U.S. EPR and Source Reduction Rules Move on Two Fronts: Three Things Brands Should Inventory First

U.S. packaging regulation is advancing on two fronts. California's SB 54 covers EPR, definitions of recyclability, and product design obligations. New Jersey, meanwhile, has proposed a plastic packaging source reduction bill. MINDS is tracking the two separately because the first affects corporate responsibility and packaging design, while the second puts material use itself on the table. Extended producer responsibility (EPR) shifts responsibility for recycling and processing packaging after use, along with some of the costs, back to producers or brands. Source reduction cuts packaging materials through design and lower material use, so less material enters circulation and the waste stream

The lawsuit over California's SB 54 challenges how the rules define "recyclable," what they require of product and packaging design, and the compliance and financial obligations that businesses would take on. The American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA), the Flexible Packaging Association (FPA), and other groups had previously sued California officials over SB 343, the "Truth in Labeling" law. On October 8, 2026, they filed an amended federal complaint seeking to include provisions related to SB 54 and arguing that they raise free speech and constitutional concerns. MINDS treats this as the plaintiffs' legal argument. It should not be described as a court finding that the law is unconstitutional. A complaint is not a ruling. Brands should still check packaging labels against material specifications so the design does not make a claim that purchasing cannot support with matching material records

New Jersey's bill puts the focus on plastic packaging source reduction. That means brands need to look beyond recyclability and review how much packaging they use. A news page published by the FPA on October 9, 2026, lists the bill but gives no operational details or timeline, so MINDS will not describe it as a packaging ban that is already in effect. Brands can start by checking which packaging layers could be reduced, then confirm whether any changes would affect product protection, shelf display, or required information. Removing one layer of film may seem simple. If it leads to more damage in transit, the material savings could turn into return costs

Taiwanese brands should first create a state-by-state index of their U.S. sales destinations, then link each SKU to its current packaging documents. MINDS recommends keeping the same version number across design files, purchasing specifications, and supplier records. If a carton says "recyclable" but the packaging specification only uses a generic term for a composite material, it will be hard for the brand to explain how the claim matches the materials actually used. This inventory does not mean every package needs to be changed now. It is a way to identify which product, state, and packaging version needs attention. While the rules are still developing, record the current state of things so there is a baseline for any changes later

MINDS recommends using three columns as a starting point for packaging revisions, so a regulatory update does not trigger a rushed, full redesign

・Sales state: Record the U.S. sales destinations for each SKU and track California SB 54 and New Jersey's source reduction bill separately

・Packaging structure: Keep records of current materials and composite layers so you can specify what changed when assessing a reduction

・Labeling evidence: Save the environmental claims, supplier specifications, and supporting documents for each version so the wording can be checked against the materials actually used

If your brand is preparing a redesign and needs to confirm print constraints, bring the current artwork and material information to MINDS to discuss packaging print requirements. Take stock of the current setup first, then decide whether to change the materials or layout

・The SB 54 lawsuit presents the plaintiffs' arguments. Brands should continue tracking the litigation and regulatory developments

・The California dispute centers on definitions of recyclability and design obligations, while New Jersey's bill brings plastic packaging volumes into the discussion

・Keep packaging versions and labeling records by state and SKU before evaluating a redesign

・Assess material reduction plans alongside product protection and supplier documentation

I would first ask brands to organize packaging records for every SKU so they can track versions. There is no need to rush into choosing a single replacement material. The design team can maintain the labeling file versions, while the printer records the material and process documents. AI or SaaS tools can link state information to each SKU's packaging records and flag missing fields or inconsistent versions. Brands should leave regulatory interpretation to their legal teams. Taiwanese small and midsize printers can prepare a packaging materials sheet now, so when customers ask about U.S. export specifications, they do not have to dig through old emails

・FPA report on the SB 54 lawsuit and New Jersey's source reduction bill