For companies operating within the dynamic dietary supplement industry, the increasing prevalence of state-level Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) laws concerning packaging presents a complex and evolving compliance challenge. While these regulations are gaining traction across the nation, their implementation and impact are far from uniform, creating a patchwork of requirements that demand careful navigation. Understanding the nuances of these laws, particularly as they relate to FDA-regulated products, and monitoring ongoing legal challenges are critical for ensuring continued market access and operational stability.
At its core, EPR is a policy framework that shifts the responsibility for product management from consumers and municipalities to the producers themselves. This encompasses the entire lifecycle of a product, with a significant focus on post-consumer waste management. The goal is to incentivize companies to design more sustainable products and packaging, reduce waste generation, and invest in robust recycling and composting infrastructure. However, the legislative and judicial interpretations of these principles are leading to significant legal battles that could reshape the regulatory environment for businesses nationwide.
California’s Landmark EPR Legislation Faces Constitutional Scrutiny
California, a state often at the forefront of environmental regulation, has implemented its Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act (SB 54), commonly referred to as the "Plastics Act." This legislation generally subjects packaging used for dietary supplements to EPR requirements, with only limited exemptions. However, the law’s broad scope and its potential impact on interstate commerce have drawn significant opposition.
In a high-profile legal challenge, State of Nebraska et al. v. Heller et al., seventeen states, alongside the National Association of Wholesaler Distributors (NAW), have filed suit against California’s EPR framework. The plaintiffs argue that SB 54 infringes upon several constitutional provisions, including the Commerce Clause, the Import-Export Clause, the First Amendment, and the Due Process Clause. A central tenet of their argument is that California is overstepping its bounds by effectively exporting its policy preferences and mandating compliance with its packaging standards for businesses operating nationwide, thereby creating an undue burden on interstate commerce.
Furthermore, the plaintiffs are challenging California’s decision to delegate significant regulatory and fee-setting authority to the Circular Action Alliance (CAA), a designated Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO) for paper and packaging in the United States. Critics argue that this delegation to a private entity lacks adequate public oversight and clear legislative standards, raising concerns about accountability and transparency.
On August 20, 2026, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and a motion for a preliminary injunction, seeking to halt the enforcement of SB 54 while the litigation unfolds. The court has scheduled a hearing on this motion for January 15, 2027. As of the latest reporting, no injunction has been granted, and SB 54 remains in effect, compelling covered entities to comply with its provisions. The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications, potentially setting a precedent for how states can implement EPR laws and influencing the scope of their extraterritorial reach.
Oregon’s EPR Initiative Navigates Legal Hurdles
Oregon, another state that has embraced EPR principles, has also faced significant legal challenges to its packaging recycling modernization efforts. The Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act (RMA) has been the subject of intense scrutiny.
The National Association of Wholesaler Distributors (NAW) brought a constitutional challenge against Oregon’s EPR regime in NAW v. Feldon. Initially, NAW asserted a broad range of constitutional claims, including violations of the dormant Commerce Clause, nondelegation principles, unconstitutional conditions, and federal and state due process rights.
In February 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon dismissed several of NAW’s claims. However, the court did issue a preliminary injunction that temporarily blocked the enforcement of Oregon’s EPR law specifically for NAW and its members. Crucially, the court allowed NAW’s federal dormant Commerce Clause and Due Process Clause claims to proceed to trial, indicating that these fundamental legal questions would be further examined.
A significant development occurred on August 27, 2026, when the court ruled against NAW, rejecting its remaining constitutional challenges to the RMA. The court concluded that the law did not violate either the dormant Commerce Clause or the Due Process Clause. This ruling represents a victory for Oregon’s EPR framework, signaling that the state’s approach is constitutionally sound in the eyes of the court.
However, the legal landscape in Oregon remains dynamic. A separate, putative class-action lawsuit, Lollicup USA Inc. v. Feldon, was filed on June 25, 2026. This action challenges the RMA on substantially similar constitutional grounds but is brought on behalf of producers not covered by the earlier NAW injunction. The precise impact of the August 27 ruling on the Lollicup case is yet to be determined. NAW has indicated that it is evaluating its legal options following the court’s decision, suggesting that further legal maneuvers may be anticipated.
Colorado’s Distinct Approach and Emerging Legal Challenges
Colorado has adopted a notably different stance on EPR for packaging, particularly concerning products regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Its EPR law expressly excludes packaging material used to contain products classified as dietary supplements by the FDA. This distinction offers a degree of clarity for many companies in the sector, shielding their primary product packaging from these specific EPR mandates.
Despite this exclusion, the broader implications of Colorado’s Producer Responsibility Program for Statewide Recycling Act (HB 22-1355) are not without their legal challenges. Two separate lawsuits are currently targeting the implementation of this program, raising complex legal questions about regulatory authority and producer obligations.
The Independent Lubricant Manufacturers Association (ILMA) filed suit against the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) in Independent Lubricant Manufacturers Association v. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Intriguingly, the Circular Action Alliance (CAA) is also named as a defendant in this case. ILMA alleges that the CDPHE, in conjunction with producer responsibility organizations like CAA and the Lubricant Packaging Management Association (LPMA), has implemented the EPR program in a manner that violates the statute and fundamental due process protections. Specific allegations include claims that producers are being compelled to enter into "take-it-or-leave-it" contracts with private PROs, that fees are being imposed without a clear connection to actual recycling costs, and that core regulatory authority is being improperly delegated to private entities without sufficient government oversight. While the case is ongoing, ILMA filed a motion for a preliminary injunction in August 2026, seeking targeted relief from certain aspects of the EPR program. No ruling on this motion has been publicly reported.
In parallel, NAW filed its own federal lawsuit, NAW v. Ryan, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on July 30, 2026. This lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of HB 22-1355 on several fronts. NAW’s claims include due process and First Amendment arguments, focusing on the delegation of fee-setting authority to the CAA, the alleged compelled association with and funding of the CAA, restrictions on producers’ ability to disclose EPR-related costs to their customers, and the CAA’s utilization of mandatory producer fees for policy advocacy purposes. NAW has also sought a preliminary injunction, but to date, no injunction has been granted.
While the Colorado litigation generally does not directly impact the primary packaging of FDA-regulated dietary supplements due to the statutory exclusion, companies are advised to conduct a thorough assessment of any packaging that might fall outside this specific exclusion.
Key Takeaways for Dietary Supplement Companies
The ongoing legal battles in California, Oregon, and Colorado underscore the dynamic and uncertain nature of EPR laws for packaging. Despite these significant challenges, dietary supplement companies should continue to operate under the assumption that applicable EPR programs will remain in effect unless a court issues a definitive order staying or enjoining their enforcement, or otherwise modifies the relevant requirements.
This proactive approach is particularly crucial in California and Colorado, where pending litigation has not yet resulted in a judicial stay. In Oregon, the recent court ruling upholding the RMA and entering judgment for the state after rejecting NAW’s remaining constitutional claims suggests a more settled legal landscape, but vigilance remains important given NAW’s stated intention to explore its options.
Companies must remain attuned to legislative developments at both the state and federal levels, as well as closely monitor court decisions and regulatory pronouncements. A comprehensive understanding of how EPR laws apply to their specific packaging materials, and the potential implications of ongoing litigation, is essential for robust compliance strategies. Engaging with legal counsel specializing in environmental law and regulatory compliance is highly recommended to navigate this complex and evolving area of law effectively. The long-term success of the dietary supplement industry hinges on its ability to adapt to these changing environmental regulations while upholding its commitment to product safety and consumer trust.
