Since 2021, California, Colorado, Oregon, Maine, Minnesota, Maryland, and Washington have enacted Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) laws, requiring businesses to manage the end-of-life impacts of the packaging and food service ware they produce (“producers”). While each state’s EPR program generally requires that producers join a Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO), report packaging data, and pay material-based fees, each state’s approach has slight variations. As the states independently develop rules, timelines, PRO structures, and fee formulas, EPR compliance is becoming increasingly fragmented and difficult to navigate. What began as a push for improved material circularity and recycling incentives is now burdened by complexity, regulatory uncertainty, opaque governance, and potentially substantial fees that will likely be passed on to retailers and consumers.
Recent EPR developments
After passing EPR legislation, California, Colorado, Oregon, Maine, Minnesota, Maryland, and Washington are implementing their EPR frameworks and are at various stages. Oregon’s EPR program is in its first year of implementation, with producers supposed to have registered with the state’s PRO and submitted initial reporting by March 31, 2025. In other states, like Maryland’s recently passed EPR legislation, implementation of initial EPR requirements is expected to begin 2026. Meanwhile, several other states, including Illinois, Hawaii, and Rhode Island are conducting statewide recycling needs assessments to develop future EPR frameworks. Several states also have bills proposing EPR frameworks under consideration. For example, the “Tennessee Waste to Jobs Act,” SB 0269, which contemplates EPR requirements for products entering the state, was recently deferred for review and action to January 2026.
OREGON FACES CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO ITS EPR PROGRAM
Since passing the Packaging Recycling Modernization Act (SB 582), Oregon has worked steadily to implement its EPR program, which covers packaging, writing paper, and food service ware. After moving swiftly through rulemaking, Oregon’s EPR program imposed strict mandatory producer registration and reporting deadlines, with fee obligations on obligated producers set to begin July 1, 2025. Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality selected the Circular Action Alliance (CAA) as the sole PRO to administer the state’s EPR program.
On July 30, 2025, the National Association of Wholesaler Distributors (NAW) brought a constitutional challenge against Oregon’s EPR law. In its complaint, NAW states that Oregon’s EPR law places an undue burden on interstate commerce, creates a monopoly by requiring producers to join a single PRO, and lacks due process around fee setting. NAW’s complaint also alleges that Oregon’s EPR program forces producers to enter contracts with a private, third-party group, “with a financial interest in the program,” that is operating “without clear rules or oversight.” As an example, NAW says CAA policies subject product makers and distributors “to fees and rules set by CAA without a real chance to object or appeal or transparency in the process.” NAW is seeking a declaration that the law and its implementing regulations are unconstitutional and unenforceable, along with a permanent injunction blocking their implementation.
COLORADO’S PRO PLANS ARE IN FLUX AND MAY IMPOSE DUPLICATIVE REQUIREMENTS ON PETROLEUM AND AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS
Colorado has closely tracked Oregon’s front-of-the-pack pace in implementing EPR requirements since enacting Colorado’s Producer Responsibility Program for Recycling (HB 22-1355) in June 2022. Colorado’s Department of Public Health & Environment (CDPHE) designated CAA as the state’s primary PRO as of May 2023, tasking it with managing key elements of the EPR program, including producer registration, data reporting, fee collection, and recycling system coordination. With some limited exceptions, compliance with Colorado’s EPR requirements requires that producers register with CAA, sign CAA’s Producer Participant Agreement and Colorado State Addendum, and submit material supply data to CAA via the Producer Portal by July 31, 2025, with annual dues beginning in January 2026.
Complicating the landscape further, CDPHE is also reviewing a proposed Individual Producer Plan (IPP) from the Lubricant Packaging Management Association (LPMA), covering petroleum and automotive products. Producers under LPMA’s scope must submit a signed Participation Agreement with LPMA and pay retroactive fees within 30 days of submission.
Both CAA’s and LPMA’s stewardship plans remain under review. CAA submitted an amended program plan in July 2025, responding to CDPHE feedback on issues such as the treatment of non-recyclable packaging, eco-modulation, and fee allocation. LPMA’s IPP, meanwhile, is subject to change requirements issued by CDPHE and must undergo further evaluation before approval. In the interim, CDPHE has not issued guidance to help producers navigate potential overlaps between CAA’s and LPMA’s stewardship plans, leaving open questions around possible duplication in reporting and fee obligations.
Despite these unresolved regulatory questions and structural uncertainties, obligated producers are required to be following registration and reporting requirements, effective July 1, 2025, to legally sell or distribute covered products in Colorado. As a result, producers may need to proceed with registration, data submissions, and fee assessments, as applicable, even while key elements remain under regulatory review and subject to further amendment, in order to minimize potential operational and regulatory risks and liabilities.
