The National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors has filed a federal lawsuit and motion for preliminary injunction challenging Colorado’s Extended Producer Responsibility packaging law.

NAW announced July 30 that it filed NAW v. Ryan in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, challenging the state’s Producer Responsibility Program for Statewide Recycling Act, also known as House Bill 22-1355. The association is asking the court to block enforcement of the law while the case proceeds.

NAW Awaits Ruling After Oregon EPR Trial – July 21

NAW is the sole plaintiff in the case and is represented by Andrew Morris and Jacob Huebert of the New Civil Liberties Alliance.

Colorado’s law establishes a statewide recycling program for most consumer-product packaging and paper products sold in the state. The program shifts recycling costs from local governments and taxpayers to companies the law defines as “producers,” which can include wholesale distributors.

The law requires covered producers to join Circular Action Alliance, a private producer responsibility organization designated by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. CAA is authorized to set and collect fees from producers to fund Colorado’s recycling program. The complaint says CAA’s founding members include large national and multinational companies, including Amazon, Walmart, The Coca-Cola Co., Procter & Gamble, PepsiCo, Target and others.

NAW Testifies on AI, Workplace Safety Before Congress – February 2026

NAW’s complaint argues that Colorado’s EPR law is unconstitutional because it delegates government fee-setting authority to a private organization without adequate standards or oversight, compels businesses to join and fund CAA, prohibits businesses from disclosing government-mandated fees to customers and forces companies to fund speech they may not support.

“This is now the third EPR lawsuit we’ve been involved with filing. While each state law has its own idiosyncratic differences, our overarching challenge remains the same,” NAW President and CEO Eric Hoplin said. “No state should limit interstate commerce, nor should they delegate power to set and collect fees to a third party outside the scope of public scrutiny.”

Colorado producers have been required to participate in the program since July 1, 2025, and began paying mandatory fees in January 2026, according to NAW.

“Manufacturers and brands get to choose what materials go into their packaging, but distributors do not,” added Brian Wild, NAW’s Chief Government Relations Officer. “Yet Colorado’s law still pulls some distributors into its fee structure as ‘producers,’ and those costs flow through the supply chain to businesses and consumers beyond Colorado’s borders.”

The Colorado filing follows NAW’s earlier legal challenges to EPR laws in Oregon and California. In February, a federal court in Oregon granted NAW members preliminary injunctive relief against enforcement of Oregon’s EPR law, finding that the law raised serious constitutional questions under the Due Process Clause and Dormant Commerce Clause. The Oregon case went to trial July 13-17 in Portland, OR, and post-trial briefing is underway.

NAW also joined a multistate lawsuit challenging California’s SB 54 packaging EPR law as the only business plaintiff in that case.

Premium: What Distributors Should Know about Extended Producer Responsibility Laws

MDM Analysis

EPR laws are a significant regulatory issue for distributors because they can assign packaging fee and reporting obligations to companies that often do not design or choose the packaging they handle. For distributors with broad product portfolios, compliance can require tracking packaging materials, weights and product flow across complex supply chains and different state rules. As more states adopt EPR frameworks, distributors could face a growing patchwork of registration, reporting, fee and invoice-disclosure requirements that adds cost, legal risk and operational complexity across interstate commerce.