Has the EU dropped the authorised representative requirement?

No. It is a Commission proposal from 10 December 2025, still awaiting a committee decision in the European Parliament. Article 45(3) of Regulation (EU) 2025/40 applies as normal. Until Parliament and Council adopt the suspension, the mandate obligation stands in every destination member state.

Would the suspension help a seller based outside the EU?

No. The explanatory memorandum to COM(2025) 982 states that provisions on authorised representatives for producers based in third countries "should remain as they currently are contained in sectoral legislation". The relief is for producers established in one member state selling into another, and Parliament's draft report would go further by deleting the member state option to accept alternative means of traceability instead.

Can I stop appointing representatives because enforcement is being relaxed?

No. The Commission has said it suggested national authorities issue warnings rather than sanctions while the file is pending, but enforcement is a national competence and the suggestion binds nobody. An unregistered making-available remains unlawful.

The Commission says relief is coming for authorised representatives. It is a proposal, and it is narrower than it sounds

Two days after PPWR started to apply, the European Commission has been replying to small businesses in its Instagram comments. The wording is unusually direct: “To all small businesses concerned about the new EU packaging rules — we hear you, and we are here to support!” It goes on to say the Commission asked Parliament and member states “to stop the obligation to appoint Authorised Representatives for EU companies shipping goods to other EU countries”, that the legal proposal was made in December 2025, and that it “now needs the agreement of EU lawmakers”.

The proposal is real. Read against the file, though, three qualifications matter more than the reassurance.

What was actually proposed

COM(2025) 982 final, of 10 December 2025, is a proposal for a Regulation “suspending the application of the rules on the appointment of an authorised representative for extended producer responsibility for batteries and waste batteries and packaging and packaging waste” — part of the environmental omnibus. Article 2 suspends Article 45(3) of Regulation (EU) 2025/40 until January 2035. Article 1 does the same for Article 56(3) of the Batteries Regulation.

Article 45(3) is the provision that requires a producer not established in a destination member state to appoint an authorised representative for EPR there, by written mandate, one per member state. It is the clause that turns selling into ten countries into ten mandates.

It is not law, and it applies today

The file is 2025/0395(COD). Parliament’s Legislative Observatory records the committee referral on 9 February 2026, a draft report in ENVI in May 2026 — the document itself is dated 28 May — amendments tabled on 1 July 2026, and an indicative first-reading plenary date of 5 October 2026. The status is “awaiting committee decision”.

Nothing in Article 45(3) is suspended in the meantime. It began to apply on 12 August 2026 along with the rest of the Regulation, and a proposal to suspend a provision has no legal effect on that provision while it is pending. A seller who reads the Commission’s comment as permission to stop appointing representatives is relying on a text that does not yet exist.

The relief stops at the EU border

This is the qualification the Instagram replies handle loosely. One of them describes the change as being for “EU companies shipping goods to other EU countries”, which is accurate. The other simply says “our companies, big and small”.

The proposal is explicit. It “would provide additional flexibility by allowing producers established in the Union and selling products in another Member State to choose whether they appoint an authorised representative for EPR”, and then states that provisions for producers based in third countries “should remain as they currently are contained in sectoral legislation”.

So a French seller shipping to Germany would gain a choice. A British, Turkish, Swiss or American seller shipping into the EU would gain nothing at all. For readers of this site, that distinction is the whole story: the group facing the highest per-parcel compliance cost is the group the suspension does not reach.

Parliament’s draft report narrows it further, and in one respect tightens it. PE788.916, of 28 May 2026, proposes three changes that matter here:

Micro and small enterprises only. A new paragraph would provide that the Regulation “shall apply only to producers qualifying as ‘microenterprises’ or ‘small enterprises’ within the meaning of Annex I to Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC” — under that Recommendation, fewer than 50 staff and turnover or balance sheet total of €10 million or less, with micro set at fewer than 10 staff and €2 million. Medium-sized and large producers would keep the mandate. The rapporteur’s justification is that they are “better equipped to comply”.
An earlier end than 2035. The suspension would run to 1 January 2035 “or the entry into force of the [circular economy act]”, whichever is earlier, and a new article would end it on the date the Circular Economy Act applies.
Less flexibility on third-country producers, not more. The Commission’s text let member states either require an authorised representative from third-country producers or ensure traceability “through alternative means”. The draft report deletes that option outright, to preserve “the mandatory appointment of an authorised representative for producers established in third countries in order to ensure effective traceability and enforcement”.

This is a draft report, not a committee position: amendments were tabled on 1 July 2026 and ENVI has not voted. But the direction of travel in Parliament is towards a narrower exemption, and specifically towards keeping non-EU sellers exactly where they are.

Enforcement discretion is not a defence

The Commission also says it “suggested to national authorities to avoid sanctioning non-compliant companies, but rather give them a warning”. That is worth knowing, and it is worth not over-reading. Enforcement of EPR is a national competence exercised by national registers and authorities; a suggestion from the Commission neither amends Article 44 nor binds a member state that decides to enforce. Article 44 still makes an unregistered making-available unlawful, and marketplaces still have to check registration before listing, which is where most small sellers meet the rule in practice.

The pressure behind it

A change.org petition started by Jeanette Koňarčíková, an independent artist in Slovakia, had 59,709 signatures as at 14 August 2026. It asks for an immediate moratorium on cross-border registration and representative fees for micro-businesses, an EU-wide de minimis threshold below which small-volume sellers are exempt, and a genuine one-stop shop so a sole trader registers once rather than 27 times. It is a campaign rather than a legal instrument, and it is not the petition procedure under Article 227 TFEU, which is filed with Parliament and produces a formal reply.

The Commission’s own call for evidence on environmental simplification, open from 22 July to 10 September 2025, drew 190,998 contributions, of which 189,751 — 99.3% — came from citizens rather than organisations. Whatever else the omnibus is, it is a response to volume of complaint.

What to do while it is pending

Comply with Article 45(3) as it stands. Mandates in each destination member state where you are not established, and registration under Article 44 before the first shipment.
If you are established in the EU, track 2025/0395(COD) rather than the press. The ENVI vote, not the Commission’s messaging, decides whether the mandate becomes optional and for whom.
If you are established outside the EU, plan on no change. Nothing currently on the table alters your position, and the transitional flat duty and Data Hub timetables continue independently.