Loading prices...

Register/Sign in
ScrapMonster
E-waste Recycling April 06, 2018 12:30:56 PM

Court Rejects Lawsuit Against Connecticut’s E-Waste Recycling Law

Paul Ploumis
ScrapMonster Author
According to Connecticut’s law, manufacturers are charged fees based on their market share of entire sales.

Court Rejects Lawsuit Against Connecticut’s E-Waste Recycling Law

SEATTLE (Scrap Monster): The lawsuit filed by Vizio, Inc., a manufacturer of televisions, against the calculation of recycling fees by Connecticut’s E-Waste Law has been dismissed by an appeals court. The ruling was issued last week by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The court noted that Vizio failed to convince its claims.

In the ruling, the judges turned down Vizio’s argument that the state e-scrap program tend to control company’s out-of-state activity. They noted that Vizio has failed to state any valid claim upon which relief can be granted. Consequently, they reaffirmed the judgment made by the District Court in 2016. The judges highlighted the benefits provided by the state law. Firstly, the funding of state’s recycling efforts offers clear benefit to the public at large. Secondly, the market-share approach itself offers several additional benefits including increased recycling.

ALSO READ: Connecticut Launches Uniform Recycling Rules Across the State

According to Connecticut’s law, manufacturers are charged fees based on their market share of entire sales. The manufacturers would be required to pay a fee associated with the cost of recycling the products that they manufacture. But Vizio had questioned the method of using national market share to calculate the fees for manufacturers. It alleged that the e-scrap program mainly funds recycling of CRT devices.

Vizio had filed a complaint against the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection in 2015, claiming that the Connecticut E-Waste Law that imposes recycling fees on electronics manufacturers violates the US Constitution. It had argued that the state law in unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause. The company’s claim was earlier turned down by the District Court in 2015. The company re-filed the lawsuit, which also was dismissed in end-2016. Following this, the company had forwarded the appeal to the US Court of Appeals last year.

×

Quick Search

Advanced Search