ACI’s 2026 EPR Think Tank Conference Highlights Compliance Challenges for Companies

ACI’s 2026 Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) Think Tank conference brought together stakeholders from regulated companies, industry groups, government, producer responsibility organizations (PROs), outside counsel, and recycling companies to share knowledge about the growing web of US-based EPR laws and the challenges they present.

While the two-day conference covered a range of topics and a broad array of speakers, a few common themes stood out.

RAPID EXPANSION OF STATE PACKAGING EPR LAWS CREATES FRAGMENTATION AND UNCERTAINTY

A frequent topic of discussion was that the rapid expansion of US state packaging EPR statutes is presenting challenges for producers. The fragmentation of these laws coupled with the delayed regulations governing implementation makes them difficult to navigate, especially in the face of unclear producer definitions, shifting data needs, and misaligned state timelines.

Initial deadlines under several of these EPR statutes are looming or have already passed, but in some instances, the associated regulations are still being finalized. For example, California’s SB 54 (the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packing Producer Responsibility Act) took effect in January 2023, but the regulations have been restarted/withdrawn twice and are still being finalized. As a result, producers are left without clear guidance as to how to comply with the new laws, which are extremely complex and require extensive data collection and verification, analysis and reporting.

In addition, the scope of the different state laws (including who is considered a “producer,” i.e., the entity responsible for compliance with the statute) varies from state to state; a company may be subject to one state’s EPR law but not another. Combined with differing timelines for compliance and data submissions, many producers find themselves struggling to meet the various requirements to remain compliant.

Unsurprisingly, issuance of clear regulations and greater harmonization of EPR requirements across states were at the top of producers’ wish-list.

CALIFORNIA’S SB 343 IS CONFOUNDING STAKEHOLDERS

California’s truth-in-labeling regime, SB 343, was the most-discussed topic at the conference. A frequently raised concern among attendees was the statute’s creation of major labeling conflicts across states. Many attendees noted that it was impossible to simultaneously comply with California’s SB 343 and the 29 other state laws governing use of the “chasing arrows” symbol for plastics recycling.

SB 343’s elevation of greenwashing litigation exposure was also highlighted, as labeling decisions now carry heightened enforcement and class action risk.

EARLY ENFORCEMENT SIGNALS FOCUS ON COMPLIANCE AND EDUCATION

While potential penalties for noncompliance with state packaging EPR statutes can be severe, the “good” news is that most states seem to be focusing initially on awareness and opportunities to cure.

Washington State, for example, is required to initiate enforcement against “free riders” (i.e., producers who do not timely register with the PRO) by 2029. In addition, the PRO may be required to report producer non-compliance to the states.

THE VALUE OF NEEDS ASSESSMENTS IN PROGRAM DESIGN

Another recurring theme was the value of performing a needs assessment prior to commencing an EPR program, as such assessments are pivotal to program design, cost-setting, and prioritization. A needs assessment helps identify existing recycling services and infrastructure and what works well, as well as gaps and potential improvements to the system.

THE IMPORTANCE OF DATA MANAGEMENT

Producers of all sizes face challenges with collecting and evaluating the data necessary to comply with the differing state statutes.

While some companies manage their data internally using cross-functional teams, others rely on consultants to help map complex supply chains, resolve producer status, and standardize databases with documented assumptions. The state-by-state differences in material classifications and exemptions prevent full automation of such systems, requiring manual review and bespoke internal categories.

THE EPR OUTLOOK

Despite the many logistical and legal challenges they currently face, EPR laws remain a key focus for many states. Producers and other entities impacted by these laws should monitor the new laws emerging from additional states, as well as the regulations under development within the states with current EPR regulations.

Given the pace of legislative activity and the lack of federal harmonization, companies should expect continued divergence across jurisdictions in the near term. Strategic planning, cross-functional coordination, and close monitoring of regulatory developments will remain critical as the EPR landscape evolves.