Federal Trial Concludes in Challenge to Oregon EPR Law

The first trial testing the constitutionality of a state extended producer responsibility (EPR) law for packaging concluded in Oregon on Friday, July 17. Distributors and other potentially affected businesses are now waiting to see whether the ruling from U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon will restrict or eliminate the controversial recycling law, which places new fees and burdens on many companies that sell products in the state.

Over the five days of court hearings, representatives of the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW) argued that the law violates Oregon’s state constitution and the U.S. Constitution because it delegates sweeping regulatory authority to a private, third-party organization to manage and impose fees for the state’s packaging recycling program. In summer 2025, Oregon became the first state to put a packaging EPR law into effect, but NAW quickly filed a lawsuit to block its implementation.

The law requires distributors and other businesses that sell packaged products, including equipment and smallwares, to report their packaging usage and pay new fees to support recycling programs and the end-of-life costs of covered products. In a statement following the proceedings, Brian Wild, chief government affairs officer for NAW, said the trial exposed a fundamental accountability problem with EPR. “Oregon has delegated enormous authority to the Circular Action Alliance, a private organization that sets fees using a confidential methodology producers cannot review or verify, and that Oregon itself acknowledged it neither recreated nor needed to use because it could administer the program on its own.”

In February, the U.S. District Court imposed a preliminary injunction that temporarily blocked enforcement of Oregon’s EPR law pending resolution of the lawsuit. In the statement, NAW reiterated that the Oregon law is unconstitutional and is structured in a way that undermines the goal of promoting recycling. “NAW witnesses showed the court the real-world costs this law imposes on wholesaler-distributors — in dollars, time, and operational disruption,” Wild said. “Our expert testimony demonstrated how those costs ultimately flow through to businesses and consumers far beyond Oregon’s borders.”

With the Oregon law still in place for now and other states passing their own EPR legislation, FEDA has published several resources to assist foodservice equipment and supplies distributors as they try to determine their obligations. Those resources can be found here.