Expressing the frustration of the business community, Eric Hoplin, the president and CEO of the national association of wholesalers, issued a sharp statement after his organization joined the lawsuit. Hoplin warned that the law establishes a dangerous precedent for government overreach. In his statement, Hoplin declared that no state should limit interstate commerce, let alone delegate the power to set and collect taxes to a third party that operates entirely outside the scope of public scrutiny.

Supporters of the law, however, defend the shifting of financial burdens. Heidi Sanborn, the executive director of the National Stewardship Action Council and one of the figures who negotiated parts of the bill, argues that the cost of dealing with plastics at the end of their lifespan must be addressed. Sanborn stated that the question is who pays for it, and whether the system is designed to deliver the greatest environmental benefit in the most cost-effective way possible.

Sanborn contended that under the previous system, local municipal governments, taxpayers, utility ratepayers, and small businesses bore the brunt of packaging waste costs. The new law seeks to share that responsibility with the companies that design, market, and profit from the packaging. Sanborn argued that when done correctly, this creates incentives for smarter packaging design and reduces waste management costs borne by local communities.

However, Sanborn acknowledged that the focus of the public conversation must remain on practical economic realities. She stated that the real discussion should be how to implement the law efficiently and fairly so it delivers environmental benefits while minimizing costs for California families and businesses, a concern that critics argue is ignored by the law’s sweeping and rigid mandates.

The economic impracticality of the law is further highlighted by the current state of plastic recycling science. Data shows that only 5-6% of plastic is ever actually recycled, a rate that experts say is highly unlikely to change. This is due to the low cost of creating new virgin plastic and the collapse of the global market for recycled materials after China and other nations drastically reduced the amount of plastic waste they would purchase from the United States, making California’s recycling mandates detached from economic reality.

The legislative history of the bill also reveals a process dominated by backroom negotiations rather than public consensus. Initially, environmental activists attempted to place a radical initiative on the California ballot to ban polystyrene, or styrofoam. To prevent a devastating economic blow, the American Chemistry Council—representing fossil fuel and chemical companies—intervened, negotiating a compromise bill with State Senator Ben Allen, major corporations, and environmental groups to avoid the ballot fight.

This political compromise has ultimately pleased no one. While industry groups warn that the law places an undue burden and financial cost on manufacturers nationwide, progressive environmental groups have criticized the resulting legislation as too timid. As the 17-state lawsuit moves through federal court, the legal battle will determine whether California can continue to export its costly regulatory agenda to the rest of the United States.

Sources

* California Legislative Information, Senate Bill No. 54 (2022) * Coalition of States v. California, Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (2026) * National Stewardship Action Council, Extended Producer Responsibility Guidelines (2026) * Circular Action Alliance, Producer Responsibility Organization Program Plan (2026)