Packaging Extended Producer Responsibility laws have moved quickly from legislative proposals to real compliance programs. Now, some of those programs are facing another test: the courts.
Legal challenges involving packaging EPR are underway in Oregon, California, and Colorado, raising questions about how states can structure producer fees, regulate interstate businesses, and delegate responsibility for managing packaging programs.
For food and beverage manufacturers, however, there is an important distinction between a law being challenged and a law being suspended.
In most cases, companies still have compliance obligations while the litigation works its way through the courts.
Three States Are at the Center of the Fight
The National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors, or NAW, has challenged packaging EPR programs in Oregon, California, and Colorado using overlapping constitutional arguments.
Oregon is the furthest along.
A federal court previously granted a narrow preliminary injunction covering NAW members, and a five-day trial on the constitutional challenge concluded in July. The case is being closely watched because it could become one of the first significant court decisions addressing how an EPR program’s fee structure and interstate-commerce requirements withstand constitutional scrutiny.
California is facing challenges from two different directions.
One lawsuit argues that California’s SB 54 regulations are too permissive, while another challenges the law itself on constitutional grounds. Despite those cases, no statewide injunction has halted California’s EPR program.
Colorado is also facing two lawsuits, including a federal challenge filed by NAW in July.
The result is an increasingly complicated legal landscape for companies selling packaged products across multiple states.
Litigation Does Not Automatically Pause Compliance
This may be the most important point for manufacturers.
A pending lawsuit generally does not mean a business can stop registering, reporting packaging data, paying required fees, or meeting other applicable deadlines.
California, Oregon, and Colorado continue to operate their programs for producers not specifically covered by a court order.
For companies selling nationally, waiting for the courts to resolve every challenge could create more risk than continuing to prepare for existing requirements.
A strong food safety and regulatory compliance consulting strategy should therefore treat litigation as something to monitor—not as a reason to stop compliance work.
Packaging Decisions Are Becoming Business Decisions
EPR requirements also have implications well beyond the regulatory department.
Fees and reporting requirements can be affected by packaging material, weight, recyclability, and other design characteristics. That means decisions made during product development and commercialization can eventually affect compliance costs.
A food manufacturing consultant or team providing CPG product development services should increasingly consider packaging regulations during scale-up rather than after a product is already in distribution.
For companies operating across several states, this can include reviewing:
- Packaging materials and weights
- State registration requirements
- Producer Responsibility Organization participation
- Packaging-data collection systems
- Reporting deadlines
- Fee structures
- Source-reduction requirements
- Documentation supporting recyclability or environmental claims Those systems become harder to retrofit as a product portfolio
What Food and Beverage Companies Should Do Now
Manufacturers do not need to predict which side will ultimately win each lawsuit.
They do need to know where their products are sold and which EPR requirements currently apply.
Companies should continue meeting active registration, reporting, and payment obligations while tracking litigation that could change those requirements later.
This is particularly important for brands selling in multiple states, because EPR programs do not all use the same implementation calendar.
For a food and beverage consulting firm, packaging compliance is increasingly becoming part of the broader commercialization conversation. Product development, packaging design, manufacturing, regulatory strategy, and market expansion are becoming more connected.
The legal challenges may eventually reshape packaging EPR. For now, the practical message is simpler:
A lawsuit may change tomorrow’s requirements, but it does not necessarily eliminate today’s
obligations.
