Packaging EPR Litigation: Key Developments in Oregon, California and Colorado

This blog was originally posted on 17th July, 2026. Further regulatory developments may have occurred after publication. To keep up-to-date with the latest compliance news, sign up to our newsletter.

AUTHORED BY RÚAN DOHERTY, REGULATORY COMPLIANCE SPECIALIST, ADHERENT

---

Key Insight

As packaging EPR programmes move from legislation to implementation in the United States, they are increasingly being challenged in the courts. The legal outcomes in Oregon, California and Colorado are likely to shape not only the future of these programmes but also the development of packaging EPR legislation across other states.

Table of Contents

• Introduction
• Oregon
• California
• Colorado
• Conclusion
• Frequently Asked Questions

Introduction

Over the past several years, extended producer responsibility (EPR) has become a key policy tool for addressing packaging waste in the United States. Seven states have now enacted packaging EPR legislation, with programmes at different stages of development and significant compliance milestones expected throughout 2026 and beyond.

Among these states, Oregon, California and Colorado are leading implementation efforts. However, they have also become the focus of increasing legal scrutiny. Industry groups, environmental organisations and, in some cases, other states have brought challenges raising constitutional, administrative and statutory concerns about these programmes.

These disputes highlight the complexity of implementing ambitious EPR programmes and reflect a broader debate over the balance between state environmental regulation and the constitutional limits of state authority.

For more information on US state-level packaging legislation, download our comparison guide or check out this blog.

Oregon

Oregon was the first US state to operationalise a packaging EPR programme, with the Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act taking effect on July 1, 2025. It is now set to become the first programme to face extensive judicial scrutiny.

Shortly after the programme launched, the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW) initiated litigation against the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, challenging aspects of the scheme under the constitutional Due Process Clause and the Dormant Commerce Clause. The claims relate to the scope of authority delegated to the producer responsibility organisation Circular Action Alliance and the impact of the programme on interstate distributors.

As producers began receiving their first invoices under the programme, the NAW argued that the fees imposed were significantly higher than anticipated and sought a preliminary injunction to suspend reporting and payment obligations while the case proceeded.

The court declined to halt the programme entirely but granted a limited preliminary injunction restricting enforcement against NAW members. This relief was later narrowed to entities that were NAW members before the injunction was issued. As a result, the vast majority of producers remain subject to the state’s EPR requirements.

The litigation has continued to evolve. While several claims were dismissed, the court allowed the remaining constitutional arguments to proceed to trial, beginning July 13, 2026. The case is viewed as a potential test of the constitutional basis for state packaging EPR programmes more broadly, given similar legal arguments being advanced in California and Colorado. Other states developing EPR frameworks, including Minnesota, are also expected to monitor the outcome closely.

Separately, Lollicup USA has filed a class action lawsuit seeking similar relief for producers not covered by the existing injunction, adding further uncertainty around Oregon’s implementation.

California

Senate Bill 54

California’s packaging EPR programme is facing a different but equally complex legal landscape.

Following a delayed regulatory process, CalRecycle finalised the implementing regulations for Senate Bill 54 in May 2026, officially launching one of the country’s most ambitious packaging EPR programmes. 

However, almost as soon as the rules were finalised, they attracted criticism from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Californians Against Waste on the basis that they weaken the statute’s original objectives. Their main argument is that the regulations permit certain chemical recycling technologies to count toward recycling targets and introduce exemptions for packaging categories that should otherwise fall within the law’s reduction mandates.

A separate and substantively different challenge was filed on June 23, 2026, when a coalition of 17 states, together with the NAW, brought a federal action against the legislation. Rather than arguing that the law is too weak, the plaintiffs contend that California has exceeded its constitutional authority by requiring producers nationwide to modify packaging design and business practices in order to access the Californian market.

These competing legal challenges illustrate the unique position California finds itself in. Environmental organisations argue that implementation has diluted the law’s ambition, while industry groups and several states argue that the legislation itself is excessively burdensome.

Senate Bill 343

Additionally, California is also facing litigation over Senate Bill 343, also referred to as the “Truth in Labelling” law. The legislation, scheduled to take effect on October 4, 2026, restricts the use of recyclability claims, including the “chasing arrows” symbol, unless specific recycling criteria are met.

A coalition representing farmers, food producers, restaurants, packaging manufacturers and retailers has challenged the law, arguing that it infringes First Amendment protections for commercial speech by limiting the information businesses can display on packaging. 

While Senate Bill 343 is separate from California’s EPR framework, the challenge reflects wider concerns about increasingly prescriptive packaging regulations.

Colorado

Colorado, the third state at the forefront of implementation, has become part of the broader wave of litigation regarding packaging EPR legislation. 

In March 2026, the Independent Lubricant Manufacturers Association (ILMA) filed suit challenging aspects of Colorado’s Producer Responsibility Program for Statewide Recycling. 

Similar to Oregon, the argument is based on constitutional issues relating to due process, the delegation of regulatory authority to the producer responsibility organisation, and restrictions on producers’ communications regarding compliance costs. Although the litigation remains at an early stage, legal counsel for the ILMA and NAW are understood to be coordinating on shared legal theories, although each organisation has indicated that its current litigation strategy remains focused on its respective state proceedings.

Conclusion

The ongoing litigation in Oregon, California and Colorado demonstrates that the implementation of packaging EPR in the United States remains subject to significant legal and regulatory uncertainty. While these programmes represent a major shift towards producer responsibility for packaging waste, their long-term direction will depend on how courts address questions around state authority, regulatory design and compliance obligations. 

The outcomes of these cases are likely to influence not only existing EPR frameworks but also the development of future packaging legislation across the country. Ultimately, they underscore the fact that enacting EPR legislation is only the first step; the implementation of these programmes is likely to remain contested for years to come.

Frequently Asked Questions

• What is driving the legal challenges to packaging EPR programmes in the United States?
  The legal challenges raise constitutional, administrative and statutory concerns about the design and implementation of state packaging EPR programmes. They include arguments relating to due process, the delegation of regulatory authority, interstate commerce and state constitutional authority.
• Which states are currently at the forefront of packaging EPR implementation?
  Oregon, California and Colorado are leading implementation efforts and are also the primary states facing litigation over their packaging EPR programmes.
• Why do these court cases matter beyond the states involved?
  The outcomes are likely to influence not only the implementation of existing packaging EPR programmes but also the development of future packaging legislation across the United States.

See Adherent in Action

Discover how agentic AI is reshaping product compliance for global enterprises.

Book a Demo