Source: Product Stewart Institute

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is one of the most significant—and evolving—packaging regulations in the U.S. It represents a shift in who pays for packaging waste: away from taxpayers and local governments, and toward the companies that produce and profit from the packaging.

While the concept of EPR has existed in the U.S. for decades (covering items like paint, batteries, mattresses, and electronics), what’s new—and accelerating—is EPR specifically for packaging and paper products. Globally, EPR for packaging has long been established in places like Canada and the European Union. Now, U.S. states are following suit, with five having passed packaging-related EPR laws and many more in active planning stages.

What Is EPR?

EPR laws are designed to make producers financially (and sometimes operationally) responsible for the collection, recycling, and disposal of the packaging they put into the market. In practice, most EPR laws require producers to:

• Join a Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO)

• Report data on the packaging they sell (type, volume, recyclability)

• Pay fees based on the quantity and sustainability of that packaging

The collected fees fund recycling system upgrades, consumer education, litter cleanup, and other infrastructure improvements. Some EPR laws also establish source reduction targets and set recycling performance goals.

Key Concepts

Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO)

A PRO is the non-profit entity that manages EPR compliance on behalf of producers. PROs:

• Collect packaging data from producers

• Calculate and collect producer fees

• Use these funds to implement state recycling strategies, improve MRF infrastructure, conduct outreach, and meet targets

Some states select a single PRO (often through a request-for-proposal process), while others may allow for multiple competing PROs.

Across the United States, Circular Action Alliance is emerging as the PRO managing all states’ EPR programs.

“Who Is the Producer?”

This varies by state, but typically, a producer is:

• The brand owner of a packaged product sold into the state

• If no U.S. brand owner exists, the importer or distributor

• In retail contexts, the retailer may be considered the producer for items like shopping bags

Exemptions typically apply to very small businesses (e.g., <$5 million in annual revenue or <1 metric ton of packaging sold into a state).

Eco-Modulation

Eco-modulation is a policy mechanism that adjusts producer fees based on the sustainability of packaging. Brands using recyclable materials, post-consumer recycled content, or designs that reduce waste may pay lower fees, while those using non-recyclable or harmful materials may pay higher fees.

This creates market incentives to shift toward circular design and more sustainable packaging choices. Unfortunately, eco-modulation guidelines are not yet clear across Oregon, Colorado, and California - the states that have most actively advanced their EPR programs.

Where EPR for Packaging Exists Today

The following five states have passed packaging-specific EPR legislation. While details vary, they all require producers to join a PRO, report data, and begin paying into the system within the next few years.

Read on for more details on EPR in each state.

California

California passed SB 54 in 2022, creating the most expansive EPR framework in the country. The law requires producers of packaging and plastic food service ware to join a designated Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO), with the Circular Action Alliance (CAA) selected for this role. Brands must enroll by July 1, 2025, submit 2024 packaging data by August 31, 2025, and begin paying fees in 2026. The legislation sets aggressive targets: a 25% reduction in plastic packaging by 2032 and a mandate that all packaging be recyclable or compostable by the same year. California’s law also incorporates eco-modulation, reducing fees for materials with high recycling rates.

Colorado

Colorado followed with HB 22-1355, also passed in 2022. Implementation is underway, and obligated producers were required to register with CAA by October 2024. The first reporting deadline is July 2025, with fees due by January 2026. Colorado’s program covers packaging, printed paper, and food service ware, and is designed to create a fully producer-funded statewide recycling system. Eco-modulation and recycling performance targets are expected to be finalized during implementation.

Oregon

Oregon’s Recycling Modernization Act, passed in 2021, sets the foundation for a system of multiple PROs (though CAA has submitted a plan to serve as the state's first). Producers must report 2024 packaging data by March 31, 2025, and will begin paying fees in summer 2025. The law applies to packaging, printed paper, and food service ware, and sets staged plastic recycling targets of 25% by 2028 and 70% by 2050. Oregon’s legislation also includes a strong emphasis on truth-in-labeling, aiming to reduce consumer confusion around recyclability claims.

Maine

Maine was the first U.S. state to pass packaging EPR legislation, enacting LD 1541 in 2021. The law is currently in its rulemaking phase, with a stewardship organization (similar to a PRO) expected to be selected in 2026. Once operational, producers will be required to report packaging data and pay into a statewide stewardship fund, with fees expected to begin in late 2026. Maine’s program will cover packaging (excluding beverage containers) and include eco-modulation provisions. A key feature of the law is that it provides compensation to municipalities that manage household packaging waste.

Minnesota

Minnesota passed its Packaging Waste and Cost Reduction Act in May 2025, becoming the fifth state to adopt packaging EPR. A PRO will be selected by January 2025, with producers required to register by July 1, 2026. The state’s EPR stewardship plan is due in October 2028, and producers will gradually be required to cover up to 90% of statewide recycling system costs by 2031. By 2032, all packaging sold in Minnesota must be reusable, recyclable, compostable, or collected through an approved recovery system. The law includes robust eco-modulation criteria, rewarding packaging designed for circularity and low environmental impact.

