ILMA has asked a Colorado state court to temporarily block enforcement of key requirements of the state’s extended producer responsibility (EPR) program against ILMA members while the Association’s legal challenge proceeds.

On August 18, ILMA filed a motion for preliminary injunction against the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). The motion asks the court to prohibit CDPHE from enforcing against ILMA members the mandatory contracting, reporting and dues-paying obligations imposed through the Circular Action Alliance (CAA) program plan and the Lubricant Packaging Management Association (LPMA) individual producer plan.

ILMA is seeking limited relief. It is not asking the court to halt Colorado’s entire EPR program. Rather, the requested injunction would temporarily protect ILMA members from enforcement of the disputed LPMA and CAA obligations while the court determines whether CDPHE’s implementation complies with Colorado law and constitutional requirements.

ILMA filed its lawsuit on March 12, challenging CDPHE’s implementation of Colorado’s EPR law. The Association contends that CDPHE exceeded its statutory authority by approving LPMA’s individual producer plan. The lawsuit also challenges the fees imposed on lubricant manufacturers.

Beyond the statutory issues named in the lawsuit, ILMA raises a fundamental constitutional concern — Colorado has delegated significant regulatory and fee-setting authority to private organizations without adequate governmental oversight or a meaningful mechanism for affected producers to challenge the obligations imposed upon them. LPMA was formed by five major lubricant companies that compete directly with many ILMA members. ILMA argues that requiring independent lubricant manufacturers to submit to rules, audits, contracts and fees established by an organization controlled by competitors raises serious due-process concerns.

The preliminary injunction motion emphasizes the practical impact on ILMA members — many of which are small and mid-sized independent or family-owned manufacturers operating on narrow margins — if the temporary relief is not granted. According to declarations submitted with the motion, EPR fees increase members’ costs while competitive and contractual constraints make those costs difficult to pass through to customers. The Colorado EPR program also imposes administrative, reporting, auditing, legal and compliance expenses.