Oregon Court Rejects Challenge to Packaging EPR Law

In a 71-page ruling issued Aug. 28, the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon upheld Oregon’s extended producer responsibility law for packaging. The decision was a defeat for the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW), which had sued the state last year to prevent the law’s implementation and protect the interests of distributors.

In 2025, Oregon became the first state to implement an EPR law for packaging materials. The law created new fees and reporting requirements for businesses that are labeled as “producers,” including distributors. NAW filed a lawsuit to block the law’s implementation on the grounds that it violated both the Oregon state constitution and U.S. Constitution because it delegates sweeping regulatory authority to a private, third-party organization, the Circular Action Alliance.

In February 2026, a judge issued a preliminary injunction that temporarily blocked enforcement of Oregon’s EPR law on NAW members. The trial for the case was held over five days in July 2026.

Rather than striking down the law, Judge Michael Simon in his opinion praised Oregon’s implementation of the EPR law, known as the Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act (RMA). Noting that the state was the first to adopt a bottle deposit law in 1971, Simon wrote that “Oregon has been a pioneer in waste prevention, reuse, and recycling legislation for more than half a century… With the RMA, Oregon continues to show innovative leadership toward solving serious local, national, and even international problems caused by plastic and other forms of waste and packaging pollution.”

Simon rejected NAW’s arguments that the law was unconstitutional because “State action cannot violate procedural due process unless it risks wrongly depriving a litigant of a protected life, liberty, or property interest.” While he agreed NAW’s point about the state delegating its regulatory authority may be correct if it were challenging a federal law, he said it did not apply to a state law.

Simon also disagreed with NAW’s assertion that the CAA fees were “clearly excessive,” stating that the producer responsibility organization had underspent in its second year and could reduce producer fees in the future.

Although it lost the district court case, NAW pledged in a statement that it would continue to challenge EPR laws. Already, the organization is involved in lawsuits in California and Colorado to stop similar legislation.

“While we are disappointed with the outcome, we were prepared for it,” NAW said. “District courts are generally reluctant to overturn laws enacted by state legislatures, and we have always understood that this is part of a bigger fight. NAW is reviewing its options for next steps.”

“NAW members testified that they received invoices months after the underlying sales occurred, based on rates they could not predict or verify,” the association continued. “Oregon’s own regulator confirmed under oath that it had never seen the algorithm used to calculate those fees and could not reconstruct the calculations. In our view, the trial record demonstrated exactly what the Constitution prohibits: a state compelling businesses to pay nearly unchallengeable packaging taxes dictated by a private organization operating without adequate transparency or accountability.”