Trade Group Sues to Block Colorado’s Packaging EPR Law, Seeks Injunction

The National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW) has filed a federal lawsuit seeking to block Colorado's Producer Responsibility Program for Statewide Recycling Act (House Bill 22-1355), the statute that established the state's extended producer responsibility (EPR) framework for packaging. The association asked the court for a preliminary injunction to halt enforcement while the litigation proceeds.

Central Claims

NAW, represented by Andrew Morris and Jacob Huebert of the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), challenges Colorado’s decision to delegate fee-setting and fee-collection authority to the Circular Action Alliance (CAA), a private, Washington, D.C.-based organization. The suit alleges CAA will set charges on packaging materials — including glass, aluminum, paper, cardboard and plastic — using a pricing methodology that NAW says is confidential.

According to the complaint, companies assessed charges under the law are denied access to judicial review: disputes are limited to binding arbitration administered by CAA rather than to Colorado courts. NAW contends that arrangement deprives businesses of constitutional due process and unlawfully delegates state power to a private entity without adequate supervision or limits.

Constitutional Allegations

NAW argues the statute violates multiple constitutional protections. Key claims include:

• Due Process (14th Amendment): The trade group says the law hands fee-setting power to a private organization while insulating those decisions from meaningful judicial oversight.
• Free Speech and Association (1st Amendment): NAW alleges the statute forces companies to join and financially support CAA as a condition of doing business in Colorado and restricts businesses from informing customers about the state-mandated fees they must collect.
• Compelled Funding Concerns: The complaint warns that mandatory dues could be used by CAA to support policy or political positions that member companies might oppose.

Context And Related Litigation

NAW points to a February 2026 federal ruling in Oregon that granted preliminary injunctive relief to NAW members challenging a similar EPR regime, and it has also joined a 17-state coalition — as the sole business plaintiff — in a separate federal challenge to California’s SB 54. NAW says these cases reflect a broader effort to push back on EPR laws that, in its view, delegate governmental authority to private organizations and limit businesses’ legal and speech rights.

"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. 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. NAW and its members support the goal of a circular economy, but Colorado's EPR law does not get us closer to advancing that goal," said NAW President and CEO Eric Hoplin.

The complaint names NAW as the sole plaintiff and requests injunctive relief pending resolution of the constitutional claims. The litigation puts the practical mechanics of Colorado’s EPR program — who sets fees, how disputes are resolved, and what companies may disclose to customers — at the center of the debate.