Auto parts sellers in Colorado are paying two recycling organizations for the same product, and the trade group representing them wants a federal court to stop it.
The Auto Care Association filed a motion on Oct. 15 to join as a plaintiff in National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors v. Ryan, the suit against Colorado’s packaging EPR law in July. The case is in the US District Court for the District of Colorado.
The association represents about 150,000 automotive aftermarket businesses, including roughly 10,000 in Colorado. Members include AutoZone and O’Reilly Automotive.
Automotive packaging
The issue is how Colorado’s Producer Responsibility Program for Statewide Recycling Act (HB22-1355) handles automotive and petroleum packaging.
The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) approved an individual program plan from the Lubricants Packaging Management Association (LPMA), which operates as Interchange 360, on Sept. 9, 2025. The state then told Circular Action Alliance (CAA) that petroleum and automotive producers must register with LPMA and report primary packaging there. Secondary packaging and paper go to CAA.
The motion cited an example: Old World Industries sells diesel exhaust fluid in a plastic container inside a cardboard shipper. The jug is reported to LPMA. The box around it is reported to CAA.
Each organization runs its own registration, participation agreement, portal, data format and fee schedule, the filing states. CAA requires weight-based reporting in pounds. LPMA requires volume-based reporting in gallons.
In announcing the filing, the association said Colorado delegated regulatory authority to the two groups “without sufficient government oversight, transparency or procedural safeguards.”
The bills
Member declarations voiced the cost of the program.
CAA has invoiced O’Reilly more than $350,000, and O’Reilly expects LPMA fees above $500,000. AutoZone has paid more than $575,000 to the two organizations in Colorado, including more than $415,000 to LPMA. AutoZone also reported about $390,000 in consultant and software costs.
LPMA charges a flat 56 cents per gallon, regardless of container size, weight or material. On Oct. 2, LPMA told producers it would move to a materials-based schedule Jan. 1, 2027, with rates from 84 cents to $1.88 per gallon. The complaint estimates an increase of more than 300% for some materials.
Members negotiate national pricing, the motion says, so customers in states without EPR programs absorb the costs.
Four claims
The proposed complaint brings four constitutional claims: unconstitutional conditions under the Due Process Clause, the Dormant Commerce Clause, compelled speech and association under the First Amendment and unlawful delegation to private parties.
Those claims overlap with NAW’s case. The association argues its interests diverge on the LPMA issues, which NAW’s original complaint does not address.
In this case, the Auto Care Association argues that CDPHE overstepped the Colorado statute when it approved LPMA’s plan and folded it into CAA’s program. Its reasoning is that the law and the regulations allow only one producer responsibility organization (PRO) until 2029. By making automotive producers report to both CAA and LPMA, the association says, CDPHE created a second PRO in practice before it had the authority to do so.
The complaint warns the overlap could grow. The law sets no cap on individual program plans, and the state may designate additional PROs starting Jan. 1, 2029.
The association asks the court to permanently bar enforcement of the law against its members.
A crowded docket
The filing joins the stack of legal challenges to Colorado’s program. The Independent Lubricant Manufacturers Association sued in Colorado state court in March, targeting the LPMA plan. The complaint notes LPMA’s board is composed predominantly of representatives of the five petroleum companies that founded it.
NAW’s challenges elsewhere continue. In Oregon, the group is appealing the ruling that upheld that state’s law and asked the court to pause fees for its members in the meantime. It is also the sole business plaintiff in a 17-state coalition challenging California’s SB 54.
The court has not ruled on the motion. A scheduling conference in the Colorado case has not yet been held, according to the filing.
