On February 6, 2026, an Oregon district court issued a decision barring the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) from enforcing the nation’s first extended producer responsibility (EPR) law for packaging, food serviceware, and paper products (referred to as “covered products” under Oregon’s law). The very brief order enjoins DEQ from enforcing the state’s Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act (RMA) against the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW) and its members, who filed their suit in July 2025, challenging the law and claiming it violated the Oregon and U.S. Constitutions.  

The injunction, however, does not relieve other companies from complying with the RMA. Unless the DEQ voluntarily suspends enforcement of the RMA, companies that are not NAW members that trigger the RMA by selling covered packaging, food serviceware, or paper products in or into Oregon are still required to register, report, and pay the RMA-required fees to the Circular Action Alliance, the Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO) responsible for implementing the RMA in Oregon. For some, that means paying PRO fees that could range from thousands of dollars to hundreds of thousands of dollars, depending on the amount and type of covered products they send into Oregon. Oregon DEQ has not yet aggressively pursued any enforcement actions for noncompliance with the RMA, but the DEQ can fine companies up to $25,000 per day for noncompliance (such as failure to register with or report covered products to the PRO).

In its order granting the injunction last week, the district court also dismissed almost all of NAW’s claims against the RMA and the Oregon DEQ, leaving only two federal constitutional claims based on the Dormant Commerce Clause and the Due Process Clause. NAW argues that the RMA discriminates in favor of in-state producers, imposes disproportionate compliance costs on non-Oregon businesses, and burdens interstate commerce by subjecting producers to complicated fees and obligations that are nonreviewable by state courts. What’s more, according to NAW, requiring companies to register with a PRO, comply with the PRO’s plan and fee requirements, and enter into a binding agreement to arbitrate any disputes with the PRO deprives companies of due process and procedural protections.

The district court’s injunction will likely remain in place until the parties argue the merits of the case in July 2026. But until the litigation is resolved, and unless DEQ exercises enforcement discretion, many companies that are not NAW members face a continuing obligation to register as a “producer” in Oregon and expend the resources required to report covered products to the PRO, despite uncertainty about the ultimate fate of the law.

Seven states have EPR packaging laws, but each state has put its own spin on what products and materials are covered, how to define fundamental terms like “packaging,” what types of products and materials are exempt (e.g., only some states exempt packaging used for business-to-business shipments), and which entities qualify as the “producer” responsible for compliance, reporting, and paying PRO fees. For businesses involved in complex supply chains, branding, or licensing agreements, the question of which entity must pay PRO fees is often difficult to discern and may be different from state to state. A final decision by the Oregon district court over the RMA may have implications for other state EPR laws as well as the companies covered by these newly emerging and complex requirements.