Textile EPR Legislation Introduced in Minnesota
On February 25, 2026, Minnesota introduced legislation to implement an extended producer responsibility (EPR) program for textiles, carpet, and mattresses.
The “Responsible Textile Waste Recovery Act,” HF 3713, would require producers of covered products to appoint, join, and fund a producer responsibility organization (PRO), which would collect covered products for free and promote their reuse, repair, and recycling.
An initial PRO would be required to fully implement its plan within approximately one year of approval, granted no later than July 2030. Many interim deadlines are left undefined or are tied to implementing regulations promulgated by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). After the initial PRO’s plan is approved, MPCA could approve additional PROs to jointly administer the program.
The bill uses a cascading definition of “producer”: if the manufacturer who owns or licenses the brand is present in the state, they are the producer; if not, responsibility falls to the brand owner or exclusive licensee, then the importer, and finally the distributor, retailer, or wholesaler. HF 3713 excludes businesses that sell only secondhand covered products and producers with less than $1 million in annual aggregate global gross revenue from the program.
Internet sellers would be subject to an additional requirement to notify MPCA and the PRO of all third-party sellers with sales of covered products over $1 million the preceding year and provide those sellers with information describing their responsibility to comply with the program.
HF 3713 specifically requires that PROs address PFAS in covered products, including efforts to avoid PFAS contamination during their recycling and outreach to discourage the use of PFAS “and other harmful chemicals.” The bill would also authorize MPCA to set performance standards for covered products.
Legal Challenges to State EPR
The bill’s introduction comes amid ongoing industry challenges to the legality of other state-level EPR programs.
Last month, the Oregon District Court granted a preliminary injunction against Oregon’s packaging EPR program, the first such program to take effect in the country. The court based the injunction on arguments that the program unduly restricts interstate commerce and unlawfully delegates regulatory authority to the PRO, particularly as it relates to producer fees.
Separately, in October 2025, the Small Business Administration (SBA) argued in comments that PRO-imposed producer fees might violate federal antitrust laws.
HF 3713 appears to anticipate some of these arguments. The bill provides that an approved PRO may engage in anticompetitive conduct to the extent necessary to meet its statutory obligations and grants immunity “from liability under state laws relating to antitrust, restraint of trade, and unfair trade practices.” The bill also requires approved PROs to undergo annual holistic third-party audits.
That said, HF 3713 contains minimal discussion about producer fees, other than requiring that they be eco-modulated—i.e., adjusted to incentivize design choices that facilitate reuse, repair, and recycling—and approved by MPCA, although PROs must also outline strategies to reduce existing fees or “fee redistribution mechanisms that equitably distribute costs among producers” in a periodically updated “needs assessment.”
