On July 30, 2025, the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (“NAW”) filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon challenging Oregon’s Extended Producer Responsibility (“EPR”) law, known as the Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act (the “Act”). The Act mandates all “producers” of certain packaging, food serviceware, and paper products sold or distributed in Oregon to register with and join a Producer Responsibility Organization (a “PRO”), a non-profit entity to which the state has delegated authority to administer the EPR program, including levying fees associated with applicable materials sold or distributed into the state. Oregon also requires these producers enter a non-negotiable contract with the PRO and provide the PRO with data about their operations, which the PRO uses to set its fee schedule. As of today, Oregon has only approved one PRO, the Circular Action Alliance (“CAA”). The CAA alone, therefore, has the authority to impose mandatory EPR terms, fees, and penalties on Oregon producers.

After amending its complaint on October 27, 2025, NAW requested that the District Court declare the Act, and any regulations promulgated thereunder, unconstitutional and void for five separate and independent reasons. NAW alleges the Act:

1. Violates the Commerce Clause by discriminating against out-of-state producers and unduly burdens national markets for products and packaging, in violation of the Commerce Clause.
2. Violates the Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine by conditioning access to the Oregon market on contracts with a third party.
3. Violates Oregon producers’ due process rights by subjecting them to binding fee assessments and compliance obligations without adequate procedural safeguards. Oregon producers are forced to either accept the CAA’s determinations or submit to binding arbitration.
4. Violates the Equal Protection Clause by irrationally burdening Oregon producers that are too large to qualify for statutory exemptions but too small to include the PRO’s governance or absorb the extreme costs of creating an independent program.
5. Violates the Nondelegation Doctrine by vesting authority over the ACT to a private entity without adequate standards or procedural safeguards.

On November 24, 2025, NAW moved for entry of a temporary restraining order and/or a preliminary injunction before the CAA sends its next round of fee invoices to Oregon producers in January 2026. NAW claims that unless its motion is granted, its members will suffer irreparable harm. Moreover, the defendants informed the court they intend to file a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The court scheduled a motion hearing for February 6, 2026, and instructed the parties to be prepared for oral argument. Assuming the date holds, we should learn a lot about the fate of this lawsuit on or shortly after February 6.

This lawsuit could have a significant impact. Oregon is one of seven states that have enacted EPR laws to date, and more than a dozen states currently have EPR bills pending in their state legislature. The NAW litigation in Oregon represents the first major lawsuit challenging a state’s EPR law on constitutional grounds. Should courts in other jurisdictions look to this case for guidance, it could influence the framework of EPR programs in other states and have wide-ranging ramifications for manufacturers, brand owners and licensees, importers, distributors, and retailers across the country.

Godfrey & Kahn will continue to monitor the latest developments in this lawsuit and other EPR law developments across the country. If you have any concerns about how EPR laws may impact your compliance obligations, contact a member of Godfrey & Kahn’s Environmental team.