The National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors has filed a reply in support of its motion for a preliminary injunction against Colorado’s Extended Producer Responsibility law, continuing its latest legal challenge to state packaging EPR mandates.

NAW said Sept. 28 that it is pressing the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado to halt enforcement of Colorado’s Producer Responsibility Program for Statewide Recycling Act while its lawsuit proceeds. The filing follows Colorado’s response opposing NAW’s July motion for preliminary injunction.

NAW filed its Colorado lawsuit in July in NAW v. Ryan, naming Jill Hunsaker Ryan, Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment, as defendant in her official capacity. NAW is represented by the New Civil Liberties Alliance.

Colorado’s law requires covered producers of packaging and paper products to participate in the state’s EPR program, which is administered by Circular Action Alliance, the producer responsibility organization designated for the program. NAW has argued that the law can sweep in distributors that handle packaged products but generally do not design product packaging or control how packaging is discarded.

In its Sept. 28 reply, NAW said Colorado’s defense rests on two main claims: that joining CAA is voluntary and that the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment sufficiently controls CAA. NAW disputed both.

The association said Colorado law effectively requires companies to join CAA as a condition of selling in the state because Colorado does not permit alternative producer responsibility organizations until at least 2029. NAW also argued that an individual program plan is not a practical alternative for most producers handling mixed consumer packaging.

NAW’s filing further argued that Colorado has not sufficiently answered several of its constitutional claims, including NAW’s assertions that the law burdens interstate commerce, restricts businesses from itemizing EPR fees on invoices and compels businesses to join and fund CAA.

The Colorado litigation is part of NAW’s broader legal effort challenging state EPR laws that the association says impose costs and compliance obligations on distributors operating in interstate supply chains.

NAW secured a preliminary injunction in February against enforcement of Oregon’s Recycling Modernization Act for NAW members while that case proceeded. Following a July trial, however, U.S. District Court Judge Michael Simon ruled Aug. 27 that Oregon’s law does not violate the dormant Commerce Clause or Due Process Clause. NAW appealed that ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Sept. 24.

NAW also is the sole business plaintiff in a multistate lawsuit challenging California’s SB 54 packaging EPR law, while a separate NAW-backed coalition has moved to block California’s law from taking effect.

The Colorado preliminary-injunction request remains pending.

MDM Analysis

For distributors, the next key watchpoint is whether the Colorado court treats NAW’s preliminary-injunction request differently than the Oregon case, particularly given NAW’s argument that Colorado’s law has fewer practical alternatives to CAA participation. Beyond that ruling, distributors should monitor NAW’s Ninth Circuit appeal in Oregon and the pending California challenges. Together, those cases could shape how far state EPR obligations extend into wholesale distribution and how much room distributors have to contest fees, reporting burdens and invoice restrictions.