Oregon’s Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act (RMA), the first packaging-focused extended producer responsibility (EPR) law in the United States, faces escalating legal, industry, and legislative pressure. A federal court has issued a preliminary injunction halting enforcement against members of a major trade association and set a July 2026 trial date. Meanwhile, a coalition of Oregon industries is pressing the state to suspend enforcement more broadly. Further, fee assessments under the RMA to date have, in some cases, exceeded producer profit margins, intensifying calls for legislative reform.

Background

Oregon’s RMA was signed into law in 2021. It requires producers, including brand owners, manufacturers, importers, and distributors of packaging, paper products, and food serviceware, to register with, report to, and pay fees set by the Circular Action Alliance (CAA). The CAA is the state’s only designated Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO). The program formally launched July 1, 2025, with producers required to register and report data beginning as early as March 2025.

The CAA is a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit. A central criticism of Oregon’s program is that the CAA sets fees using a confidential, proprietary methodology not subject to public oversight or judicial review. As a result, the assessed fees have been far higher than producers anticipated.

The Lawsuit: NAW v. Feldon et al.

On July 30, 2025, the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW) filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon (Case No. 3:25-cv-01334-SI) against the Oregon DEQ, the Environmental Quality Commission, and the state’s Attorney General. The complaint alleged multiple constitutional violations:

• Dormant Commerce Clause: The law imposes disproportionate burdens on out-of-state producers with multistate supply chains and could expose companies to conflicting requirements across state EPR programs.
• Due Process: The law requires producers to enter mandatory, non-negotiable contracts with the CAA. They must submit to binding private arbitration. The fee methodology is confidential and not available to the public. This strips producers of meaningful legal recourse.
• Equal Protection, Unconstitutional Conditions, and State Constitutional Claims — all of which were ultimately dismissed by the court (see below).

NAW filed a motion for a preliminary injunction on November 24, 2025, prompted in part by July 2025 fee assessments by the CAA, which members described as significantly higher than publicly projected, particularly for small and mid-sized distributors.

February 6, 2026: Court Grants Injunction, Partially Dismisses Claims

After a hearing on February 6, 2026, Judge Michael H. Simon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon ruled from the bench in a first-of-its-kind decision on a U.S. packaging EPR law. The court:

• Granted NAW’s motion for a preliminary injunction, enjoining DEQ Director Leah Feldon from enforcing the RMA against NAW and its members pending the outcome of trial;
• Dismissed without prejudice NAW’s state constitutional claims, unconstitutional conditions claim, equal protection claim, and all claims against individual Environmental Quality Commission members;
• Preserved NAW’s Dormant Commerce Clause and Due Process Clause claims, which will proceed to trial.

In granting the injunction, the court emphasized that there is “a likelihood of irreparable injury and the balance of hardships tips sharply in favor of [NAW].”

Critical Limitation: The Injunction Is Narrow

The preliminary injunction applies only to NAW and its members. Other producers, including brand owners, licensees, manufacturers, and importers, are still subject to the RMA’s registration, reporting, and fee payment requirements. DEQ retains full enforcement authority over these producers.

The CAA has confirmed its operations remain unchanged. All registration, reporting, invoicing, and payment schedules for obligated producers continue as planned. Notably, the CAA is not a party to the case and is not enjoined by the court’s order. CAA can still issue invoices and send delinquency notices, including to NAW members. In Q3 2025, the CAA began formal compliance monitoring and referred unresolved delinquencies to DEQ for enforcement. This can result in steep daily penalties and mandatory public posting on the Oregon Producer Membership Registry.

Industry Seeks Broader Enforcement Pause

On February 9, 2026, Oregon Business & Industry (OBI) sent a joint letter on behalf of various industry trade associations representing grocers, food processors, wine growers, brewers, and other sectors. The letter asked DEQ to voluntarily halt enforcement against all producers, not just NAW members, pending resolution of the litigation. The letter argued that the same rationale the court applied to NAW members, including irreparable harm from unrecoverable compliance costs, market imbalances, and steep civil penalties, applies equally to producers across industries. The DEQ has declined to broaden the enforcement pause.

On March 16, 2026, OBI, the Northwest Grocery Retail Association (NWGRA), and Food Northwest filed a motion to intervene in the NAW lawsuit challenging the RMA, citing the lack of transparency, high costs, supply chain impracticality, and other due process and interstate commerce concerns. That same day, the American Forest & Paper Association filed to join the NAW lawsuit and requested the same pause granted to NAW.

New Legislation: Business-to-Business Exclusion

In parallel with the litigation, OBI has been pushing for an amendment to HB 4030 in the Oregon Legislature that would add a business-to-business (B2B) exclusion from the RMA. The amendment was the subject of a public hearing on February 10, 2026.

Oregon’s RMA currently lacks a B2B exclusion, a feature common in similar EPR programs emerging in other states. This gap has produced significantly higher compliance costs for Oregon businesses. The proposed amendment would ensure that producers do not pay fees for packaging that is recycled outside of residential waste streams, aligning Oregon’s program with industry norms.

Broader Implications for the National EPR Landscape

As the first U.S. packaging EPR law to take effect, Oregon’s RMA has served as a bellwether, and now may serve as a cautionary case study for other states. Seven states now have packaging EPR laws on the books (California, Colorado, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Oregon, and Washington), and the outcome of NAW v. Feldon is being closely watched nationwide.

How Businesses Are Responding

Given these developments, some businesses subject to or potentially subject to Oregon’s RMA are taking some or all of these steps:

• Confirming their status as a NAW member and confirming their status under the preliminary injunction with legal counsel;
• If not a NAW member, continuing to comply with all RMA registration, reporting, and fee payment requirements, as DEQ enforcement remains fully in effect;
• Addressing any outstanding delinquencies promptly — the CAA has already referred unresolved compliance failures to DEQ, and per-day penalties can accrue quickly;
• Monitoring the NAW litigation closely, including any amendments to NAW’s complaint, OBI’s motion to intervene, and the July 13, 2026, trial.
• Tracking OBI’s request for a voluntary enforcement pause by DEQ and any responsive agency action;
• Following the progress of HB 4030 and the proposed B2B amendment, which could significantly reduce compliance costs, and
• Assessing exposure in other EPR states where similar legal challenges may emerge.

This article summarizes aspects of the law and does not constitute legal advice. For legal advice for your situation, you should contact an attorney.