In July 2026, NAW filed a federal lawsuit challenging Colorado’s Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) law in NAW v. Ryan (Case No. 1:26-cv-03460), along with a motion for preliminary injunction while the case proceeds. Colorado responded by opposing that motion. On September 28, 2026, NAW filed its reply.

NAW’s reply argues that Colorado hasn’t answered NAW’s main constitutional arguments, and that its defense rests on two weak claims.

1. Colorado claims joining the Circular Action Alliance (CAA) is voluntary. It isn’t. Colorado’s EPR law requires companies to join CAA as a condition of selling in the state.
2. Colorado claims its Department of Public Health and Environment controls CAA. It doesn’t. The department doesn’t provide the constitutionally required oversight for a private organization to leverage government power.

The reply also highlights several arguments Colorado has not addressed.

1. Colorado doesn’t dispute that it could reach its recycling goals with less burden on interstate commerce
2. Colorado’s law bans businesses from listing EPR fees on their invoices. Courts have already ruled that bans like this regulate speech, and Colorado can’t distinguish those decisions
3. The law forces businesses to join and pay into CAA. Colorado hasn’t identified a compelling state interest to justify that requirement

Distributors don’t design the packaging of the products they sell, and they have no control over any state’s recycling and waste management programs. Yet Colorado’s EPR law treats some distributors as if they control both. EPR fees won’t change how products are packaged or disposed of, it will only raise the cost of doing business.

NAW members are suffering constitutional harm right now, and they’re being forced to pay fees to CAA they can’t easily contest or recover. That’s why NAW is asking the court to halt this law now.

NAW is represented by the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA). Learn more about NAW’s Legal Policy Center or its position on packaging EPR laws.