Extended Producer Responsibility Laws: EPR Packaging Lawsuits

Every year, billions of units of plastic packaging move through American households and into the waste stream. Someone has to pay for what happens next. For decades, that someone was you and other taxpayers. Local governments funded the collection. Municipalities built and maintained the sorting facilities. Taxpayers absorbed the cost of landfills. And the corporations that designed, manufactured, and profited from all of that packaging faced almost none of the financial consequences.

A new body of law is changing that. Extended Producer Responsibility, or EPR, is one of the most significant developments in U.S. environmental law in a generation, and it is moving quickly from legislation to litigation. If you are a consumer, a business owner, or someone living with the environmental fallout of decisions made in corporate boardrooms, read on to learn more. 

The Basic Idea Behind EPR

The legal logic of Extended Producer Responsibility is simple, even if the implementation is not. If a company profits from selling products in packaging, it should bear the cost of what happens to that packaging after the consumer is done with it. Under a packaging EPR framework, companies that place covered materials into commerce in a given state are required to:

• Register with a state-approved Producer Responsibility Organization, or PRO
• Report data on the volume and type of packaging they sell into that state
• Pay fees that fund recycling infrastructure, composting, reuse programs, and waste reduction efforts

The cost of managing packaging waste shifts from the public sector to the private sector. That is the core of the legal bargain EPR laws are striking, and it is a significant departure from how American environmental regulation has worked for most of the last half century.

Covered materials under most state EPR laws include plastic containers, paper packaging, cardboard, glass, and metal. Some states also cover printed paper and food serviceware. The specifics vary by state, and those variations are already generating legal disputes.

Seven States Have Acted. More Are Coming.

As of early 2026, seven U.S. states have enacted packaging EPR laws. Each is at a different stage of implementation, and the timelines matter because producer obligations in some states are already active and enforceable.

• Oregon was the first to fully launch its program in July 2025. Producers must join the Circular Action Alliance, the designated PRO, and pay fees on covered materials sold into the state. Civil penalties for non-compliance can reach $25,000 per day.
• California enacted Senate Bill 54 in 2022, with ambitious targets that include a 65% recycling rate for covered packaging and a 25% reduction in packaging volume compared to 2023 baselines. Rulemaking has been slow, and full implementation is not expected until 2027, but supply data reporting is already underway.
• Colorado required producers to register with the PRO by July 2025, with fee payments beginning the following January.
• Maine finalized its program rules in 2024, with producer registration expected in 2026 and full implementation by 2027.
• Minnesota signed its law in May 2024. Producers were required to join the designated PRO by July 2025, with a full stewardship plan due by 2028 and complete program operations expected by 2029.
• Maryland enacted its law in May 2025. Producer onboarding begins in 2026, with financial obligations phasing in through 2030.
• Washington requires producers to join a PRO by 2026, with full program implementation expected around 2029.

The First Major EPR Lawsuit Is Already in Court

Oregon’s program launched in July 2025, and by the end of that same month, a federal lawsuit had been filed challenging whether the law is constitutional.

The National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, raising two primary arguments. First, that Oregon’s law violates the Dormant Commerce Clause by placing disproportionate financial burdens on out-of-state producers while delegating regulatory authority to a private organization rather than a government agency. Second, that the fee structures and compliance obligations lack the clarity required by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In February 2026, a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction, pausing enforcement of the law against the plaintiffs while the constitutional questions are resolved. Two claims remain active, and a trial has been scheduled.

This case is being watched by regulators, producers, and environmental attorneys across the country. Oregon is only one of seven states with enacted EPR laws, and more than a dozen others have pending legislation. How a federal court resolves the question of whether a state can delegate this kind of regulatory authority to a private organization will shape EPR programs everywhere.

How Fee Structures Create Both Incentives and Legal Risk

One of the more legally nuanced features of EPR programs is something called eco-modulation. Rather than charging all producers the same flat fee, eco-modulation adjusts fees based on how environmentally burdensome a particular type of packaging is.

Producers using packaging that is widely recyclable or that incorporates post-consumer recycled content may qualify for fee reductions. Those using materials that are difficult to recycle, like multi-layer plastic films or certain pigmented containers, may face higher fees. Oregon and Colorado have both adopted eco-modulation frameworks. California’s rulemaking is expected to follow suit.

