The complex and rapidly evolving landscape of state-level Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) laws presents a significant compliance challenge for dietary supplement companies, with a notable divergence in how these regulations impact packaging across different jurisdictions. While California and Oregon generally extend their EPR mandates to packaging used for dietary supplements, subject to limited exemptions, Colorado has adopted a distinct approach, explicitly excluding packaging for FDA-regulated dietary supplements from its EPR framework. This divergence, coupled with ongoing constitutional challenges to EPR programs in all three states, creates a dynamic and uncertain environment for businesses operating within this sector. The outcomes of these legal battles could have profound implications for supplement companies navigating packaging compliance requirements nationwide.
Understanding Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)
At its core, Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is a policy strategy that shifts the responsibility for a product’s end-of-life management from consumers and municipalities to the producers themselves. This lifecycle approach encompasses the entire journey of a product, from its initial design and manufacturing through to its post-consumer phase, including collection, recycling, and disposal. The underlying principle is to incentivize producers to design products that are more sustainable, easier to recycle, and generate less waste, thereby internalizing the environmental costs associated with their products. This model is increasingly being adopted by states as a means to address mounting waste management challenges and promote a more circular economy.
California’s EPR Law Faces Constitutional Scrutiny
In California, the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act (SB 54), often referred to as the "Plastics Act," has become a focal point for legal challenges. A coalition of 17 states, joined by the National Association of Wholesaler Distributors (NAW), initiated a lawsuit, State of Nebraska et al. v. Heller et al., asserting a multitude of constitutional claims against the legislation. Central to their argument are allegations that California’s EPR law infringes upon the Commerce Clause, the Import-Export Clause, the First Amendment, and the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Furthermore, the plaintiffs are challenging the state’s decision to delegate significant regulatory and fee-setting authority to the Circular Action Alliance (CAA), a private entity designated as the Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO) for paper and packaging in the United States.
On August 20, 2026, the plaintiffs bolstered their legal position by filing an amended complaint and formally moving for a preliminary injunction. This motion seeks to halt the enforcement of SB 54 while the litigation unfolds, aiming to prevent potentially irreversible compliance burdens on businesses. A hearing on this critical motion has been scheduled for January 15, 2027. As of this reporting, no injunction has been granted, and SB 54 remains in effect, compelling affected businesses to comply with its provisions.
The crux of the states’ contention lies in their assertion that California is overstepping its boundaries by effectively exporting its policy preferences and regulatory demands to other states. They argue that SB 54 imposes a substantial burden on interstate commerce by compelling out-of-state producers to adhere to California’s stringent packaging regulations as a prerequisite for accessing the California market. This, they contend, creates an uneven playing field and discriminates against businesses operating beyond California’s borders. The plaintiffs also express deep concern over the delegation of fee-setting and other crucial regulatory powers to a private entity like CAA, arguing that this transfer of authority lacks sufficient public oversight and is not guided by clear legislative standards, potentially leading to arbitrary or unfair imposition of fees and regulations.
Oregon’s EPR Regime Under Fire and Recent Developments
Oregon’s EPR framework has also encountered significant legal headwinds. The National Association of Whaler Distributors (NAW) brought a constitutional challenge against the state’s Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act (RMA) in the case of NAW v. Feldon. Similar to the California litigation, NAW initially argued that the RMA violated several constitutional provisions, including the dormant Commerce Clause, principles of nondelegation of authority, the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions, and federal and state due process rights.
In a significant development in February 2026, the District of Oregon addressed several of these claims. The court dismissed a portion of NAW’s arguments but simultaneously issued a preliminary injunction that temporarily halted the enforcement of Oregon’s EPR law specifically for NAW and its member companies. However, the court permitted NAW’s federal dormant Commerce Clause and Due Process Clause claims to proceed to trial, indicating that these aspects of the challenge would receive further judicial review.
A pivotal ruling came on August 27, 2026, when the court delivered a verdict against NAW, decisively 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, signaling a victory for Oregon’s EPR initiative.
Adding another layer to the legal complexities in Oregon, a separate, putative class-action lawsuit, Lollicup USA Inc. v. Feldon, was filed on June 25, 2026. This action challenges the RMA on constitutional grounds substantially similar to those raised by NAW, but it is brought on behalf of producers who were not covered by the initial NAW injunction. The precise impact of the August 27 ruling on this class-action case remains to be determined. However, NAW has indicated that it is carefully evaluating its legal options in light of the recent court decision.
