Packaging EPR Update: Week of July 13, 2026

Litigation  |  CA

On July 14, 2026 Judge William Q. Hayes of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California granted a preliminary injunction in California League of Food Producers v. Bonta (Case No. 3:26-cv-01675), barring Attorney General Rob Bonta from enforcing SB 343, the state's "Truth in Recycling" law, until further order of the court. The court found plaintiffs likely to succeed on their claim that four provisions are unconstitutionally vague under the Fourteenth Amendment, and likely to succeed on their First Amendment claim under the Central Hudson test because the state’s evidence fell short on the third and fourth prongs. The court found the four provisions severable, so the law's core 60 percent collection-and-sorting threshold survives on paper, but Attorney General enforcement is now paused less than three months before the October 4, 2026 compliance deadline. The suit was brought by a coalition of 18 food, agriculture, packaging, and retail groups, including trade associations and six California commissions. (Corrected October 12, 2026.) (Corrected October 14, 2026: the First Amended Complaint (ECF 7, April 7, 2026) names 21 plaintiffs, the 18 who filed the suit plus the California Retailers Association, Consumer Brands Association, and Personal Care Products Council.) The ruling is preliminary, not a final judgment; litigation continues before Judge Hayes and an appeal to the Ninth Circuit is expected. Because SB 54 relies on SB 343's recyclability criteria to determine which materials qualify as recyclable in California, the decision carries implications for the broader packaging EPR program. Source: Resource Recycling (July 15, 2026); Packaging Dive (July 15, 2026).

(Corrected October 7, 2026: the July 14 order is a preliminary injunction ruling under the Winter test. It holds that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their vagueness claim against each of the four provisions, and its First Amendment analysis is likewise a likelihood-of-success finding, not a final decision that SB 343 is unconstitutional (ECF 24).)

Update, October 7, 2026: no notice of appeal appears on the docket as mirrored September 23, 2026, and the Attorney General answered the First Amended Complaint on August 13, 2026 (ECF 26). On that record the injunction against Attorney General enforcement remains in place, and the October 4, 2026 date passed while it was in force. See the CLFP v. Bonta case page.

Litigation  |  OR

On June 25, 2026 Lollicup USA, a subsidiary of publicly traded Karat Packaging, filed a putative class action against Oregon DEQ Director Leah Feldon in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, seeking to represent producers not covered by the February 6, 2026 NAW preliminary injunction. The complaint pleads only the dormant Commerce Clause and Fourteenth Amendment due process theories the court credited in NAW v. Feldon. The program remains in effect; non-NAW producers remain fully subject to Oregon DEQ enforcement unless and until a class is certified and relief is granted. This suit is separate from the NAW v. Feldon bench trial, which was held July 13-17, 2026; a ruling in that case is expected by the end of August 2026. Source: Packaging Dive (June 27, 2026); Plastics News; National Law Review; Arnold and Porter (June 2026).

Update, October 7, 2026: the court ruled for the DEQ Director on August 27, 2026, holding that the Recycling Modernization Act does not violate the dormant Commerce Clause or the Due Process Clause (ECF 205), and entered judgment for the Director on August 28, 2026 (ECF 206). NAW appealed to the Ninth Circuit on September 24, 2026 (No. 26-6404). The ruling removed the basis on which the February 6, 2026 preliminary injunction was granted, though ECF 205 mentions the injunction only in its procedural history, ECF 206 does not mention it, and no order has expressly lifted it, although a preliminary injunction ordinarily does not survive a final judgment against the party that obtained it. (Corrected October 12, 2026.) In Lollicup USA v. Feldon, the July 16, 2026 stipulation paused DEQ pre-enforcement notices through at least August 31, 2026 (as summarized by Arnold and Porter, July 22, 2026), and nothing on the public docket extends it. The joint status report is now due not later than October 16, 2026 (ECF 12).

Legislative  |  CA

On July 1, 2026 the California Senate Environmental Quality Committee passed AB 2253 (Boerner) on a 4-2 vote and re-referred it to Senate Appropriations, where a hearing is set for August 3, 2026. The bill amends Public Resources Code 42357.6, which sets documentation requirements for voluntary recycled content claims. Correction (August 16, 2026): this described the June 25, 2026 version, which was accurate on July 1. The mass balance prohibition was struck the next day, by the July 2, 2026 amendment. See the August 16, 2026 entry. Source: California Legislature (leginfo, AB 2253 bill history, July 2026).

Update, October 7, 2026: AB 2253 passed the Senate 27 to 10 on August 28, 2026, the Assembly concurred 42 to 20 on August 30, and Governor Newsom vetoed it on September 27, 2026, so the bill does not become law (AB 2253 bill history; Governor’s veto message, September 27, 2026).

Legislative  |  CA

On July 6, 2026 a coalition of California agricultural groups sent a letter to Governor Newsom and legislative leaders urging repeal and replacement of SB 54, citing an economic analysis projecting added household grocery costs as the first producer fees arrive. This is advocacy only; no repeal bill has been introduced, and full SB 54 implementation remains set for January 1, 2027. Source: Resource Recycling (July 7, 2026).

Site Update

A new Design for Recyclability tab explains how design decisions become recyclability determinations that set your eco-modulation fee, material by material: plastics, glass, paper and fiber, metal, decoration, on-pack claims under California SB 343, How2Recycle labeling, and the California CMC list. Because each material is recycled through a different system, each has its own governing design rule, so the tab treats them separately. To model the fee impact of a specific design change, it links to the Unit EPR Fee Calculator; the Design for Recyclability Rater scores a package against these rules. Source: EPRAtlas.com.

Site Update

A new Resources tab gathers the primary sources and further reading behind EPR Atlas in one place: the program administrator (CAA) and state agencies, non-profits and industry groups (including How2Recycle), law-firm trackers, trade press, and EPR compliance software. Source: EPRAtlas.com.