States Conducting EPR Needs Assessments

Several states—including Maryland, Illinois, and Washington—have passed legislation requiring EPR needs assessments. These assessments evaluate the state’s existing recycling infrastructure, identify gaps, and explore how EPR could improve outcomes. A needs assessment is often a precursor to EPR legislation. It helps states determine:

• What materials should be covered

• How a PRO would operate

• What infrastructure investments are needed

• What policy design would be most effective

For example, Maryland SB 222, passed in 2024, mandates a comprehensive EPR needs assessment and stakeholder engagement process, signaling that packaging EPR could soon follow.

Brands selling into states conducting needs assessments should begin preparing now by improving packaging data systems and staying informed on legislative developments.

Why EPR Matters for Circularity

When well-designed, EPR has the potential to:

• Standardize recycling systems across a state

• Align incentives toward recyclability and responsible sourcing

• Improve consumer education

• Fund infrastructure upgrades, making recycling more effective and equitable

• Drive market demand for recycled content

By connecting packaging design decisions with real-world end-of-life outcomes, EPR gives brands the opportunity—and the pressure—to design with circularity in mind.

Limitations and Challenges to Watch

While EPR is a powerful tool, current U.S. implementations come with tradeoffs:

Fragmentation: With each state designing its own system, producers must navigate multiple PROs, reporting requirements, and definitions. This complexity creates burdens, especially for small and mid-sized brands.

Consumer Cost: Though EPR fees are levied on producers, they are often passed down to consumers. While these are typically modest (e.g., a $0.75 per gallon paint fee), it's important to be transparent about who ultimately pays.

Incomplete Incentives: Most EPR laws focus heavily on recyclability. That means they may unintentionally favor materials like paper, which may be recyclable but have higher carbon footprints than certain plastics.

Lagging Innovation: If EPR frameworks are based on today's recycling capabilities, they could inadvertently stifle innovation—disincentivizing materials like black plastics or biopolymers that may become more recyclable with future technologies.

What Brands Should Do Now

If your brand sells into California, Colorado, Oregon, Maine, or Minnesota—or any state considering EPR—you should:

• Determine if you're considered a producer

• Start collecting packaging data now and building systems for long-term data collection going forward. Data you need to have ready access to includes: Your packaging suite, the material classification and weight of each type of packaging you use, the volume of each type of packaging going into each state.

• Join a PRO where required (most likely Circular Action Alliance)

• Report your packaging data on CAA’s schedule and deadlines

• Budget for and pay fees on the schedule that states (and CAA) dictates

• Redesign packaging to improve recyclability, reduce volume, and increase post-consumer content

• Stay engaged in rulemaking and legislative updates

Bookmark reputable resources like the Sustainable Packaging Coalition and Circular Action Alliance to track legislation and deadlines.

Outright bans are the most definitive form of packaging legislation. These laws prohibit the sale, distribution, or use of specific materials or packaging types—often due to environmental toxicity, lack of recyclability, or their contribution to litter and pollution.

Commonly banned materials include:

• Polystyrene (Styrofoam) – Frequently used for food service containers and protective packaging

• PVC (Polyvinyl Chloride) – A hard-to-recycle plastic with environmental health concerns

• PFAS (Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances) – Toxic, long-lasting “forever chemicals”

• Single-use plastic bags

• Single-use straws and utensils

• Oversized packaging (i.e., "right-sizing" legislation)

These bans are typically phased in, with clear implementation timelines. Once in effect, non-compliant vendors may face citations, fines, or other penalties.

Use-Based Restrictions and Fees

Instead of banning materials outright, some jurisdictions choose to impose fees—making environmentally harmful materials more costly to use.

A common example: bag fees, which charge retailers or consumers for each single-use plastic or paper bag distributed. These policies aim to shift behavior by making sustainable options more economically attractive.

The effectiveness of these policies depends in part on how the fee is structured—whether it targets the retailer or the consumer—and whether alternatives (like reusable options) are made readily available.

A Closer Look at What’s Being Regulated

Plastic Bag Bans: Plastic bag bans are among the most widespread packaging laws in the U.S., adopted by both states and municipalities. These typically prohibit the distribution of thin-film plastic checkout bags and may include fees for alternatives. States with active bans include:

• Maine

• Connecticut

• New York

• Oregon

• Notable cities with bans: Boston, MA; Jackson Hole, WY; Arlington, VA

These laws most directly impact in-person retailers, though e-commerce may be included depending on how “checkout packaging” is defined.

Styrofoam (Polystyrene) Bans: Styrofoam bans are expanding rapidly, targeting both food service and protective packaging applications. Polystyrene is not widely recyclable and poses significant pollution and toxicity risks. States with bans include:

• Hawaii

• New Jersey

• Oregon

• Washington

PFAS Bans: PFAS bans are among the fastest-growing categories of packaging legislation. These chemicals are linked to serious health issues and persist in the environment indefinitely. Many states have already passed laws banning intentionally added PFAS in food packaging, and others are considering similar measures. Some states also prohibit any product containing PFAS from being labeled as recyclable or compostable.

At EcoEnclose, we proactively ensure all of our packaging is PFAS-free, ahead of these legislative trends.

