Several states now require the companies behind packaged products to help fund the expansion of recycling systems for that packaging. These laws are known as extended producer responsibility (EPR) programs, and the past few months have brought a lot of news in this area. In Oregon, a Federal judge upheld the state’s program, the first time a court has ruled on the merits of a constitutional challenge to a packaging EPR law, and the decision is now on appeal. California is still rolling out its program under Senate Bill (SB) 54 while dealing with several lawsuits, a revised program plan, and new guidance on its plastic-reduction targets. Maine’s program is stalled because no entity applied to run it, and Colorado’s program faces two lawsuits. This article will look at where each state stands and what it could mean for companies that sell, distribute, import, or put their brand on packaged products in the United States.
Under these laws, the “producer” (often the brand owner, though sometimes the importer or distributor) pays fees based on the amount and type of packaging it sells into a state. That money helps fund recycling programs in local municipalities. In Oregon, California, and Colorado, a Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO) called Circular Action Alliance (CAA) collects the fees and runs the program day to day, with a state agency overseeing its work.
Oregon
Oregon’s Recycling Modernization Act (RMA, SB 582) has been in court almost from the start. The program launched in July 2025, and later that month the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW), a trade group, sued. NAW argued that the law gives CAA too much control over the program, including the power to set fees. NAW argued that this setup violates two parts of the U.S. Constitution: the Dormant Commerce Clause, which prevents states from unfairly burdening interstate commerce, and the Due Process Clause, which protects people and businesses from losing property without fair procedures. A second lawsuit, filed in June by food-service manufacturer Lollicup after CAA referred the company to DEQ for enforcement, makes similar arguments and is still pending.
After a five-day bench trial in July, U.S. District Judge Michael Simon issued a 71-page ruling on August 27, 2026, rejecting NAW’s remaining constitutional claims:
- Trade between states (Dormant Commerce Clause): The court found that the RMA doesn’t discriminate against out-of-state businesses in its purpose, its wording, or its real-world effects. It treated the program’s fees as reasonable charges for a service, not an unfair burden. The court also found that NAW hadn’t shown that the law puts enough of a burden on interstate trade to clearly outweigh its local benefits. Even if NAW had, the court said, Oregon’s interest in protecting the environment and managing waste would still come out ahead.
- Fair process (Due Process Clause): Producers aren’t required to join CAA. The RMA lets them form their own PRO or set up their own recycling program instead. Because joining is voluntary, the court found that CAA’s membership fees don’t take anyone’s property in the constitutional sense. Even if they did, the court said, the law has enough procedural safeguards, and DEQ keeps the final say over how fees are calculated.
NAW appealed the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on September 24, 2026. The parties in the Lollicup case have jointly asked the court to put that case on hold until the appeal is decided. Because Lollicup raises similar constitutional arguments and is before the same judge who rejected NAW’s claims, the district court’s ruling creates a significant hurdle for Lollicup unless the Ninth Circuit reverses or narrows that decision. The Ninth Circuit’s ruling could also influence similar challenges in other states. In the meantime, companies still have to follow the Oregon EPR requirements that apply to them.
California
California’s SB 54 hit several major milestones in 2026. Its permanent regulations took effect May 1, 2026. Producers had until June 1, 2026 to register with CAA or sign up for an approved alternative. And by July 1, 2026, they had to file their first report on how much plastic packaging they used in 2023, which serves as the starting point for measuring future cuts.
Three lawsuits are also shaping what happens next in California:
- State of Nebraska et al. v. Heller et al.: 17 state attorneys general, joined by NAW, are challenging SB 54 on constitutional grounds, including the Dormant Commerce Clause and the First Amendment. The plaintiffs have requested a preliminary injunction, with a hearing scheduled for January 15, 2027. For now, no court order limits California’s program, so applicable SB 54 requirements remain in effect.
- California League of Food Producers v. Bonta: This case originally challenged SB 343, California’s recycling-labeling law, and a Federal court temporarily blocked enforcement of that law in July 2026. In October, the plaintiffs asked to expand the case to include constitutional challenges to portions of SB 54; that request remains pending.
- NRDC et al. v. California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery: Environmental groups are challenging portions of California’s Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) final SB 54 regulations, arguing that some exemptions and compliance pathways are inconsistent with the law’s recycling and plastic-reduction requirements. Industry and agricultural groups have also joined the litigation.
