, 2025.  See Expanded Polystyrene Food Service Ware Requirements.

Oregon’s EPR requirements include

• Packaging:  Materials used for the containment or protection of products
• Printing and writing paper:  Various paper products
• Foodservice ware:  Paper, plastic plates, wraps, cups, bowls, pizza boxes, cutlery, straws, lids, bags, aluminum foil, or clamshells that are:
  • Generally intended for single use
  • Sold to a retailer, dine-in food establishment, or take-out food establishment
  • Used to prepackage food for resale, filled on-site for food ordered by a customer, or resold as-is

Source:  Inline Plastics

Legal Challenges to Extended Producer Responsibility Laws

Some of these EPR requirements are facing legal challenges.  Seventeen state attorneys general and the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors filed a suit in the Eastern District of California asking a federal court to strike down California’s plastic packaging law as unconstitutional (Source:  Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz).

According to Arnold and Porter, “The California complaint builds on theories raised in challenges to Oregon’s and Colorado’s packaging EPR programs that were filed last year and earlier this year, respectively. For example, like the Oregon case, which is also proceeding in federal court, the complaint includes a dormant commerce clause claim emphasizing both the burdens that the state’s EPR program imposes on national supply chains and the ways the Act allegedly discriminates against out-of-state manufacturers and recyclers.”

The California complaint names as defendants CalRecycle Director Zoe Heller and the CAA, the nonprofit PRO designated to administer the program.

On July 31, 2026, Inside EPA (paywall) reported that a federal judge ordered briefing on whether Oregon’s EPR law for packaging “violates constitutional due process rights following a five-day bench trial, signaling judicial interest in a legal issue that observers say could limit the landmark lawsuit’s impacts on other states’ EPR programs.”

According to Saul Ewing, “Oregon has only approved one PRO, the Circular Action Alliance (CAA), which has the authority to impose mandatory EPR terms, fees, and penalties on Oregon producers. In July 2025, the CAA issued its first round of invoices to producers for EPR fees, followed by another round in January 2026” (emphasis added).

According to Packgine, CAA is the “approved producer responsibility organization in Colorado, Oregon, Minnesota, and Maryland, and the de facto operator for most US packaging EPR.”

For companies affected by these EPR requirements, it is increasingly important to track these requirements and the resulting legal challenges.  You may want to discuss this with your legal counsel.

If you have questions about environmental issues, including site assessments, remediation, litigation support, etc., contact Jeffrey Bolin, CHMM, at 248-932-0228, Ext. 125.

Alan Hahn drafted this blog.  Alan has an undergraduate degree in Environmental Studies and completed a graduate program in Environmental Management.  He has worked in environmental management for more than 45 years.  He has written hundreds of blogs and articles.  His published work includes Michigan Lawyers Weekly, Detroiter, Michigan Forward, GreenStone Partners, Manure Manager Magazine, Progressive Dairy, and HazMat Magazine.

Jeffrey Bolin, M.S., reviewed this blog.  Jeff is a partner and senior scientist at Dragun Corporation.  He is a published author, a frequent speaker, and an expert witness.  His expertise in environmental due diligence, PFAS, vapor intrusion, and site assessments has led to projects in the US, Canada, and overseas.  See Jeff’s Bio.  

Follow Dragun Corporation on LinkedIn, X, or Facebook.

Sign up for our monthly environmental newsletter.

Principled Foundation | Thoughtful Advice | Smart Solutions

Established in 1988