Photo of Sheila Millar

Sheila A. Millar is a partner at Keller and Heckman LLP, where she represents businesses and trade associations on a variety of public policy and regulatory issues, including privacy, data security, cybersecurity and advertising matters, as well as product safety issues. She has been involved in a variety of audit and compliance projects, including, among other issues, privacy and data security audits, and is experienced in providing crisis management legal support to a variety of national and international companies and associations.

Ms. Millar is a frequent speaker on regulatory and public policy matters, and has authored many articles. Ms. Millar is one of the vice chairs of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Marketing and Advertising Commission, and chair of its Working Group on Sustainability, where she spearheaded the development of the ICC Framework Guides on Environmental Marketing Claims.

Ms. Millar is AV® PreeminentTM Rated by Martindale-Hubbell and for the eigth consecutive year was selected by her peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America® 2018 for her work in practicing Advertising Law. She has also received the distinguished honor of Advertising Law "Lawyer of the Year" 2014 in Washington, DC by Best Lawyers®, and was awarded Advertising and Marketing Lawyer of the Year USA by Finance Monthly for their Finance Monthly Global Awards 2017.

On October 8, 2026, Plaintiffs in California League of Food Producers v. Bonta (S.D. Cal.) asked the Court for permission to file a Second Amended Complaint (SAC) in their legal challenge to SB 343, California’s Truth in Recycling law, to assert additional related claims that certain provisions of SB 54, California’s extended producer responsibility (EPR)…

On October 5, 2026, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) published two announcements in the Federal Register seeking public comments on two separate proposed standards for batteries.
 
The first is a request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve extension of the information collection requirements for the Safety Standard for Button Cell…

Updated: Our analysis of the federal court decision upholding Oregon’s packaging EPR law has been updated to reflect two key developments: NAW’s appeal of that decision to the Ninth Circuit, and the extension of the filing deadline for the parties’ joint status report in the separate Lollicup v. Feldon litigation.

Read the full analysis here

On September 20, 2026, California Governor Newsom signed California bill SB 501 into law, which modifies provisions of the state’s Responsible Battery Recycling Act (AB 2440 or the Act). AB 2440, enacted in 2022, establishes an extended producer responsibility (EPR) program administered by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), with the…

On September 23, 2026, the Court again postponed the previously scheduled Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE) conference and related deadlines in the ongoing litigation involving a First Amendment challenge to SB 343, California’s “Truth in Recycling” law. The ENE conference is now scheduled for November 4, 2026.

As we discussed here and here, in California…

On August 27, 2026, after a 5-day bench trial, U.S. District Judge Michael H. Simon upheld in its entirety Oregon’s Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act (RMA), the state’s Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) law, reversing an earlier preliminary injunction that captured stakeholder attention. This is the first federal court decision upholding a packaging EPR law…

On July 14, 2026, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted a request for a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of SB 343, also known as California’s “Truth in Recycling” law. Restrictions on recyclability claims were set to take effect on October 4, 2026, for products or packaging manufactured after…

On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States (the Court) struck down Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, the nearly century-old precedent that restricted presidential authority to fire independent agency officers at will. The Court’s decision in Trump v. Slaughter, in which a former Commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)…