Abstract Transitions towards a circular economy necessitate a myriad of tools. There is no silver bullet for a circular economy. Numerous legal tools have been, and are being, developed to promote circular economies, including bans, standards, targets, labels, certifications, charges, environmental taxation and container deposit schemes. This paper focuses on another such tool: extended producer responsibility (EPR). EPR is based on the polluter-pays principle: the producer or seller of a product retains physical, economic or informative responsibility or liability for the product throughout its life-cycle, including when it becomes waste. The allocation of such responsibility or liability is intended to promote ecodesign of products by incentivising the improvement of product reusability and recyclability, reduction of raw virgin material use and engagement in other environmental design activities. Yet, EPR schemes are currently not having the intended impact as a result of insufficient, and at times ineffective, implementation. Understanding legal risks may be one of the ways in which (more) EPR implementation and meeting of EPR objectives may be facilitated, as a result of enabling the development of risk management strategies and demystifying existing uncertainties. This paper, therefore, examines and contributes to the evidence base of perceived legal risks of EPR based on results of a scoping review and survey. The results uncover two main gaps: (1) there is limited literature covering legal risks of EPR explicitly, and (2) there is generally only superficial engagement with particular legal risks of EPR.