Written on: June 1, 2026 by Nicholas Georges
Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) packaging laws are no longer theoretical constructs in the U.S. They are active, enforceable systems reshaping the financial and operational foundations of recycling and producer responsibility. Yet, recent public disclosures indicate a growing issue—a significant number of producers are not meeting their obligations.
This challenge is especially visible in early-adopter States, such as Oregon, where the first comprehensive packaging EPR program is revealing gaps between policy expectations and implementation. In March, Circular Action Alliance (CAA), the Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO) for Oregon, releasedi a searchable registry of producers participating in the program, as required under the State’s EPR law. In April, the Oregon Dept. of Environmental Quality published an initial listii, available on CAA’s website, of producers alleged to be non-compliant for failing to register, report and/or pay required fees under the law.
At its core, EPR laws shift the cost of managing packaging waste from municipalities to producers. In practice, this means companies must register with a PRO, report the volume and type of materials they introduce into the market and pay fees that fund recycling infrastructure.
The operational model hinges on a central coordinating body, such as CAA, that administers compliance on behalf of producers. However, this model is dependent on high participation and accurate reporting. Without broad compliance, the system’s financial and operational integrity is at risk, and compliant producers must cover a larger cost.
However, the compliance gap is not simply the result of negligence. It reflects the significant complexity associated with implementing EPR policies across the U.S. Producers must determine whether they are “obligated producers,” track material flows and apply detailed reporting methodologies. Although CAA serves as the PRO across multiple States, each jurisdiction maintains its own rules, timelines and definitions.
Further complicating matters is ongoing litigation surrounding these laws. A notable example is National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW) v. Oregon Dept. of Environmental Quality et al, which raises constitutional questions regarding the implementation of EPR programs in Oregon and beyond. Although the court granted NAW’s motion to temporarily prohibit enforcement of the law against NAW and its members pending trial, the protection is limited in scope. Only companies that were NAW members as of Feb. 6, 2026, are covered—meaning the vast majority of producers must continue complying with the law, including reporting and fee payments obligations.
A trial, scheduled to begin on July 13, 2026, will determine whether the law is upheld in its current form, which could result in NAW members being subject to retroactive fees.
As legal challenges continue to unfold, the risks associated with non-compliance remain significant. Companies may face financial penalties, late fees and retroactive payment obligations. Regulatory enforcement actions are also possible, and public disclosure of noncompliant entities creates reputational risk that may impact relationships with customers, partners and stakeholders.
EPR laws are rapidly reshaping the regulatory landscape for packaging and recycling in the U.S., and early implementation efforts have highlighted both their potential and operational challenges. While compliance gaps persist, they underscore the need for clearer guidance, stronger coordination and increased awareness among producers. As enforcement mechanisms become more visible and public accountability increases, companies can no longer afford to take a passive approach. Proactive engagement, accurate reporting and a thorough understanding of evolving requirements will be critical not only to avoid penalties, but also to support the long-term viability and credibility of EPR systems.
Accordingly, companies should evaluate their potential responsibility not just in Oregon, but across all States implementing packaging EPR laws, including California, Colorado, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota and Washington State.
To stay up to date and receive more information on EPR laws in the U.S., please contact me at ngeorges@thehcpa.org. SPRAY
