Oregon's EPR Law Survives Crucial Court Test — And What It Signals for Colorado, California, and Beyond

On August 27, the federal District Court for the District of Oregon ruled in National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors v. Feldon that Oregon’s Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act (RMA) does not violate the dormant Commerce Clause or the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. This judgment follows a five-day bench trial in the case brought by the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW)—a leading trade association representing over 30,000 members in the wholesale distribution industry—challenging the state of Oregon’s Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) law. 

The RMA requires that companies qualifying as “producers” under the law join and pay fees to the Circular Action Alliance (CAA), with fees scaled according to environmental impact. A producer of a covered product can be a brand owner, licensee, importer, or distributor of a “covered product”—that is, certain packaging, food serviceware, or paper products—depending on who brings the product to market in Oregon. Exempt from compliance are operators of single, non-franchised retail establishments without online sales and companies generating less than $5 million per year worldwide or selling less than one metric ton of covered products in the state. The RMA required that producers join the CAA by July 1, 2025. Should a producer not comply with the RMA, they may be subject to fines of up to $25,000 per day per violation. In April 2026, the CAA published its first list of noncompliant producers in Oregon, giving those producers 90 days to respond. 

In its challenge to the RMA, NAW argued that the law was unconstitutional as it violated (i) the Commerce Clause by, for example, discriminating against out-of-state producers, (ii) the Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine by requiring that producers enter contracts with the CAA, (iii) procedural due process, (iv) equal protection by unduly burdening mid-sized producers, and (v) the non-delegation doctrine due to the state vesting authority to the CAA. While NAW had an early win in February 2026 when the court granted a preliminary injunction against DEQ enforcement against its members, the court ultimately denied NAW’s claims and upheld the RMA. As a result, all in-scope companies should prepare to comply with the RMA, including prepare to join and pay dues to the CAA. Additionally, by year-end, the top 25 largest producers in Oregon must complete their first cradle-to-grave life cycle analysis reports, which must be updated every two years.

In addition to the direct impact this decision has on NAW and its members, it also has potential implications for other pending EPR challenges, including a second case filed in June 2026 in Oregon by Lollicup USA, Inc., as well as cases in Colorado and California challenging similar EPR regimes. In March 2026, the Independent Lubricant Manufacturers Association filed suit challenging Colorado’s Producer Responsibility Program for Statewide Recycling Act, raising the similar claims as NAW did in NAW v. Feldon, in addition to a First Amendment claim involving the Act’s prohibition on producers disclosing compliance costs to consumers. More recently, in June 2026, a coalition of 17 states led by Nebraska’s Attorney General and joined by NAW sued CalRecycle seeking to invalidate the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act (SB 54) and halt its enforcement. California producers were subject to a June 1 deadline to join the CAA to comply with SB 54.

Judge Simon’s ruling in NAW v. Feldon is a significant win for Oregon’s EPR regime and a barometer for the growing wave of EPR laws nationwide. By rejecting NAW’s constitutional challenges, the decision affirms the view that states retain broad latitude to shift the costs and administrative burden of recycling onto producers, even where compliance requires joining and funding a state-designated third-party organization like the CAA. For producers operating in Oregon, the practical takeaway is immediate: NAW members who had relied on the February 2026 preliminary injunction must now come into compliance, including registering with and paying dues to the CAA. Producers should take note of Oregon’s active enforcement posture—as demonstrated by its April 2026 noncompliance list and escalating warning process—especially as noncompliance can carry fines of up to $25,000 per day per violation. 

The ruling’s importance likely extends well beyond Oregon, too. With parallel constitutional challenges pending against Colorado’s and California’s EPR statutes, NAW v. Feldon is poised to become a key precedent as courts across the country grapple with the same core question: whether EPR schemes that delegate significant implementation authority to private producer responsibility organizations can survive constitutional scrutiny. Companies with national distribution footprints should treat this decision as a signal to assess compliance strategies not just in Oregon, but across every EPR jurisdiction in which they operate, and to monitor the continuing legal proceedings in Oregon, Colorado, and California, as outcomes may either reinforce or complicate the compliance landscape nationally.

To receive the latest ESG developments globally, subscribe to the Freshfields Sustainability Blog.