Taking It Back
A list of states and their e-waste laws.
March 31, 2009 at 08:00 PM
3 minute read
To read the full story on green data destruction, click here.
—
There are two basic types of e-waste laws: The first mandates recycling programs for different types of electronics. These can include, depending on state law, electronics such as hard drives, monitors, cell phones, DVD players and televisions. Most often, manufacturers are responsible for instituting recycling programs. The second type of law prohibits electronics from ending up in landfills.
States are listed alphabetically. All data is gathered from the Electronics TakeBack Coalition.
Arizona: Producer responsibility bill introduced by legislature in January.
California: Consumers pay an advanced recycling fee when buying electronics, and the money goes into a recycling fund. California is currently the only state where the responsibility rests on consumers instead of manufacturers. The state also has the most widespread e-waste landfill ban of any state.
Connecticut: Producer responsibility bill takes effect in July, and a disposal ban takes effect in 2011.
Hawaii: Has a producer responsibility take-back law for computers.
Illinois: Has a producer responsibility law that includes the broadest range of products in the U.S. The state's landfill ban will take effect in 2012.
Indiana: Legislature introduced producer responsibility bill in January.
Iowa: Legislature introduced producer responsibility bill in February.
Maine: Passed the first producer responsibility law in the U.S. in 2004. In 2006, the state enacted a landfill ban on cathode ray tubes (CRTs), common in TVs and monitors.
Maryland: Passed a five-year pilot producer responsibility program in 2005.
Massachusetts: Banned incinerating CRTs or putting them in landfills in 2000.
Michigan: Manufacturers must institute take-back programs in order to sell in the state.
Missouri: Producer responsibility program will start in July or later, just for computers.
Minnesota: CRTs have been banned from landfills since 2006. Manufacturers also have specific recycling goals based on their sales in the state.
Nebraska: Bill in committee, proposing manufacturers pay a fee that goes toward recycling, which can be reduced if manufacturer recycles.
New Hampshire: Disposal ban for video display devices in effect since 2007.
New Jersey: Producer responsibility law signed by the governor in January. A disposal ban goes into effect in 2012.
New York City: Passed a producer take-back law in 2008, and a disposal prevention law goes into effect in 2010.
North Carolina: Will implement producer responsibility law in 2010 and disposal ban in 2012.
Oklahoma: Passed producer responsibility law just for computers in 2008.
Oregon: Producer responsibility law took effect in January, and the state's disposal ban will start in 2012.
Rhode Island: Disposal ban and producer responsibility law both in effect.
South Carolina: A consumer recycling fee based on California's system was proposed in January.
Texas: Producer responsibility law just for computers passed in 2007
Vermont: A bill based on Minnesota's law, requiring recycling based on states sales, was proposed to the Senate in February.
Virginia: Passed computer manufacturer responsibility bill. Also allows localities to ban CRTs in landfill.
Washington State: Producer responsibility law took effect Jan. 1. Some counties have enacted disposal bans.
West Virginia: Has a producer responsibility law on the books.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrump Likely to Keep Up Antitrust Enforcement, but Dial Back the Antagonism
5 minute readA Blueprint for Targeted Enhancements to Corporate Compliance Programs
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 3Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 4Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250