The Auto Care Association has moved to intervene as a plaintiff in a federal lawsuit challenging Colorado’s Producer Responsibility Program for Statewide Recycling Act.
The trade group filed its motion on October 15, 2026, joining National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors v. Ryan, an existing legal challenge to the state’s extended producer responsibility framework.
At the heart of the complaint is what the association describes as a double-billing problem, where automotive aftermarket producers are being required to pay fees to two separate producer responsibility organisations for packaging tied to the same product.
Colorado has directed producers of lubricant and petroleum-related products to register with, report to, and pay dues to both Circular Action Alliance and a second organisation known as LPMA, also called Interchange 360.
The Auto Care Association represents nearly 3,000 direct members and affiliates, serving roughly 150,000 businesses across the industry, with approximately 10,000 of those businesses operating in Colorado.
Its members include national retailers such as AutoZone and O’Reilly, as well as manufacturers and remanufacturers of fluids, parts, and accessories across the automotive aftermarket sector.
The association estimates that more than 200 of its members are mid-sized companies that exceed the EPR law’s small-business exemption but lack the compliance infrastructure of larger producers.
Member declarations submitted with the motion put concrete figures on the financial burden being placed on businesses operating under the dual-PRO system.
One member reports paying more than $575,000 to the two organisations in Colorado alone, on top of roughly $390,000 in consultant and software costs to manage compliance obligations.
Another member has been invoiced more than $350,000 by Circular Action Alliance and expects LPMA fees to exceed $500,000, representing a significant cumulative cost exposure in a single state.
The dual-reporting structure creates separate obligations for different layers of the same product packaging, with one organisation capturing primary packaging and the other capturing secondary packaging and paper materials.
LPMA charges a flat $0.56 per gallon of fluid sold, applied retroactively to April 1, 2025, regardless of container size, weight, or material, a methodology that differs substantially from Circular Action Alliance’s weight-based fee structure.
In October 2026, LPMA notified producers it was changing to a material-type methodology while tripling fees in many instances, without, according to an Auto Care member, any producer input into that decision.
The motion alleges that LPMA’s board sets fees and covered products from time to time, may amend agreements unilaterally, binds participants for at least three years, and provides no dispute-resolution mechanism or refund right.
Auto Care’s proposed complaint pleads four constitutional claims tracking the existing NAW case, including unconstitutional conditions, dormant Commerce Clause violations, compelled speech and association, and unlawful delegation to private parties.
Crucially, the association also seeks a declaration that the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment’s approval of LPMA’s plan was ultra vires and contrary to the Act, arguing that regulations do not permit more than one PRO until 2029.
A court ruling on that narrower statutory argument could eliminate the duplicate compliance obligation without disturbing Colorado’s broader EPR framework, potentially offering faster relief than the constitutional claims.
The Colorado case is at an early stage, with no scheduling conference yet held, which distinguishes it from a failed intervention attempt in Oregon where a court denied similar motions in April 2026 just weeks before trial.
CDPHE’s counsel has reportedly consented to the intervention, and Auto Care argues that the NAW association will not fully develop the LPMA-specific issues that are central to the automotive aftermarket’s situation.
No court has yet relieved producers of either set of compliance obligations, and the motion does not change any existing deadlines, meaning affected companies should seek legal counsel on their current EPR reporting and fee exposure.