“Producer” in packaging EPR is a statutory hierarchy, not whoever volunteers. Getting it wrong means the wrong entity registers, reports, and pays — or nobody does.

The assignment picture (status at last review 2026-09-21)

• Maine, Minnesota, Washington: an express path exists — signed assignment plus assignee PRO participation plus written certification. All three formalities matter.
• Maryland: COMAR 26.04.14.02B(25)(p) excludes the otherwise-responsible producer where another entity agrees to assume responsibility by written certification. Confirm implementation with the PRO — the wording differs from the three states above.
• California, Colorado, Oregon: no express contractual-assignment override identified. A private contract may allocate cost between parties without changing the party the statute treats as producer.

What this means for a brand

• Map the legal entity and brands selling into each state first, before touching any packaging data — this is Gate 2 of the delivery workflow.
• Any assignment paperwork must complete the state’s formalities, not just exist as a side letter. Contested identity, ambiguous exemptions, and enforcement responses go to qualified counsel — this practice delivers data support, not legal opinions.
• A “preliminary applicability screen” states assumptions and names the issues requiring counsel. It is never labeled a legal memo.

Sources (retrieved 2026-09-21)

• 38 M.R.S. §2146 — https://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/38/title38sec2146.html
• Minn. Stat. §115A.1441 — https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/115A.1441
• RCW chapter 70A.208 — https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=70A.208&full=true
• COMAR definitions — https://regs.maryland.gov/us/md/exec/comar/26.04.14.02
• SB 54 chaptered text — https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB54

Data/compliance support only — not legal advice. Confirm current authority before relying.