Oregon's packaging Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) law is being actively complied with by thousands of manufacturers, importers, distributors, and retailers from around the country. Those substantial compliance efforts have now been thrown into limbo because an Oregon federal court has preliminarily enjoined enforcement of the Oregon EPR law against the National Association of Wholesale Distributors (NAW) and its members. Other manufacturers, importers, distributors, and retailers seeking similar relief from the Oregon packaging EPR law may soon follow suit. States like California, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Maryland, and Washington, which have similar packaging EPR laws, may be subject to similar legal challenge. Uncertainty abounds for manufacturers, importers, distributors, and retailers actively engaged in, or considering, compliance with state packaging EPR laws.
What You Need to Know:
- On February 6, 2026, Oregon's District Court (Portland Division) issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the enforcement of the state's Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act (Act) by the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) pending the court's ruling on the merits.
- The preliminary injunction applies only to the National Association of Wholesale Distributors (NAW) and its members and does not block DEQ's enforcement of the Act against non-NAW members.
- Following the ruling, non-NAW members may seek to file similar motions.
- The ruling has potential implications beyond Oregon as other states begin to implement their own EPR programs, including collecting fees from producers via Producer Responsibility Organizations (PROs).
On February 6, 2026, Oregon's District Court (Portland Division) issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the enforcement of the state's Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act (Act) by the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) against the NAW1 and its members pending the court's ruling on the merits. While the preliminary injunction prohibits the DEQ from enforcing the Act against NAW and its members, it does not block DEQ's enforcement of the Act against non-NAW members. In its order, the District Court concluded that "[s]erious questions go to the merits of [NAW]'s claims, there is a likelihood of irreparable injury, and the balance of hardships tips sharply in favor of [NAW]."2
In August 2021, Oregon became the second US state to enact packaging EPR legislation which covers three separate categories—packaging, printing and writing paper, and food service ware.3 The Act defines the term "producer" broadly to include brand-owning manufacturers or licensees that sell packaged items in Oregon, wholesalers and distributors who sell packaged items into Oregon, and importers into the US.4
The Act mandates Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO) membership for all producers, which includes membership fees intended to fund improvements and ensure collected recyclables go to responsible end markets.5
The Act also imposes reporting requirements for producers who are required to report on the types and volumes of covered materials that were sold in or into Oregon in the previous year.6 The PRO is then tasked with developing and administering a program plan for collecting and handling materials and setting fees, incentives, and conditions for registered members to fund the program.7
To date, Oregon has only approved one PRO, the Circular Action Alliance (CAA), which has the authority to impose mandatory EPR terms, fees, and penalties on Oregon producers. In July 2025, the CAA issued its first round of invoices to producers for EPR fees followed by another round in January 2026.
In July 2025, NAW filed suit against the DEQ arguing that the Act violates:
(1) The Commerce Clause by discriminating against out-of-state producers and unduly burdening national markets for products and packaging;
(2) The Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine by conditioning access to Oregon's market on contracts with a third party;
(3) Due Process Rights of Oregon producers by subjecting them to binding fee assessments and compliance obligations without adequate procedural safeguards (i.e., Oregon producers are forced to either accept the CAA's determinations or submit to binding arbitration);
(4) The Equal Protection Clause by irrationally burdening Oregon producers that are too large to qualify for statutory exemptions yet too small to include in the PRO's governance or absorb extreme costs of creating an independent program; and
(5) The Nondelegation Doctrine by vesting authority over the Act to a private entity without adequate standards or procedural safeguards.
In November 2025, NAW filed a motion requesting the District Court to issue a preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order before the CAA issues its January 2026 EPR fee invoices to Oregon producers. In the motion, NAW argued that its members face imminent and irreparable harm as a result of "logistical" and "economic" burdens imposed by the Act and CAA on NAW: "NAW's members will either be forced out of the Oregon market, or they may stay but be forced to absorb unreasonable and excessive fees and face competitive harm as compared to those who qualify for exemptions, have lower fees due to incentives, or fail to report."8
The District Court's recently issued order may spark non-NAW members to file similar motions. The ruling also comes at a critical time when Colorado, California, and other states have EPR laws that are or soon to be coming into effect. Indeed, the ruling may have potential ramifications for manufacturers, importers, distributors, and retailers in states beyond Oregon.
Saul Ewing's Environmental Practice will track developments on EPR laws in Oregon and other states as they arise. Please do not hesitate to contact the authors of this alert, or your regular Saul Ewing point(s) of contact, with any questions about the substance of this alert.
1. NAW is a national trade association whose members constitute wholesalers and distributors across the United States who import, distribute, or supply packaged goods into Oregon and are subject to the requirements of the Act. For more information about NAW, see https://www.naw.org/
2. Order Granting Pls. Motion for Preliminary Injunction at 2, National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors v. Leah Feldon, et al., No. 3:25-cv-01334-SB (D. Or., Feb. 6, 2026), ECF 33.
3. ORS §§459A.863(6)(a)
4. ORS §§459A.863(22), 459A.866
5. ORS § 459A.869(1)
6. ORS §§ 459A.875, 459A.884
7. Id.
8. Pls. Motion for Preliminary Injunction at 22, National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors v. Leah Feldon, et al., No. 3:25-cv-01334-SB(D. Or., Nov. 24, 2025), ECF 33.
