A 17-state coalition that includes the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW) filed an amended complaint and a motion to block the enforcement of California’s Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act, known as SB 54, while the coalition’s constitutional challenge proceeds.

California’s SB 54 establishes an EPR program for packaging and single-use plastic food service ware. Under the law, businesses must register with and pay fees to Circular Action Alliance, a private Washington, D.C.-based producer responsibility organization appointed by the state to administer the program.

Q&A: What Distributors Should Know about Extended Producer Responsibility Laws

This motion for a preliminary injunction is asking the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California to enjoin California’s Department of Resources Recycling & Recovery and the Circular Action Alliance from enforcing SB 54 until the court has ruled on the constitutionality of the law.

“Businesses face significant compliance costs under SB 54, despite the rules being used to calculate those costs remaining undefined, even to the state agency responsible for enforcing them,” NAW officials wrote in an Aug. 20 news release. “The motion for preliminary injunction argues companies should not be forced to comply with requirements that regulators themselves have not yet finalized. The motion also argues California cannot credibly claim it would be harmed by granting injunctive relief.”

NAW President and CEO Eric Hoplin said: “SB 54 piles new problems on top of an already structurally problematic model. California’s own data shows most of the material this law regulates can’t meet the vague ‘recyclability’ standard it demands. We’re asking the court to stop enforcement before businesses and consumers are forced to pay for something California hasn’t shown is achievable.”

In addition, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that argues the law is unconstitutionally vague and imposes sweeping obligations without telling businesses how to meet them

“Earlier this summer, a federal judge blocked California from enforcing SB 343, the “chasing arrows” recycling labeling law,” NAW Chief Government Relations Officer Brian Wild said. “SB 54 relies on the same definition of recyclability, so we are asking the court to come to the same conclusion and enjoin SB 54 as well.”

NAW argues SB 54 violates the U.S. Constitution by:

• Discriminating against and unduly burdening interstate commerce, in part by directly affecting the flow of goods through the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach–two of the largest ports in the country by trade tonnage

• Imposing an effective tax on goods imported from other states in violation of the Import-Export Clause

• Compelling businesses to associate with and fund CAA’s speech while restricting their own, in violation of the First Amendment

• Reaching beyond California’s borders to regulate conduct occurring entirely in other states

• Delegating fee-setting authority to a private, financially interested organization with no adequate oversight, in violation of due process

California’s SB 54 regulations took effect May 1, 2026.

This filing follows a February federal court ruling in Oregon that granted NAW’s members a preliminary injunction against a structurally similar EPR law, the first such ruling against a state EPR law in the country. That case went to trial in July and is currently awaiting a decision following post-trial briefing. NAW separately filed suit challenging Colorado’s EPR law in July.