Auto Care Association Challenges Double Fees in Colorado EPR Suit

The Auto Care Association has filed to intervene in an ongoing lawsuit over Colorado's extended producer responsibility program, arguing that some of its members will be charged fees twice. The association says the same companies face separate charges from Circular Action Alliance and the Lubricants Packaging Management Association.

The ACA represents auto parts retailers. Its intervention targets a dispute already working through the courts over how Colorado's packaging EPR law assigns producer obligations.

Why does the trade group say members face double pay?

Under the state's producer responsibility framework, packaging producers fund recycling programs through fees collected by a producer responsibility organization. Circular Action Alliance, the PRO operating the statewide program, charges those fees. The Lubricants Packaging Management Association runs a separate plan covering lubricant packaging.

The ACA argues that members who sell lubricant products fall under both systems at once. A retailer enrolled with Circular Action Alliance can also incur charges from the Lubricants Packaging Management Association for the same packaging, according to the association's filing.

That overlap, the group contends, doubles the cost burden the legislature intended to allocate once.

What does intervention change for the case?

Intervention lets the ACA participate directly in the litigation rather than watch from outside. Its members' fee exposure gives the group a direct financial stake in how the court reads the law's coverage rules.

For auto parts retailers, the outcome determines whether they pay one program or two. For the broader EPR rollout in Colorado, the case tests how the state reconciles a general packaging program with an industry-specific plan operating in the same space.

Other trade associations selling dual-use products will read the ruling closely. A decision that permits overlapping fee obligations would raise compliance costs wherever sector-specific stewardship programs coexist with the statewide PRO.

A ruling for the ACA, by contrast, would force regulators to draw a clearer line between the two systems before the next fee cycle.