30 Jul 2026 | By Libby Davis
Key takeaways
- California’s SB 54 is facing legal challenges from industry groups that argue compliance costs are excessive and environmental groups that consider it too weak.
- Packaging producers must submit source-reduction plans by August 1, outlining measures such as lightweighting, reusable packaging, and refill systems.
- Experts say the disputes reflect the significant shift in waste management created by EPR.
In the US, California’s SB 54 is swiftly becoming a battleground for industry and environmental stakeholders, who are at odds with the legislation, though for contrasting reasons.
Signed into law in 2022 and approved by California’s Office of Administrative Law in early May, The Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act establishes an EPR program in California. It aims to mitigate single-use plastic packaging waste and increase recycling and compostable packaging infrastructure. CalRecycle is the state agency responsible for SB 54’s implementation.
“These common-sense reforms — modeled off successful programs in Europe, Canada, and now a growing number of US states — recognize producers’ unique ability to align their product design and packaging choices with available infrastructure and targeted investments,” Melanie Turner, communications and media manager at CalRecycle, tells Packaging Insights.
Since it was first proposed in 2018, SB 54 has gone through many iterations. It has also been subject to fierce backlash. In June, the environmental organizations Natural Resources Defense Council, the Californians Against Waste Foundation, and Oceana sued CalRecycle, arguing that the final version of SB 54 undermines the law’s initial recycling and plastic reduction goals.
While environmental groups disparage the law for being too weak, industry groups argue that SB 54 imposes unnecessarily high costs. Recently, a coalition of 17 states and the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW) filed a federal lawsuit alleging that SB 54 violates interstate commerce and free speech protections while improperly delegating regulatory authority.
Packaging Insights also hears from Scott Cassel, CEO at the Product Stewardship Institute, a US nonprofit specializing in EPR implementation and circular-economy policy. He suggests that industry disagreement with SB 54 is a reflex to the “paradigm shift” in waste management that EPR demands.
“The tussle in California among industry and environmental groups is an indication of the large stakes at hand,” he says. “Even so, the tension in California is typical of early-stage EPR implementation, and not a sign of a fundamentally broken approach.”
Outside California, Oregon’s EPR is also under legal scrutiny. In February, NAW secured a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of Oregon’s EPR law after arguing that it imposes burdensome fees and taxes on distributors.
Cutting or adding costs?
CalRecycle stresses that SB 54 implementation will take time and highlights its cost-reducing benefits for consumers.With lawsuits impending from opposite directions, Turner argues that by reducing “unnecessary and non-recyclable packaging, SB 54 creates a “better alternative” to the current system of waste management and packaging design, in which “costs get passed on to families, taxpayers, and local governments.”
Recently, a coalition of Californian agricultural producers called for SB 54 to be repealed. “California made up recycling targets, disincentivized circularity by placing a cap on packaging, and put draconian fines and fees on top of an overly rigid regulatory scheme,” Adam Regele, founder of Regele Consulting — a member of the coalition — told Packaging Insights.
Cassel contextualizes the situation, outlining that most EPRs go through an adjustment during implementation. “California’s packaging EPR program is expected to take time before differences are settled,” he notes.
“Let’s not forget that EPR is a paradigm shift in how waste is managed — the old way of government and taxpayers paying for whatever producers put into the marketplace has reached an end.”
Targeting single-use plastic
Turner emphasizes that Californians “want action” and not “more delay” in tackling single-use plastic pollution that “fills landfills, pollutes communities, and infiltrates our food and water systems, and even our bodies.”
A growing body of research is finding evidence of microplastics in human bodies and ecosystems. A 2025 statewide survey found that 60% of adult Californians consider plastic and marine debris a “big problem” along the California coast, while 32% said it was “somewhat of a problem.”
Environmental groups argue that CalRecycle acted beyond its mandate by adopting regulations that conflict with the law’s requirements, and thus weaken packaging reduction measures.
“The biggest problem,” Nick Lapis, director of advocacy at Californians Against Waste, told Packaging Insights, “is that the regulations create broad pathways for certain types of plastic packaging to avoid the law’s reduction and recycling requirements altogether.”
Turner stresses that implementation of SB 54 needs to be understood as “a dial, not a switch.”
Cassel says that most EPRs go through an adjustment during implementation, with differences settled over time.The transition “gives producers flexibility to redesign packaging, invest in recycling systems, reduce single-use plastics, and make adjustments along the way,” adds Turner.
By August 1, producers in California must submit an Individual Source Reduction Plan to the Circular Action Alliance, the producer responsibility organization. The plan should detail expected measures to reduce single-use packaging, such as lightweighting or refillable and reusable options.
“CalRecycle will continue to work with producers, recyclers, waste haulers, and local jurisdictions on successful implementation,” underscores Turner.
“Together, this approach drives meaningful progress toward less waste and pollution, better health outcomes, and more than two-and-a-half times more benefits than costs for Californians.”
EPR beyond California
California’s EPR is drawing a lot of domestic and global attention, which Cassel says is because SB 54 is among the “more ambitious” regarding packaging source reduction, recycling, and composting, and “with a strong focus on plastics.”
Yet, he also notes that many EPR’s are facing similar concerns. “Balancing statutory intent, program feasibility, and environmental outcomes is a familiar challenge in building any EPR program, let alone one focused on such a significant percentage of the waste stream.”
EPR programs in the US are increasing beyond California. “There are 150 EPR laws enacted in the US on 22 industry sectors in 33 states, including seven packaging EPR laws,” explains Cassel. Packaging Insights recently dived into the US packaging EPR landscape with Sahar Mehrabzadeh, chief revenue officer at Bay Cities, a packaging solutions company based in California.
As SB 54’s implementation date draws near, it remains unclear if CalRecycle can preserve its environmental ambitions while creating a legally defensible and commercially workable system for industry stakeholders.
Read the full article: CalRecycle defends SB 54 amid opposing legal challenges
