Oregon’s Court Battle Puts Packaging EPR To The Test

In July 2025, Oregon became the first US state to launch an extended producer responsibility (EPR) programme for packaging. One year later, its Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act (RMA) became the first US packaging EPR law to face a constitutional trial.

Passed in 2021, the RMA requires producers of packaging, paper products and food serve ware to fund improvements to Oregon’s recycling system through a producer responsibility organization (PRO). It aims to standardize recycling, expand access to rural areas and encourage transparency in recycling processes (see Verdantix From Burden To Strategy: Mastering Packaging EPR Compliance).

What is being challenged?

The five-day trial in Portland, Oregon considers a challenge brought by the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW), a trade association, with two claims central to the case:

• First, NAW argues that Oregon unlawfully granted governmental power, such as fee-setting and dispute resolution, to Oregon’s PRO, Circular Action Alliance (CAA).
• Second, NAW claims that the programme’s fee-and-compliance system breaches the Dormant Commerce Clause by burdening interstate trade. According to this argument, out-of-state competitors would have to change packaging and logistics processes to access Oregon’s market, with some distributors being liable for packaging over which they would have limited control.

The US District Court for the District of Oregon granted a preliminary injunction in February 2026, protecting NAW members from enforcement. Nonetheless, EPR obligations remain in place for most in-scope producers in Oregon.

Oregon could reshape EPR policy in the US

Even though the US has no federal EPR regulation, state-level rules have rapidly proliferated over the past few years (see Verdantix Strategic Focus: Adapting Sustainability In The North American Market). Despite strong momentum, these programmes are still new, and it remains to be seen how their requirements will work in practice.

Within this context, the Oregon trial is likely to provide a benchmark for other states, influencing their approach to programme design and governance. Its effects could extend particularly far because CAA – the organization responsible for administering packaging EPR programmes on behalf of producers – is also the approved PRO in California, Colorado, Maryland and Minnesota. As a result, the court's findings may influence how other states define the authority and oversight of similar organizations.

EPR regulations are also facing challenges beyond the current litigation. In California, for example, agricultural industry groups have issued a letter to Governor Newsom, warning that requirements under the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act (SB 54) are unclear and restrictive.

Oregon’s trial may change how US packaging EPR programmes are structured and overseen. Nonetheless, the direction of travel is clear: forwards. Momentum has grown in North America and Europe, with further expansion expected in Asia (see Verdantix Market Insight: 10 Predictions For ESG & Sustainability In 2026 And Beyond). For producers, the most resilient response is to build reliable packaging inventories, model exposure across states, and integrate recyclability and end-of-life costs into product development before fragmented requirements become an even larger operational burden.

For more insights into packaging compliance, read From Waste To Digital Data: How EPR And PPWR Are Redefining Packaging Compliance.