A federal court has held that a provision in Michigan’s bottle-return statute that requires beverage containers sold in Michigan to have a Michigan-specific mark violates the dormant Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. A 2008 amendment to the statute required entities that exceed a certain threshold to include on their returnable containers sold in Michigan a unique “symbol, mark, or other distinguishing characteristic” to enable container-return machines to identify those containers sold in the state and, therefore, legitimately returned for a refund. The law also forbade the sale of the specially-marked containers in another state unless the other state has a similar bottle return law. The American Beverage Association challenged the requirement, claiming that it violated the “dormant Commerce Clause” of the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit agreed, and struck down the requirement. It held that a requirement that containers sold in Michigan have a special mark, and outlawing sale of the containers in other states, impermissibly regulates commerce that occurs outside of the state. At last report, Michigan was considering appealing the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. Michigan, whose 10 cent per container refund is the highest in the country, has one of highest bottle recycling rates. But it also estimates that it loses more than $10 million annually when people purchase containers out of state, return them in Michigan, and claim the refund. The problem is especially acute in counties bordering Ohio, Indiana and Wisconsin, which do not offer refunds. American Beverage Ass’n v. Snyder, No. 11-2097 (6th Cir. Nov. 29, 2012).