17 States Challenge California Packaging Law in Federal Court as 11 Claims Target EPR Statute
Updated
Updated · The National Law Review · Jul 7
17 States Challenge California Packaging Law in Federal Court as 11 Claims Target EPR Statute
1 articles · Updated · The National Law Review · Jul 7
Summary
Seventeen states and the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors sued on June 20 in federal court to block California’s extended producer responsibility law, arguing the packaging-recycling statute is unconstitutional.
The 11-count complaint says the law burdens out-of-state manufacturers, imposes an impermissible surcharge on companies with no California presence, improperly delegates power to Circular Action Alliance, and bars fee disclosures on receipts or invoices.
CalRecycle’s director and Circular Action Alliance are named as defendants in a case that lands just three weeks after environmental groups sued from the opposite direction, saying California’s EPR regulations are too lenient.
California’s compliance deadlines still stand unless a court grants preliminary relief, leaving affected companies to keep planning while litigation could shape EPR programs beyond the state.
With Oregon's EPR trial today, could California's ambitious recycling law be the next to fall?
Producers claim California's law is an unconstitutional tax. Are consumers ultimately paying the price for green policies?
As states battle over recycling laws, is a national standard the only way to solve America's plastic crisis?
SB 54 Under Fire: How California’s Landmark $17 Billion Plastic Law Is Shaping the National EPR Battle
Overview
California’s SB 54, a major law passed in 2022 to make producers responsible for plastic waste, is now facing strong legal challenges. The law’s final rules were approved in 2026, setting up an extended producer responsibility program that shifts waste management costs from taxpayers to companies. However, a coalition of 17 states and a national trade group has sued to block the law, arguing it should not be enforced. Despite this, the program’s requirements remain in effect, and producers must continue to comply as the legal battle unfolds, highlighting the tension between environmental goals and industry pushback.