Maryland and Washington enact EPR laws for packaging

Maryland and Washington have joined the growing cohort of US jurisdictions that require producers of packaging and paper products to finance – and ultimately improve – the systems for disposing of these “covered materials” in their respective states under Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) laws. On May 13, 2025, Maryland Governor Wes Moore signed SB 901, and four days later Washington Governor Bob Ferguson signed SB 5284, making these states the sixth and seventh states, respectively, to adopt this approach.

Both statutes apply economy-wide, reach far beyond plastics, and rest on the same core concept: if a company introduces single-use packaging or paper products into the market, that company must either join or form a producer responsibility organization (PRO) to reimburse municipal recycling costs and to meet steadily increasing performance targets to mitigate the impacts of related waste disposal efforts.

The two new laws track many of the terms found in earlier EPR statutes in California, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, and Oregon, yet each contains nuances that merit careful attention.

Covered materials

• Maryland SB 901: “Packaging and paper products” introduced into Maryland, including primary, secondary, and shipping materials made of plastic, paper, metal, or glass, as well as food-service ware and beverage containers. Items subject to separate regulatory schemes – eg, drugs, medical devices, and hazardous materials – are excluded.
  
  
• Washington SB 5284: Washington’s law mirrors Maryland’s scope and exclusions but adds an annual opt-out for materials that achieve a demonstrated 65-percent statewide recycling rate for three consecutive years (70 percent beginning in 2030).

Producer definitions

• Maryland SB 901: For goods sold in brick-and-mortar stores, the “producer” is the manufacturer if the item carries the manufacturer’s brand or no brand; otherwise, the brand owner, the US importer, or the distributor – in that order. A parallel, but slightly modified, hierarchy applies to e-commerce sales.
  
  
• Washington SB 5284: The law parallels Maryland’s definition, with one notable twist for online sales: the entity that packages the product for shipment is treated as the producer of the shipping materials.

PRO and planning timeline

• Maryland SB 901: The Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) has already approved the Circular Action Alliance (CAA) as the state’s PRO for EPR. CAA must now register with MDE by July 1, 2026. By July 1, 2028, CAA must file a five-year plan that sets reimbursement rates covering at least 50 percent of eligible recycling and composting costs, rising to 75 percent in 2029 and 90 percent in 2030 and each year thereafter.
  
  
• Washington SB 5284: Producers must join or create a PRO by January 1, 2026; each PRO must register with the Department of Ecology by March 1, 2026. The first five-year producer responsibility plan is due October 1, 2028. Reimbursement rates must cover at least 50 percent of net covered-service costs by February 15, 2030, 75 percent by 2031, and 90 percent by 2032. CAA is widely expected to seek to fill this role in Washington.

Exemptions

• Maryland SB 901: “De minimis producers” that placed less than one ton of covered material on the Maryland market or posted less than US$2 million in global gross revenue in the preceding fiscal year are exempt – the lowest dollar threshold among current state EPR laws.
  
  
• Washington SB 5284: De minimis producers in Washington are exempt if, in the prior fiscal year, they introduced less than one ton of covered material, earned under US$5 million in global revenue (to be inflation-adjusted after 2031), or met a tailored agricultural threshold – aligning with Colorado and Oregon but differing from Maryland’s lower revenue cutoff.

Key takeaways for industry

1. Immediate action items. Companies selling into either state may want to consider (a) confirming whether their products fall within the scope of “covered materials,” (b) mapping their role in the producer hierarchy, and (c) beginning budgeting for PRO fees and forthcoming reimbursement obligations.
   
   
2. Harmonization and divergence. Although Maryland and Washington echo the core structure adopted in California, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, and Oregon, the states vary on revenue thresholds, planning milestones, and carve-outs for high-recycling-rate materials. Multi-state producers may find it useful to develop a compliance matrix setting forth these distinctions.
   
   
3. PRO landscape. CAA currently remains the sole PRO officially approved in any US EPR jurisdiction. Maryland designates CAA by statute, whereas Washington leaves room for competing PROs. Market participants are advised to monitor whether additional PROs emerge and evaluate which organization best aligns with their portfolios and sustainability goals. For producers in certain industries, developing an alternative PRO or “sub-PRO” to represent unique interests may be advisable.
   
   
4. Looking ahead. Roughly a dozen other states are considering packaging EPR in 2025, and EPR proposals for textiles, batteries, and appliances are circulating nationwide. Companies are encouraged to proactively engage with regulators and PROs so that they are prepared as the patchwork expands.

Our multidisciplinary Plastics practice has supported stakeholders in every packaging EPR program enacted to date. We stand ready to help evaluate product scope, develop compliance strategies, and represent producers’ interests in PRO governance and rulemaking, as well as in negotiating with PROs.

For additional information, please contact any of the authors.