Key facts
- California's new law requires packaging producers to reduce single-use plastics and ensure all packaging is recyclable or compostable by 2032.
- Producers must cut single-use plastic, increase recycling rates, and pay $5 billion to address plastic pollution.
- A coalition of 17 states has filed a lawsuit to block the law.
- The lawsuit claims the law places an undue burden on out-of-state manufacturers and improperly delegates taxing authority to a private entity.
- Some environmental groups are also suing, alleging the law's regulations permit toxic waste and create loopholes.
California's new landmark law aimed at reducing single-use plastics is facing immediate legal challenges and criticism from industry groups and some environmental organizations. The law, which took effect in May, mandates that packaging producers decrease their reliance on single-use plastics and ensure all packaging is either recyclable or compostable by 2032. It also requires these companies to cut overall single-use plastic, boost recycling rates, and contribute $5 billion to address plastic pollution.
Industry representatives argue that the legislation imposes significant financial burdens and compliance costs on manufacturers in other states who wish to do business in California. A key point of contention is the law's requirement for businesses to register and pay fees to the Circular Action Alliance, a private entity appointed by the state. Critics, including the national association of wholesalers, contend that this improperly delegates taxing power to an entity outside public scrutiny and limits interstate commerce.
Supporters of the law, like Heidi Sanborn of the National Stewardship Action Council, emphasize that the cost of managing packaging waste currently falls heavily on local governments and taxpayers. The new law aims to shift this responsibility to the companies that design, market, and profit from packaging, thereby incentivizing more sustainable design and reducing waste management costs for communities. Sanborn believes the focus should be on efficient and fair implementation to achieve environmental benefits while minimizing costs for consumers and businesses.
Adding to the controversy, a coalition of environmental groups, including the NRDC, is also challenging the law, albeit for different reasons. They allege that the regulations finalized by CalRecycle allow for the creation of toxic waste through certain recycling methods and include loopholes that exempt some plastics by altering the definition of recycling. These groups argue that the law's potential for real improvement is being undermined by these regulatory flaws.
Experts like Judith Enck and Avinash Kar express skepticism about the success of the lawsuit, noting that similar industry challenges to regulations have previously failed. Kar points to a pattern of delay tactics by the chemical industry and suggests that arguments about undue burden have not held up in other legal contexts. Scott Cassel of the Product Stewardship Institute highlights that extended producer responsibility laws are working globally and that lawsuits are a waste of resources.