Attorneys Catherine Begley and Hyo Jin (“Jinnie”) Lee recently attended the American Conference Institute’s EPR Think Tank in New York City, held January 27–28, 2026, where regulators, Producer Responsibility Organizations (“PROs”), and industry stakeholders discussed these emerging requirements and practical compliance strategies.
At the conference, Catherine Begley presented a workshop titled “Packaging EPR Preparedness: Charting the Course for Your Packaging EPR Roadmap – Preparedness Strategy and Support Team.” With Extended Producer Responsibility (“EPR”) deadlines rolling out across multiple states, the workshop addressed how to move from awareness to action, what “compliance readiness” looks like, and how companies can build internal efficiencies while leveraging external support.
EPR for packaging has moved from concept to implementation, and 2026 is a pivotal year for companies that are subject to EPR laws. Under EPR laws, companies – deemed “Producers” – will be responsible for paying recycling and waste‑management costs throughout their products’ life cycle.
EPR laws are in various stages of implementation in several states, including California, Colorado, Oregon, Minnesota, Maine, Maryland, and Washington. New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts are also considering similar legislation. To date, there is currently no pending legislation in Pennsylvania.
While all EPR laws share a common goal of shifting responsibility for packaging waste from local governments to Producers, each state defines covered packaging, exemptions, and implementation timelines differently. Producers that sell into multiple states must navigate a patchwork of requirements, which can lead to differing obligations and costs for the same products in each state.
Most EPR laws require Producers to participate in a PRO, such as Circular Action Alliance (CAA), a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization authorized to implement the statutes by handling registration, program planning, and the administration of fees and reporting.
Competitive multi‑PRO models are also being considered in some states, which may affect how responsibilities and costs are allocated among Producers and could require certain companies or product lines to join more than one PRO. States are beginning to issue EPR‑related invoices, with fee structures that vary based on material type, weight, and recyclability and may influence packaging material choices going forward.
Data and reporting obligations remain among the most challenging aspects of EPR compliance. Producers must develop systems to track detailed packaging information, including material composition, component weights, and state‑specific volumes, in a format that meets each state’s different requirements.
California continues to stand out because of the interaction between its EPR law (SB 54) and its “Truth in Recycling” law (SB 343) which restricts the use of recyclability symbols and claims. This situation heightens litigation and enforcement risks for inaccurate or misleading labels.
There are numerous registration, reporting, and payment deadlines in 2026, 2027 and beyond as these programs roll out and mature. Producers who fail to comply may be subject to fines and could eventually even be barred from selling products in a state.
Barley Snyder is actively monitoring the development of EPR laws across the nation. If you need assistance with the requirements under the new laws, please reach out to attorneys Catherine Begley, Jinnie Lee, Alice Solomon, Tim Dietrich or any member in Barley Snyder’s Food & Agribusiness Industry Group.