Beyond bans and fees, a new wave of policy is targeting the design of packaging itself—with mandates focused on reducing waste and increasing circularity.

Post-Consumer Recycled (PCR) Content Requirements: Many states are requiring packaging to incorporate minimum levels of post-consumer recycled content, particularly in plastic and paper materials. These targets often increase over time and are enforced through labeling requirements and PRO fee structures. Examples include:

• California (AB 793) – Requires plastic bottles to include:

• 15% PCR now

• 25% by 2025

• 50% by 2030

• Washington – Requires 15% PCR in plastic packaging as of July 2023

• Maine and Maryland – Have proposed or pending PCR minimums

• New Jersey – Has passed PCR requirements

Right-Sizing Legislation: New Jersey was the first state to enact legislation targeting oversized e-commerce packaging. Senate Bill S226 prohibits large retailers from using shipping boxes more than twice the size of the product being shipped. Violations can result in civil penalties ranging from $250 to $500 per offense. While currently limited to New Jersey, this type of design-based packaging law could spread to other jurisdictions and be folded into EPR legislation over time.

Packaging labels are often the final touchpoint between a brand and a consumer—but in today’s sustainability landscape, they’re also a source of widespread confusion. Despite decades of effort, there are few consistent legal requirements around packaging end-of-life claims, leading to overuse (and misuse) of terms like “recyclable,” “biodegradable,” and “compostable.”

That’s starting to change. Several states are introducing legislation to enforce truth in labeling, and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is currently updating its Green Guides, the closest thing the U.S. has to a national labeling standard.

Below is a breakdown of where things stand—and where they’re heading.

Truth in Recyclability Labeling

For decades, the iconic chasing arrows symbol has led consumers to believe that any packaging displaying it is recyclable. In reality, only a limited subset of plastics, such as PET (#1), HDPE (#2), and in some cases, PP (#5), are widely recyclable in the U.S.

Many other packaging formats, especially flexible plastics, multi-layer films, and blends, are not recyclable in most curbside systems. Yet they often carry misleading recycling symbols or vague claims.

To address this, several states have passed or introduced truth-in-labeling laws:

• California (SB 343): The most comprehensive law to date. Beginning in 2025, only packaging that is actually recycled in 60% or more of California communities can be labeled as recyclable.

• Brands must adhere to SBS 343 by October 2026

• New Jersey, Maryland, and Illinois: Have introduced similar laws or are developing labeling standards tied to recycling access and infrastructure. These laws may also prohibit certain materials (such as PFAS-containing packaging) from being labeled as recyclable at all.

These new standards aim to ensure that recyclability labels reflect real-world conditions, helping consumers make more informed choices and reducing contamination in recycling streams.

Compostability and Biodegradability Claims

Misleading use of terms like “compostable” and “biodegradable” has caused significant problems for industrial composting facilities and created confusion among consumers. Several states, including California, Vermont and New Hampshire, have now passed laws restricting how and when compostability claims can be made. Emerging legislation requires:

• Verified third-party certification (e.g., BPI Certification) before a product is labeled compostable

• California’s AB 1201 may actually restrict the use of “compostable” to materials that lead to organic compost (as defined by the state’s organic standards). This effectively excludes many bioplastics and additives that might break down in lab conditions but do not result in usable, non-toxic compost in practice.

• Prohibitions on terms like “landfill biodegradable”, which can mislead consumers into thinking landfill degradation is beneficial or even possible

We anticipate more states will follow this trend, especially as consumer concern around greenwashing increases.

Labeling within Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)

All five U.S. states that have passed packaging-related EPR laws (California, Colorado, Oregon, Maine, and Minnesota) include labeling accuracy as a component of their frameworks.

While none have finalized their labeling requirements yet, it is expected that:

• PROs (Producer Responsibility Organizations) will set or enforce end-of-life labeling guidelines

• Inaccurate or unsubstantiated recyclability claims may result in higher producer fees or other penalties

• Labeling guidance will be tied to material acceptance in Material Recovery Facilities (MRFs) across each state

As these states begin implementing their EPR programs in 2025–2027, we expect clearer, enforceable standards for recyclability and compostability claims to follow.

The FTC Green Guides

At the federal level, the most comprehensive framework for packaging claims is the FTC Green Guides, first issued in 1992 and last updated in 2012. While not legally binding, the Guides are considered authoritative and have been cited in enforcement actions against deceptive environmental marketing.

The Green Guides outline:

• General principles for substantiating environmental claims

• How consumers are likely to interpret claims like “recyclable,” “biodegradable,” or “made from recycled content”

• What disclosures are necessary to avoid deception

In February 2023, the FTC opened a public comment period as part of its long-awaited update to the Green Guides. As of mid-2024, new guidelines have not yet been released, but updated language is expected to:

• Reflect current recycling infrastructure and access

• Address emerging terms like “climate friendly” and “plastic neutral”

• Provide stricter rules for compostable and biodegradable claims

While we await revised federal guidance, state-level action is filling the gap—and brands should prepare for a future in which unsubstantiated packaging claims may carry regulatory consequences.