Colorado’s Unique Exclusion and Producer Responsibility Challenges
Colorado’s approach to EPR differs markedly from California and Oregon. The state’s EPR law, the Producer Responsibility Program for Statewide Recycling Act (HB 22-1355), explicitly excludes packaging material used for products regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as dietary supplements. This exclusion means that the primary packaging for most dietary supplements is generally not subject to Colorado’s EPR requirements, offering a degree of relief to companies in this sector. However, it is crucial for these companies to conduct a thorough assessment of all their packaging to ensure that no components fall outside this statutory exclusion.
Despite this specific carve-out for dietary supplements, Colorado’s EPR program has not been immune to legal challenges. Two distinct lawsuits have been filed, targeting different aspects of the state’s implementation.
The first challenge, brought by the Independent Lubricant Manufacturers Association (ILMA) in Independent Lubricant Manufacturers Association v. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, alleges that the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), in conjunction with producer responsibility organizations, the 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. ILMA contends that producers are being coerced into "take-it-or-leave-it" contracts with private PROs, are subjected to fees that are not tied to actual recycling costs, and that core regulatory authority has been delegated to private entities without adequate governmental oversight. While the case is still pending, ILMA filed a motion for a preliminary injunction in August 2026, seeking limited relief from certain aspects of the EPR program. No ruling on this motion has been publicly reported.
The second federal lawsuit, NAW v. Ryan, was filed by NAW on July 30, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. This lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of HB 22-1355 on broader grounds. NAW’s claims include due process and First Amendment challenges, focusing on the delegation of fee-setting authority to CAA, the compulsion for producers to associate with and fund CAA, restrictions on producers’ ability to disclose EPR-related costs to consumers, and the alleged use of mandatory producer fees by CAA for policy advocacy purposes. NAW has also moved for a preliminary injunction in this case. To date, no injunction has been granted.
Given the explicit exclusion for dietary supplement packaging, the Colorado litigation, while significant for other industries, is generally not directly relevant to the primary packaging of dietary supplements. Nonetheless, companies must remain vigilant and ensure they accurately identify and comply with any applicable requirements for any packaging that does not fit within the statutory exemption.
Key Takeaways and Strategic Considerations for Dietary Supplement Companies
The ongoing legal battles in California, Oregon, and Colorado underscore the dynamic and uncertain nature of EPR legislation for packaging. Despite these challenges, dietary supplement companies should adopt a proactive and cautious approach. It is prudent to proceed under the assumption that applicable EPR programs will remain in effect unless and until a court issues a definitive order staying or enjoining enforcement, or otherwise alters the regulatory landscape.
This principle is particularly critical in California and Oregon. In California, the litigation has not yet resulted in an injunction, meaning SB 54 continues to be enforceable. Similarly, while Oregon’s law faced challenges, the recent federal court ruling upheld the RMA and rejected NAW’s remaining constitutional claims, reinforcing the state’s EPR framework.
In Colorado, while the direct impact on dietary supplement packaging is limited due to the explicit exclusion, companies must still maintain awareness of the broader legal challenges. Any packaging that might not fall under the FDA-regulated dietary supplement exclusion should be carefully reviewed for compliance.
Broader Implications and the Path Forward
The outcomes of these EPR lawsuits could significantly reshape the regulatory environment for packaging across the United States. A ruling in favor of the challenging states or producers could set precedents that limit the scope and enforceability of state-level EPR laws, potentially weakening their effectiveness in driving packaging sustainability. Conversely, if the states and their EPR programs prevail, it could embolden other jurisdictions to enact similar legislation and reinforce the trend towards producer accountability for packaging waste.
For the dietary supplement industry, these developments necessitate a strategic approach to packaging compliance. Companies should:
- Monitor Legal Developments Closely: Stay informed about the progress of ongoing litigation in California, Oregon, and Colorado, as well as any new legislative proposals related to EPR at the state and federal levels.
- Conduct Thorough Packaging Audits: Ensure a comprehensive understanding of all packaging materials used, paying close attention to any components that might fall outside specific exemptions in state laws.
- Engage with Industry Associations: Participate in industry groups and trade organizations that are actively monitoring and engaging with EPR legislation. Collective action and shared insights can be invaluable.
- Consult Legal and Compliance Experts: Seek guidance from legal professionals specializing in environmental law and regulatory compliance to navigate the complexities of EPR mandates.
- Explore Sustainable Packaging Solutions: Proactively invest in and adopt more sustainable packaging designs and materials that align with the principles of EPR and may offer long-term cost and compliance benefits.
The current legal challenges represent a critical juncture for EPR legislation in the United States. The decisions made in these cases will not only impact the immediate compliance obligations of dietary supplement companies but will also shape the future of packaging waste management and producer responsibility across the nation. As these legal battles unfold, continued vigilance, strategic planning, and a commitment to sustainable practices will be paramount for businesses in the dietary supplement sector.
