The Auto Care Association has moved to intervene in a federal lawsuit challenging Colorado’s extended producer responsibility law, alleging members are being charged twice for the same product packaging.
The association filed its motion on October 15, 2026, in National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors v. Ryan, the pending federal challenge to Colorado’s Producer Responsibility Program for Statewide Recycling Act.
At the heart of the complaint is a dual-payment problem: automotive aftermarket producers are being required to register with, report to, and pay fees to two separate producer responsibility organisations for packaging tied to the very same products.
The Auto Care Association represents nearly 3,000 direct members and affiliates, encompassing roughly 150,000 businesses across the industry, with approximately 10,000 of those located in Colorado.
Its membership includes national retailers such as AutoZone and O’Reilly, as well as manufacturers and remanufacturers of fluids, parts, and accessories serving the independent automotive aftermarket.
The association estimates that more than 200 of its members are mid-sized companies that exceed Colorado’s small-business exemption but lack the compliance infrastructure available to larger producers.
Most producers in Colorado, Oregon, and California report to a single organisation, Circular Action Alliance, but CDPHE also approved an Individual Program Plan operated by the LPMA, also known as Interchange 360.
CDPHE apparently instructed producers that primary packaging for LPMA-listed products must be reported to LPMA, while secondary packaging and paper must be reported to CAA, creating separate registration processes, portals, deadlines, and fee schedules with no apparent coordination between the two.
The financial burden on members has been substantial, with one member paying more than $575,000 to the two organisations in Colorado alone, on top of roughly $390,000 in consultant and software costs.
Another member has been invoiced more than $350,000 by CAA and expects LPMA fees to exceed $500,000, illustrating the scale of the duplicate cost burden accumulating across the industry.
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 entirely from CAA’s weight-based fee structure.
That per-gallon fee is applied even to diesel exhaust fluid and windshield washer fluid, which contain no petroleum, making the fee basis difficult to reconcile with the nature of the products involved.
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 also alleges that LPMA’s board sets fees and covered products unilaterally, may amend agreements without consent, binds participants for at least three years, and provides no dispute-resolution mechanism or refund right.
Auto Care’s proposed complaint includes constitutional claims covering unconstitutional conditions, the dormant Commerce Clause, compelled speech and association, and unlawful delegation to private parties.
The association is also seeking a declaration that CDPHE’s approval of LPMA’s plan was ultra vires, arguing that Colorado’s regulations do not permit more than one producer responsibility organisation until 2029.
That statutory argument may offer a narrower and more practical route to relief, since a court could eliminate the duplicate obligation without striking down Colorado’s broader EPR framework entirely.
Colorado’s case is in its early stages with no scheduling conference yet held, distinguishing it from Oregon, where a court denied intervention motions in April 2026 because trial was imminent.
CDPHE’s counsel has consented to the intervention, and Auto Care argues that NAW, as a broader distributor association, will not fully develop the LPMA-specific issues raised by its members.
No court has yet relieved producers of either set of compliance obligations, and legal counsel should be consulted by any company potentially subject to specialty programme reporting requirements in Colorado.