Challenges with navigating the broader EPR patchwork
As EPR programs continue to evolve, they are just one layer of a broader and increasingly complex web of packaging-related regulations. States such as Illinois, Hawaii, and Rhode Island are currently conducting statewide recycling needs assessments as early steps toward developing their own EPR frameworks, with potential recycling goals and material bans. Meanwhile, new EPR legislation remains an active consideration in several jurisdictions, including Tennessee, where the proposed “Waste to Jobs Act” (SB 0269), which contemplates EPR requirements for products entering the state, was deferred until January 2026.
These EPR requirements intersect with the growing patchwork of state and local packaging laws that impose minimum recycled content standards, ban certain materials, and restrict chemical use in packaging. For instance, New Jersey’s Recycled Content Law sets content thresholds for various packaging types and prohibits the sale of polystyrene loose fill. California, Colorado, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York, and Rhode Island also enacted laws banning the intentional use of certain chemicals of concern in packaging materials, particularly paper- and fiber-based food packaging. Local ordinances in cities like San Francisco, Seattle, and Washington, DC, add further complexity by layering on compostability mandates, material restrictions, and reuse requirements for packaging, paper products, and food service ware.
Why EPR complexity matters
As the regulatory landscape expands, compliance challenges are no longer limited to producers. Waste managers, recyclers, and shippers now face growing uncertainty about their roles under overlapping—and at times conflicting—state and local packaging laws. Core pain points include data tracking, reporting responsibilities, and the allocation of material and end-of-life management fees. This uncertainty, combined with duplicative costs and inconsistent reporting frameworks, risks discouraging participation in stewardship efforts such as take-back programs, curbside collection, and recycling initiatives. Unclear guidance on fees and material handling can also lead to increasing costs and operational issues, as well as delay infrastructure investment and slow innovation in recycling and packaging technologies.
The business impacts of EPR Program development and implementation are also increasingly significant. Producers must develop or overhaul internal systems to track SKU-level packaging data, assign accurate material classifications, estimate weight-based fees, and maintain auditable records, often for formats or markets previously unmonitored. These operational demands are taking effect even as program rules remain in flux. For companies operating nationally, this regulatory fragmentation drives up administrative burdens as they attempt to interpret and comply with evolving, state-specific mandates. Many are also being forced to reengineer reporting workflows on a state-by-state basis, straining internal teams, increasing reliance on costly external support, and elevating the risk of non-compliance.
The shifting EPR landscape further creates strategic risks. Uncertainty around compliance obligations complicates budgeting, contract negotiations, and sustainability reporting. Companies with existing stewardship or take-back programs also face additional disruption where EPR mandates overlap or conflict, potentially requiring duplicative fees or forcing the discontinuation of effective legacy programs. The result is a fragmented system that threatens not only the feasibility of coordinated material recovery but also the broader goals of material circularity, efficiency, and improved management of packaging waste.
Final thoughts
EPR is rapidly becoming a pivotal compliance and business concern across the United States, as expanding regulations, ongoing legal uncertainty, and evolving program structures increasingly affect companies far beyond the traditionally defined “producers.” For many organizations, EPR now constitutes a significant strategic risk, influencing procurement decisions, product design, operational processes, branding strategies, and customer relationships. High-profile legal challenges, such as the NAW’s lawsuit against Oregon’s EPR law, alongside the continual evolution of EPR frameworks, underscore the need for businesses to remain vigilant and informed about EPR developments.
To navigate this complex environment, businesses should adopt a proactive, holistic approach. The first step is to conduct a comprehensive packaging exposure assessment, cataloging all packaging materials used across product lines, tracing supplier contributions, and mapping the distribution of packaging across various jurisdictions, including both industrial and non-consumer channels. With this foundation, companies can establish robust internal compliance systems, develop processes for managing packaging data, assign cross-functional responsibilities, and ensure that compliance strategies are aligned with both customer expectations and broader sustainability objectives.
Active engagement in EPR initiatives should be approached thoughtfully. As state regulatory agencies continue to develop and finalize EPR frameworks, businesses have a valuable opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process, advocating for solutions that are both practical and cost-effective. At the same time, maintaining close collaboration with upstream suppliers and downstream customers is critical. This coordination helps ensure consistency in packaging data, harmonizes reporting methodologies, and clarifies fee obligations. By taking these steps, companies can reduce redundant efforts, streamline compliance activities, and better manage associated costs.
The landscape of EPR will only grow more complex as additional states enact legislation and existing programs are refined through litigation, amendments, or the implementation of new operational requirements. Businesses that closely monitor both regulatory and legal developments, build flexible and adaptive compliance strategies, and foster collaboration throughout their value chains will be best equipped to manage risk, avoid costly errors, and maintain operational resilience in this rapidly changing environment.
If you would like assistance assessing your company’s exposure, preparing comments, mapping packaging flows, or implementing compliance measures, we’re here to help. For more information on this content, please contact your Nixon Peabody attorney or the authors of this alert.