Key Takeaways

  • The National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors filed another lawsuit against a state extended producer responsibility program, challenging Colorado’s Producer Responsibility Program for Statewide Recycling Act (House Bill 22-1355).
  • In addition to challenging the law’s constitutionality, the lawsuit targets practical compliance issues such as itemizing EPR costs on invoices, fee dispute resolution, and mandatory participation in the state’s producer responsibility organization, the Circular Action Alliance.
  • A ruling is expected by the end of August 2026 in a similar lawsuit challenging Oregon’s extended producer responsibility law, while a lawsuit challenging California’s law remains ongoing.
  • Despite the lawsuits, Colorado, Oregon, California, and other states are moving forward with implementing extended producer responsibility programs.

On July 14, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California halted enforcement of California’s Truth in Recycling law (SB 343), which prohibits use of the “chasing arrows” symbols and other recyclability claims on product packaging unless the packaging meets California’s strict standards. Broadly speaking, under SB 343 an item may not be labeled recyclable unless 60% of California’s population has access to recycling facilities that can actually recycle the product (the 60/60 requirement), must “routinely become feedstock” used to produce new products, and must comply with additional design requirements. Plastic packaging, for example, must adhere to the Association of Plastic Recyclers’ Design Guide, while all products and packaging must be “designed to ensure” recyclability without components that “prevent” recyclability. A coalition of 20 trade associations challenged the law in California League of Food Producers v. Bonta. The court found the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their constitutional claims and granted a preliminary injunction barring the California attorney general (AG) from enforcing the law. Without the injunction, the labeling restrictions would have applied to products manufactured after October 4, 2026.Key findings by the district court suggest some of SB 343’s key components may not survive judicial review.

Key Takeaways

  • CARB held a public workshop on July 21, 2026, to preview SB 253 regulatory concepts for 2027 and beyond (with no changes to 2026 reporting obligations).
  • CARB’s December 2024 enforcement notice remains the operative guidance for 2026 reporting; companies must report only data already being collected as of the date of that notice, if any, with no assurance required.
  • CARB confirmed that November 10, 2026, is the reporting deadline for greenhouse gas emissions for the prior year; CARB will publish submission guidance by September 1, 2026.
  • For 2027, CARB will require mandatory reporting for the five most commonly reported Scope 3 categories; the remaining 10 will be voluntary.
  • Independent third-party limited assurance of Scope 1 and 2 emissions becomes mandatory beginning with 2027 reports.
  • Insurance companies will be subject to SB 253 starting in 2027; CARB proposes allowing insurers to submit existing CDI/NAIC data supplemented by any additional information needed to satisfy SB 253 requirements.
  • CARB expects to publish a proposed regulation this fall.
  • Six industry-specific virtual listening sessions begin August 5, 2026.
  • CARB did not provide any details on its plans to issue “clarifying” revisions to the initial regulations approved by the Board in February 2026.
  • The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service issued a final rule rescinding the definition of “harm” from ESA regulations at 50 C.F.R. § 17.3 and 50 C.F.R. § 222.102, eliminating the long-standing regulatory interpretation that habitat modification resulting in death or injury of listed
…

Key Takeaways

  • California’s extended producer responsibility (EPR) law, Senate Bill (SB) 54, is facing a broad constitutional challenge brought by 17 states and the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW).
  • The lawsuit targets core features of California’s EPR framework, including source-reduction mandates, recyclability and recycling-rate targets, producer fees, the $500 million annual environmental mitigation surcharge, and mandatory participation in the Circular Action Alliance (CAA).
  • The lawsuit does not change current compliance obligations. Unless and until a court issues injunctive relief, California can enforce SB 54 deadlines, reporting requirements, and producer responsibility organization (PRO) participation obligations.
  • Companies subject to California’s EPR program should continue building systems to report covered material, evaluate packaging reduction opportunities, and document assumptions underlying their producer-status determinations while the lawsuit proceeds.
  • First-of-its-kind program: California’s Responsible Textile Recovery Act of 2024 (SB 707) creates a statewide extended producer responsibility (EPR) framework for apparel and textile articles.
  • July 1, 2026 deadline: “Producers” of “covered products” must register with CalRecycle-approved producer responsible organization (PRO) Landbell USA.
  • August 13, 2026 workshop: CalRecycle will seek
…

California and Maryland ushered in a number of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) obligations last week. Although packaging EPR laws in Oregon and Colorado have been operational for some time, recent milestones in California and Maryland will bring their programs into full swing this summer. While not yet fully implemented, Minnesota and Washington’s programs also hit recent milestones.

On April 23, 2026, Maine became the first U.S. state to enact an extended producer responsibility (EPR) law that targets “electronic smoking devices” used to consume nicotine and cannabis. The Act to Create a Stewardship Program for Electronic Smoking Devices and Related Products (LD 1519) applies to every company that qualifies as a “producer” of “electronic smoking devices” sold in Maine. That will likely include all major manufacturers and brand-holders of electronic smoking devices, such as e-cigarettes, vape pens, and refill cartridges.

Last month, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the draft Sixth Contaminant Candidate List (CCL 6) under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and released it for public comment. CCL 6 identifies contaminants that are not yet regulated but are known or anticipated to occur in public water systems and may require future regulation. The draft list includes four contaminant groups — microplastics, pharmaceuticals, per‑ and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), and disinfection byproducts — along with 75 individual chemicals and nine microbes that may be found in drinking water. Although PFAS were included on prior lists, this is the first time the EPA has designated microplastics or pharmaceuticals as priority contaminant groups. Inclusion on the draft CCL 6 signals an emerging concern about these new contaminant groups and the potential for future regulatory action.

The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) issued a list of companies that are allegedly noncompliant “producers” under Oregon’s extended producer responsibility (EPR) law for packaging and paper products, known as the Recycling Modernization Act (RMA). The list appeared on the Circular Action Alliance’s (CAA) website on April 10, 2026. The CAA is the “Producer Responsibility Organization” that is charged with implementing EPR programs in Oregon, Colorado, and California.