Seven states now have active EPR laws for paper and packaging: Oregon, Colorado, California, Minnesota, Maryland, Washington, and Maine. Six of these states require reporting by May 31, 2026, the most significant near-term compliance moment for the US EPR landscape.
What distinguishes this moment from earlier EPR milestones is consequence. For brands with packaging on shelves in those states, there are real commercial consequences. The data submitted now directly determines what producers pay, and in some states, whether they are permitted to sell.
What producers report determines what they pay. Supply reports submitted this month will directly shape fee calculations: in Oregon and Colorado, they inform 2027 programme obligations; in California, 2025 supply data sets early fees with invoices expected in August 2026. Common errors (misidentifying the responsible party, omitting smaller components such as inserts and labels) compound directly into the fees that follow.
The stakes increase further under eco-modulation, the fee structure applied by most US state programmes, where the levy per unit of packaging varies based on how well that packaging performs in recovery. Sortability (the proportion of units correctly sorted into the right material stream at a materials recovery facility) is not a fixed property. Factors that lab-based recyclability assessments often do not capture (colour, coating, label coverage, closure type) can produce materially different fee burdens across otherwise similar formats. A brand without real-world data on how its packaging actually performs in sorting infrastructure carries a cost exposure it cannot quantify.
As US states move toward data verification requirements, that gap becomes a liability. Brands need packaging performance data that is objective, traceable, and based on real-world recovery outcomes, not design intent or modelled estimates. That is precisely what packaging waste intelligence provides.
Deepnest by Greyparrot provides packaging waste intelligence drawn from Greyparrot's global network of 250+ Analyzers deployed across 65+ facilities in 20+ countries, analysing real packaging waste streams at scale.
Applied to US EPR compliance, that data addresses four specific gaps:
Recovery baseline. Deepnest identifies how individual packaging formats and SKUs are actually performing in recovery: what proportion is being correctly sorted, and where losses occur. This gives brands an accurate baseline rather than a modelled assumption.
Fee exposure mapping. By mapping real-world sortability data against a brand's packaging portfolio, Deepnest identifies which formats are likely to attract higher eco-modulated fees, and quantifies the cost exposure before invoices arrive.
Design prioritisation. Deepnest data isolates which packaging attributes (colour, coating, label type, closure) are driving sortability losses. This gives packaging teams the evidence to prioritise design changes by commercial impact, not by assumption.
Compliance documentation. As US states move toward data verification, Deepnest provides auditable, third-party-verified packaging performance data that brands can present to regulators and PROs in support of fee challenges or compliance claims.
The immediate priority is registration and data submission by the applicable deadline. Penalties for non-compliance can include fee surcharges and, in some states, product sales restrictions.
Beyond May, the medium-term priority is building a data foundation that supports ongoing compliance as fee schedules are issued, eco-modulation criteria are formalised, and source reduction plans come due. The brands best positioned to manage EPR cost over time will be those that understand how their packaging actually performs in recovery, not those relying on design intent alone.
The Greyparrot EPR guide for brands sets out how packaging waste intelligence supports compliance across global EPR programmes. Read the guide