This fall brought another big step. On October 13, 2026, CAA sent CalRecycle its revised program plan, the blueprint for how it will run California’s program, after reviewing more than 2,400 public comments on the draft.
On October 1, CAA also published its 2027 California Producer Fee Schedule. Every producer pays a base fee that depends on the type of material. Packaging that contains plastic may also owe a reuse investment fee and a Plastic Pollution Mitigation Fund (PPMF) fee, which are based on both the weight of the plastic and the number of plastic parts. These 2027 rates are preliminary and won’t be final until the program plan is approved.
SB 54 also requires cuts in single-use plastic packaging and plastic food service ware (items like takeout containers, cups, and utensils): 10% by 2027, 20% by 2030, and 25% by 2032 state-wide. Progress is measured against 2023 levels in two ways: the total weight of the plastic and the number of plastic pieces.
Until recently, it wasn’t clear whether each producer would be on the hook for hitting the targets in its own Individual Source Reduction (ISR) Plan, which was due August 3, 2026. CalRecycle has since clarified that the targets are a shared goal for producers as a group, to be met through CAA; they aren’t individual requirements for each producer or each type of material. The ISR Plans help shape CAA’s overall strategy, but producers aren’t required to make the specific cuts described in their plans. Producers still have to meet their reporting and fee obligations, and CAA can use financial incentives and fee adjustments to encourage them to use less plastic.
There’s also an open question about what counts as “compostable.” SB 54 requires all covered packaging sold, distributed, or imported into California on or after January 1, 2032, to be either recyclable or eligible to be labeled “compostable.” But a separate law, AB 1201, sets extra requirements for anything sold or labeled as compostable in California. Starting June 30, 2027, those include rules tied to which materials are allowed in organic farming under the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) National Organic Program (NOP). How these two laws fit together hasn’t been settled yet and may shift as other rules and court cases play out.
Maine
Maine passed the country’s first packaging EPR law in 2021, but the program can’t start until the state hires a Stewardship Organization to run it. On August 20, 2026, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) announced that it had received no responses to its request for proposals (RFP). CAA, which runs packaging EPR programs in several other states and was widely expected to apply, chose not to. It said the scope of Maine’s RFP didn’t fit with how it operates, its systems, or its standards for handling data.
That leaves Maine stuck at the hiring stage. On September 11, 2026, DEP said it plans to revise the RFPand try again. Producers don’t have to register, report, or pay fees yet, and DEP has said it will set a new timeline once it chooses a Stewardship Organization. Until then, it’s unclear when Maine’s requirements will take effect.
Colorado
Colorado’s program, created by HB 22-1355, faces two lawsuits. In March, the Independent Lubricant Manufacturers Association (ILMA) sued the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) in state court. ILMA argues that the way the state is running the program gives private organizations too much power over the rules without enough government oversight. ILMA then asked the court to temporarily stop the state from enforcing certain contracting, reporting, and dues requirements against its members while the case continues. In July, NAW filed a separate lawsuit in Federal court making similar arguments, along with First Amendment claims, and also asked for a preliminary injunction. Neither court has granted those requests, so Colorado’s program remains in effect.
Looking Ahead
Packaging EPR is changing quickly, and each state is dealing with its own mix of deadlines, rules, and lawsuits. Oregon’s program survived its first major court challenge, but NAW has appealed, and the Lollicup case is still pending. The Ninth Circuit’s decision could guide courts hearing similar challenges in other states. California is moving ahead with CAA’s revised plan even as lawsuits target SB 54 and related packaging laws. Colorado’s program stays in effect while two lawsuits play out in state and Federal court. Maine is still looking for someone to run its program. Meanwhile, Minnesota and Washington are moving forward with their own programs.
If your company sells, distributes, imports, or brands packaged products in more than one state, you’ll need to look at each state’s rules on their own. Who counts as a producer, what’s exempt, what you have to report, how much you’ll pay, and when it’s all due can vary widely from one state to the next. And a pending lawsuit doesn’t automatically put your obligations on hold. With so much still unsettled, the smartest move is to start preparing now rather than waiting for the courts to sort it out.
Have questions about how these changes could affect your company’s packaging EPR obligations? Contact Cambre Codington (ccodington@all4inc.com) or your ALL4 Project Manager.