Who Counts as a Producer? The Answer Is More Complicated Than It Sounds.

Most EPR laws define the producer for a given product as the brand owner. But that definition breaks down quickly in real-world supply chains.

When a brand owner is a foreign company without a U.S. presence, EPR obligations can shift to the importer or distributor. When a product moves through multiple layers of distribution before reaching the consumer, determining exactly which entity bears the producer obligation for a specific unit of packaging is not always straightforward.

PROs and state agencies are still working out how to handle these situations, and the answers are evolving through rulemaking and early enforcement decisions. For companies with complex supply chains, getting legal clarity on producer status before compliance deadlines arrive is a meaningful risk management step.

When Corporate Environmental Claims Become a Legal Problem

EPR compliance is not just a regulatory matter. It intersects with how companies communicate with consumers and investors about their environmental practices, and that intersection is generating its own wave of litigation.

In 2024, the Securities and Exchange Commission fined Keurig Dr Pepper $1.5 million after finding the company made inaccurate recyclability representations to investors, while internally withholding negative feedback it had received from major recycling facilities about its products. The SEC treated this as a disclosure failure, not just a marketing problem. That distinction matters because it dramatically expands the legal risk of making environmental compliance claims that are not grounded in accurate data.

In the food sector, JBS USA paid $1.1 million to resolve claims from the New York Attorney General that it misled consumers about climate commitments it had no credible plan to fulfill. Tyson Foods settled similar litigation over sustainability marketing for one of its product lines.

These cases share a common thread. Corporate environmental statements, whether about packaging programs, recycling rates, or sustainability goals, now carry legal consequences when they are made without adequate substantiation. EPR compliance reporting creates a paper trail that can be used to evaluate whether those statements hold up.

What EPR Compliance Looks Like for Multi-State Producers

For any company selling packaged goods in multiple states, the current EPR landscape requires navigating a patchwork of laws with different covered materials, different timelines, different fee structures, and different enforcement regimes. That complexity creates real legal exposure at several points.

Failing to register with a PRO in a state where obligations are already active can trigger daily civil penalties and, in some states, can result in a prohibition on selling covered products entirely. Inaccurate supply reporting affects fee calculations and can draw enforcement attention. Mischaracterizing packaging under eco-modulation frameworks to reduce fees creates fraud exposure. And making public claims about program participation or environmental performance that are not supported by actual compliance data invites the kind of investor or consumer litigation that is already playing out in other contexts.

Companies that engaged early with EPR compliance have more flexibility. Those that delayed are in some cases now facing retroactive data reporting obligations and compressed timelines to get into compliance before enforcement actions begin.

Where This Is All Heading

EPR law in the United States is young, and the legal framework around it is still being built. Three developments will define how it matures in the near term.

The outcome of the Oregon constitutional challenge is the most immediate and consequential. If the court ultimately finds that Oregon improperly delegated regulatory authority to a private PRO, it will force restructuring of how these programs operate in every state with an enacted law and will almost certainly slow pending legislation elsewhere.

California’s rulemaking under SB 54 is the second major development to watch. The California program, once operational, will cover the country’s largest consumer market and is expected to drive the most significant compliance activity and enforcement of any state program.

At the federal level, there is no national EPR packaging law, but the momentum at the state level has raised the question in Congress. A federal framework could either preempt state laws or set a minimum floor above which states can continue to legislate. Either outcome would reshape the litigation landscape in ways that are difficult to predict from where things stand today.

How The Lyon Firm Can Help

The Lyon Firm represents individuals, consumers, and communities in complex environmental litigation, class actions, and corporate accountability cases nationwide. Attorney Joe Lyon has spent decades litigating against large corporations in product liability, toxic exposure, consumer fraud, and environmental contamination matters, representing thousands of clients from all fifty states in federal and state court.

EPR litigation draws on environmental regulatory law, constitutional law, consumer protection statutes, securities disclosure rules, and class action procedure. The Lyon Firm brings experience across all of these areas to every case it handles.

If you are a consumer affected by a company’s failure to meet its environmental obligations, a community dealing with the consequences of inadequate packaging waste management, or an individual harmed by corporate environmental misrepresentation, contact The Lyon Firm today for a free and confidential consultation.

Call The Lyon Firm or complete our contact form. No fee unless we recover for you. Consultations available nationwide.