The recent release of the US Plastics Pact’s Extended Producer Responsibility plan is expected to influence how states design future packaging laws. The framework outlines clearer expectations for producer responsibility, recyclability standards, data reporting, and fee structures. For companies selling packaged goods, it signals a shift toward more uniform state requirements and a more structured compliance landscape.
What Did the U.S Plastics Pact Release and Why Is It Important?
The U.S Plastics Pact published a consensus based Extended Producer Responsibility policy paper supported by a broad range of stakeholders. The purpose is to provide states with a shared template as they draft or refine packaging laws.
Seven states already have EPR laws in place, and several more are preparing legislation. The new framework offers clarity in a regulatory space that has become increasingly fragmented.
Bottom line: Expect future state rules to reflect this guidance.
Central Principles in the Plastics Pact EPR Framework
How Does the Policy Paper Address the Risk of Conflicting State Rules?
It encourages states to adopt common definitions, reporting categories, and enforcement tools.
To reduce the existing compliance burden, the paper recommends:
- Shared producer definitions
- Shared packaging material classifications
- Common recyclability criteria
- Aligned reporting metrics
- Clear enforcement authority
This reduces the complexity of multi-state reporting.
Does the Paper Support Mandatory or Voluntary EPR Programs?
It supports mandatory systems. The authors note that voluntary efforts have not achieved measurable improvements.
The framework calls for:
- Statutory producer duties
- Required participation in a Producer Responsibility Organization
- State oversight
- Enforcement mechanisms
This approach mirrors Canada and the European Union.
What PRO Governance Structure Does the Paper Recommend?
The paper supports a producer led PRO governed through:
- Independent boards
- Conflict of interest procedures
- Stakeholder advisory committees
- Public reporting
States such as California and Colorado are expected to incorporate these elements as their PROs take shape.
How Does the Framework Approach EPR Fees?
It supports fee modulation based on packaging performance.
Factors include:
- Recycled content
- Compatibility with recycling systems
- Material type
- Chemical safety
- Reuse or refill compatibility
Companies using hard-to-recycle materials should expect higher fees.
How Are Recyclable and Compostable Materials Defined
The paper calls for standardized definitions.
It also notes that these definitions should align with updates to the Federal Trade Commission Green Guides, which influence how environmental claims are reviewed.
State agencies and private litigants increasingly rely on these standards when evaluating packaging claims.
What Reporting and Registration Duties Does the Framework Outline
The paper calls for:
- Producer registration
- Annual reporting
- Public dashboards
- Periodic audits
More rigorous data collection will be required as states adopt these elements.
How Should States Use Producer Paid Fees
The guidance encourages states to direct EPR funds toward recycling system upgrades.
This aligns with federal direction found in EPA recycling infrastructure guidance, which stresses the need for stronger end markets and modernized facilities.
Which States Already Have Packaging EPR Laws
| State | Status | Key Dates | Notes |
| Maine | Active | Rulemaking ongoing | First state EPR law |
| Oregon | Active | PRO plan expected 2026 | See Oregon DEQ Producer Responsibility Program |
| Colorado | Active | PRO formation underway | See Colorado EPR Program guidance |
| California | Active | Reporting begins 2027 | See CalRecycle packaging regulations |
| Minnesota | Active | Phased implementation through 2029 | Includes reuse incentives |
| Maryland | Active | Needs assessment complete | See Maryland MDE packaging stewardship assessment |
| Washington | Active | Implementation through 2027 | See Washington Department of Ecology recycling updates |
States Expected to Introduce EPR Next
Based on task forces and bill drafts:
- New Jersey
- Illinois
- Massachusetts
- Hawaii
- Connecticut
- Vermont
- New York
These states may incorporate parts of the U S Plastics Pact framework.
What Legal Exposure Do Companies Face as States Adopt EPR
Primary Areas of Exposure
Failure To Register or Participate in a PRO
Can trigger penalties, enforcement actions, or sales restrictions.
Incorrect Packaging Data
May lead to audits, fines, or recalculated fee obligations.
Misleading Recyclability or Environmental Claims
State attorneys general and the FTC continue to increase enforcement. See FTC enforcement resources.
Fee Impacts Under Eco Modulation
Materials that are not compatible with state recycling programs can create substantial cost increases.
Steps Companies Should Take Now
- Audit packaging data
- Review environmental claims
- Model fee exposure
- Track rulemaking
- Develop a coordinated multi state strategy
How Juris Law Group Supports Clients
Juris Law Group counsels companies on:
- Multi state EPR compliance
- Packaging claims and greenwashing investigations
- Regulatory review of recyclability and sustainability disclosures
- Packaging redesign that reduces fee exposure
- Participation in PRO governance
Key Takeaway
The U.S Plastics Pact’s EPR framework is likely to guide upcoming state packaging laws and influence revisions in states with existing programs. Companies should expect more detailed reporting, clearer definitions of recyclability, and fee structures tied to packaging design. Multi-state compliance will become more structured but also more demanding. Early preparation will reduce legal and operational risk.
